As Tomnoted yesterday, it's the white women, not men, who sealed the deal for Hillary Clinton in Pennsylvania. This is, I would venture, in large part because of the so-called "Wal-Mart Women" demographic, which is particularly strong in places like Pennsylvania.
Business Week argues that it's not about the white men this election, but rather lower-middle-class white women, the "Wal-Mart Women" as they call the demographic. These are the nearly 20 percent of American women who shop at Wal-Mart once a week or more, and they are, for the most part, a solid swing voting demographic. Forty-one percent of frequent Wal-Mart shoppers make less than $35,000 a year, (compared to 25 percent of the general population), and 39 percent have a high school education or less.
Conversation topic of the day: has anything changed since Ohio and Texas? Is anything at all more clear because of yesterday's vote in Pennsylvania? Despite winning yesterday, Clinton's chances of winning the nomination have steadily declined, as the margins between her and Obama have held constant, and the pool of available super- and pledged delegates has shrunk considerably. The arguments about arguments about the superdelegates, fundraising, etc. will inevitably continue, but has anything really changed in the past month and a half? I open it to you, dear readers.
Indeed, stay-at-homes moms save the state's highway infrastructure from meltdown, especially since a "nanny" often drives to the working mom's house, putting three cars on the road where otherwise one would do.
Turning our eyes from the primary, via Matt, Kevin Carey brings us a much-deserved takedown of last weekend's "Education Life" supplement in the Times on the recent moves by elite universities to offer more financial aid to low- and middle-income students. It's not about getting them more money, says Carey, it's about getting them into these institutions in the first place: