Keystone Konundrum: Is Arlen Specter the New Joe Lieberman???

Its never to early to be thinking about 2010 and a bruising Senate primary in Pennsylvania has the potential of giving Democrats the magic 60 seats they need to end minority filibusters. Like in 2004, Arlen Specter finds himself challenged from his right flank by Pat Toomey, former House member of the 15th district and now president of the anti-tax, fiscally conservative think tank Club for Growth. While Specter clearly enjoys his position as the fulcrum of the current Senate—one of a small cadre of moderate Republicans who decide what legislation will go forward (Yes on stimulus; No on card check)—he has opened himself up once again to Toomey’s claim that Specter is out of step with Keystone State Republicans. While Specter might have no problem winning the general election next year, he may not get that far given current trends in the state and national GOP. If we look back to 2004 and move forward we can see some clear signs of danger for Specter.

In the 2004 contest, Specter narrowly held off Toomey, winning by just over 17,000 votes out of 1.4 million cast. I’ve built a spreadsheet of the county returns that can be viewed here. The map at left gives a visual of each candidate’s regional strengths. Specter counties are in blue; Toomey counties in red. For the most part, the primary results hewed to the conventional wisdom about Pennsylvania politics. Namely, western and central Pennsylvania tend to be more conservative than the southeastern part of the state, centered around Philadelphia. The Philly area is not only the more liberal part of the state but it is also Specter’s base going back to the beginning of his career as Philadelphia District Attorney. The one exception to this pattern is the area to the north of Philly in the Lehigh Valley. This was the area represented by Toomey during his four terms in the House so it’s not surprising that they supported him in his Senate race

More importantly, we need to look at the county by county vote in terms of overall votes. Obviously the electorate is spread out unevenly across the state so the above map only gets us so far in understanding what happened. In my data set I’ve created a variable called “County Share” which calculates the percentage of the overall vote produced by a particular county. This allows us to see the concentration of voters. One thing we find, for example, is that half of Pennsylvania’s primary vote came from just 10 counties, as shown in the map at left. As we see, nine of these are found in the southeastern and south central part of the state. Another way of stating this is that the largest concentration of voters came from Specter’s backyard. This can be further seen when looking at the “Specter Share” or “Toomey Share” variable. Here, I look at how much of each candidate’s vote came from each county. If both candidates were equally strong in each county, we’d see no difference in these numbers. The fact that we see variance confirms the fact that each candidate had different bases of support. Again, for Specter it’s the Philadelphia area that allowed him to squeak by. Montgomery County is a good example. As I wrote during last year’s primary season, Montgomery County is a large suburban county increasingly characterized by voters who are affluent, highly educated, socially liberal, yet fiscally moderate. For the pro-choice Specter, this was the place to run up the score. In 2004, he received 9.2% of his votes in Montgomery, compared to Toomey who received only 6.6% of his votes there. Specter also won significantly more of his votes in neighboring Delaware (7% vs. 5.7%), Bucks (6% vs. 4.9%), and Chester (5.1% vs. 4.2%) Counties as well as the city of Philadelphia (4.1% vs. 2.9%). Thus, without the cushion provided in this part of the state, Specter would not have survived. Also helping him fend off Toomey were endorsements by President Bush and the state’s other senator, the arch-conservative Rick Santorum.

So, going into next year’s contest might Specter simply try and repeat his 2004 performance? While in theory this might be desirable, changes over the past several years make following the old playbook precarious. If we look at more recent elections it becomes apparent that much of Specter’s base of support has been defecting from the Republican fold. It must be noted that Pennsylvania primaries are open only to registered partisans. Thus, Specter cannot rely on independents or Democratic voters to carry him to victory. Only registered Republicans will determine his fate, despite his recent attempts to get state leaders to change the primary rules. If we compare party registration figures for 2004 and 2008 we see problems for Specter. I’ve isolated those counties that provided Specter’s best performance to illustrate this point. As we can see, over the past four years Philadelphia, Montgomery, Delaware, Bucks, and Chester Counties have shed over 124,000 registered Republicans. Democrats, meanwhile, have gained over 220,000 registrants. Whether these Republican losses have become independents or Democrats is irrelevant for the primary. The important fact is that they are now out of that electorate and out of Specter’s reach unless he can get them to re-register, a daunting process in the midst of a campaign.

