Keep in mind that he wasn't looking for affordability overall, but affordability *by him*.
His criteria for "affordable" was "people living there on average make about the same amount of money that I do, so I can probably live there on my income."
I'm not so sure about that. I lived in Midtown for 3 years without a car. Grocery store was 4 blocks away, plenty of restaurants within walking distance including a great pub right across the street from me. The Atlanta Symphony, High Museum of Art, Shakespeare Tavern, and Piedmont Park were all within easy walking distance, and if I was willing to walk a bit further Centennial Park and Downtown Atlanta were only about half an hour walk. If I wanted to go further afield, there were two Marta stations within 3 blocks of me.
Compared to other places I've lived (Southern California, New Jersey, Far suburbs of Chicago), Midtown Atlanta was by far the most walkable and livable without a car.
Reminds me of one of Lloyd Trefethen's maxims about numerical mathematics (http://people.maths.ox.ac.uk/trefethen/maxims.html ):
"If the answer is highly sensitive to perturbations, you have probably asked the wrong question."
Maybe a more accurate headline is "US Government Shutdown on temporary hiatus"? It's only a few months funding, and there's no guarantee we won't go through the entire thing again come January 15th...
But any competent marketing department would get the hint when 589,141 out of 668,872 people disliked a proposed change.
You need to poll far less than 30% to get a statistically significant result representing the wishes of those 1,000,000,000 idiots.
"Statistically Significant" doesn't really make sense here...that sort of computation assumes that the people being surveyed are a representative sample of all users.
In this case we've got a pretty strong selection bias going on where people who are most upset about the new policy are the most likely to vote.
Doubt isn't the opposite of faith; it is an element of faith. - Paul Tillich, German theologian and historian