Given those numbers (and they've been repeated in several states), I'm completely at a loss for how the Obama camp continues to wave the "new voters" flag and hasn't been called on it by the media or the party. Obama might be getting the sexier new voters -- more blacks, more college students -- but Clinton is consistently bringing rural, moderate voters to the party in droves. Those voters are the type that haven't been in the Democratic party this decade, and those are the voters that cost the Dems the last two elections. It's an awfully arrogant strategy by the Democrats, especially against a more moderate Republican like McCain, to play by the Kerry/Gore playbook (big cities, college towns) and dismiss those voters in rural America as automatic GOP voters in the general election. But that seems to be the plan. I hope it works, but I'm starting to worry.
Where do you get the idea from those numbers that Hillary is bringing out new voters? There have always been rural voters that vote Dem - there are just more that vote Republican. Turnout isn't increasing in the primaries as we go on - but the % who won't vote for the other candidate in the general election is increasing. That just suggests that each successive election is more polarized. It's not that these are new voters that Hillary is suddenly bringing in now that she wasn't bringing in two months ago. It's that she's convinced her supporters that Obama is bad (instead of simply that she's better than Obama). That fits along with the shift we've seen in her strategy since late Feb / early March with the "he's not passed the commander in chief test" type attacks. All the polls have shown that new/first time voters strongly prefer Obama - that's where the narrative that Obama is bringing in new voters come from.
Look at the numbers in a typical rural county in the Dem primary, relative to 2004. The votes are up significantly, and it's because you have a lot of traditional Republicans or Bush voters voting for Clinton in those counties. Now, maybe those folks would go back to the GOP and vote McCain in the general election. I don't think it's that simple, but I acknowledge I can't prove it. However, if the Democratic party could even make a little headway into that demographic, it could go a long way toward curing the social stigma of voting for a Democrat in rural America, and that's something this party could desperately use. As I said, I know these voters could all turn around and vote McCain -- but it seems as if the Democratic power structure isn't even considering the possibility that Clinton is expanding the map by bringing traditional rural GOP voters into the fold. I think that could be a mistake. I'll also note that I think we're defining new voters differently. You're looking at it literally, from the perspective of have they ever voted before, period. I'm looking at it as new to the party, because whether they're new in general or simply new to the party, the result is the same in November. However, I do think the dynamics have changed from two months ago. A couple months ago, we discussed how the dynamics of rural/urban voting patterns seemed to change from state to state. I don't think that's the case anymore. Looking back, I think you'll see that the majority of rural locations where Obama had success were largely due to the Clinton campaign's ridiculous lack of organization and lack of any kind of campaign effort. In the last two months, when the exposure has gone up and both campaigns have fought hard in numerous states, I think the demographics have become increasingly defined, with the big metros and college towns going to Obama and all rural areas going to Clinton. I think something Clinton is doing is resonating in non-traditional Dem areas, and I'm afraid the power structure is dismissing it without fully thinking it through.
My sister lived in North Carolina back when Sen. Jesse Helms ran against Harvey Gant (who is black). It was a very tight/bitter contest and a few days before the vote, Helms' people either mailed a flier or dropped it off at all the houses in my sister's neighborhood. It said Gant was "going to give all the ni**ers guns". This mailer from Hillary's camp reminds me of that.
So a flier that is clearly aimed at the right to bear arms crowd reminds you of one that is blatantly racist and is aimed at the gun control prevents crime crowd?
Gotcha - this is certainly true. I've been looking at it as bringing people into the system that have not been involved before - those are people who the Dems will have a shot at turning into lifelong Dems. What you say about crossover voters is definitely true, though - Obama started with a strong lead in terms of both independents and Republicans (and would lose Dems), but more recently, they tend to split independents and Republicans either split or lean Hillary a bit.
