This Washington Post article discusses Democratic gains in the "exurbs," or far-flung suburbs. This article made me think about two things: 1) the notion of a rural-urban divide; 2) Luntz's suggestion that politicians use aspirational language.

The notion of Rural Republicans and Urban Democrats has been pounded into our heads, repeatedly. I've always wondered where suburbanites fit into the picture. When I worked as a reporter a congressional candidate provided an easy answer to this question. This was during the 2000 election. He won that election, and all subsequent elections. He suggested that they belonged on the rural side of the divide. His commercials, including those currently running, highlight his rural upbringing.

I personally view the suburbs as a liminal space. Perhaps during the best economic times, their vote is guided by positions on social issues. These positions might be more consistent with a rural, rather than urban, electorate. But the economy seems to disrupt this. When times are bad, they become more cognizant that they live in a suburban, rather than subrural area.

Luntz believes that effective politicians speak to their audience's aspirations. I suspect this is especially true for those people who move to the periphery of metropolitan areas. These people are seeking good schools, safe neighborhoods, three-car garages, etc. Oftentimes, they move into recently developed areas with untested educational systems and public services. The potential of the new frontier always seems better than what already exists.

Right now, my unscientific impression is that Obama is using more aspirational language. However, it seems like a different type of aspirational language than we've heard in recent years. Rather than saying "every can get rich," Obama seems to say "things will be all right."