Of course the digital divide is affected by income, but you're missing key pieces of the story. 1) The digital divide between classes is negligible compared to

Of course the digital divide is affected by income, but you're missing key pieces of the story. 1) The digital divide between classes is negligible compared to the divide between rural and urban dwellers, particularly wrt broadband access[1]. Also, n.b. class based Internet analytics is prone to error, since the poorest segment of America lives in remote rural areas where broadband access is unavailable to begin with. 2) As I pointed out above, the OP was in reference to 2007, when the Democratic candidacy was still up in the air. Further, Barack Obama drew support (particularly individual campaign donations) from young Internet-savvy people, whereas the real blue-chip donations went to Hillary Clinton (and to a lesser extent, Chris Dodd). Your data is from the exit polls in 2008, after the Democrats had (more or less) formed into a united front. This makes your larger point untrue[2]. The data from the Obama campaign indicates that these particular videos were less effective than the images, and to assume this is due to bandwidth complaints is specious at best. [1]http://pewinternet.org/Media-Mentions/2006/Rural-areas-lagging-in-broadband-Internet.aspx http://pewinternet.org/Media-Mentions/2006/Rural-areas-laggi... [2] Well, it is true that you can't generalize from this one example, and that video may still be a good choice for web startups, but not for the reasons you suggest.