Which is to say, the one constituency Clinton actively courted. So presumably, the point here is that she would have lost even bigger if she had not courted anyone. Duh. Maybe the larger point is that this was still a losing strategy in a state which really should have been safely in the D column.
But what do these affluent communities have to do with the supposed "Good Girls Revolt" this article is talking about? Are these affluent communities mostly female? Are "good girls" concentrated in these affluent communities? Are they scarce in less affluent communities? What is the connection?
"Some of that surge was probably due to the chance for electing America's first female president. But dig deeper -- especially among this new breed of female activists -- and what you tend to find is extreme revulsion over even the idea of Donald Trump within 5 miles of the White House."
Surge? Women in PA voted for Obama over Romney by 56% to 43%--a 13 point spread. Women in PA voted for Clinton over Trump by 55% to 42%--a 13 point spread. Clinton and Trump both did about one percentage point worse among PA women than Obama and Romney respectively. How is that a surge?