To get a sense of how these changes in the Philly area have been changing the tenor of the state’s politics, its useful to compare the presidential vote in 2004 and 2008 (numbers are provided in the spreadsheet). As shown in the chart at left, Barack Obama performed significantly better than John Kerry in all five of these key counties. This is especially notable in the suburbs. Thus, whereas Kerry’s statewide victory was about 144,000 votes, Obama took the state by 620,000 votes. When Pennsylvania was called so quickly on election night it was because of the sizable shift to the left taken by this region.

To get a visual sense of how 2004 and 2008 played out on the presidential stage, the two maps at left illustrate some of the shifts. We see how Obama was able to expand the Democrats' perfromance in the southeastern part of the state while he suffered losses, relative to Kerry, in the more conservative parts south of Allegheny County (Pittsburgh). He also managed to extend the blue northward into the Lehigh Valley, the part of the state formerly represented by Toomey. Finally, he captured a scattering of counties in central PA, most notably Centre County which is the home of Penn St. University.

So, as Specter contemplates how to approach his looming primary fight, he’s confronted with the fact that the part of the state that has been his base of support for the past three plus decades is in the process of a steady move to the left. Those voters who, while moderate, were willing to stay registered as Republicans have been fleeing the GOP. A more conservative Republican electorate is clearly much more advantageous to Toomey. What Specter needs to hope for is that Republican voters see the virtue in having him in his current position—namely that of a dealmaker in the Senate. Toomey, while more in line with these voters' ideology, won’t have the institutional sway that Specter does. Is an influential, yet Republican-lite Specter more useful than a more pure, but marginalized Toomey? Specter will also hope that Toomey has lost the connection to the state that he had while representing it in Congress. The years spent running an outfit like the Club for Growth have necessarily removed him from the day to day workings of the state. He may thus be hampered in his attempt to swoop back in and knock off someone who has been courting and serving constituents for years.

Another option for Specter that has been discussed would be to run as an independent. Theoretically, he could decide to do this either before or after the primary. Given how much the landscape could change over the next year, its difficult to speculate on which option, if either, would be more desirable. A big unknown so far is what the Democratic field will look like. If Specter wants advice about how to go about this, though, he doesn’t need to go far--just a few steps across the Senate floor. Just three years ago, one of his colleagues went this route—Joe Lieberman. In many ways the Democratic Party’s version of Arlen Specter, Lieberman was challenged from his flank. Defeated in the Democratic primary by Ned Lamont, Lieberman regrouped and was elected as an independent. Thus, while we don't know how Senator Specter will ultimately play the hand he's been dealt, at this point there seem to be troubling signs ahead.

A First Look At Indiana--Does Pennsylvania Teach Us Anything??

With a week to go before the double bill in North Carolina and Indiana, I thought I’d take a first look at the Hoosier state and size up Obama’s chances. Most of the recent polls I’ve seen up to this point show him trailing Senator Clinton, with varying margins. Assuming that the results in Pennsylvania will have some bearing on the Indiana vote (press coverage, Clinton momentum, etc.), I thought I’d use last week’s vote as a way to speculate on Indiana.

In the Pennsylvania primary, Obama won 7 counties (Centre, Chester, Dauphin, Delaware, Lancaster, Philadelphia, and Union) on the way to capturing 46% of the statewide total. What we seem to be seeing as these contests progress is a dynamic where Obama’s vote tends to be concentrated in urban areas and inner ring suburbs, plus more outlying counties that have an academic/university/research presence that brings with it young voters and highly educated/high income professionals. Basically what we’re finding is that Obama does better in areas with more African American voters, higher median incomes, higher education levels, and fewer seniors. Using these basic points of comparison, we see that Obama is perhaps at a disadvantage in Indiana, relative to Pennsylvania (data available here):

Indiana Vs. Pennsylvania:

African American %: 8.7 vs. 10.4
Median Income: $45,394 vs. $46,259
% w/College Degree: 21.7 vs. 25.4
% 65 Years & Over: 12.4 vs. 15.1

Only on the age variable, does he fare more favorably than he did in Pennsylvania.

Running the numbers on the counties Obama won in Pennsylvania, I found that these counties provided 32% of the total votes cast statewide. Philadelphia, with 19% of the statewide vote, made up the bulk of this. Looking at Indiana, I’ve tried to identify counties that might be favorable to Obama. I would identify first Marion County (Indianapolis). Marion County is 24% African American which should bode well for Obama. Next is Lake County (Gary, Hammond). Lake County, part of the Chicago metropolitan area, is 25% African American. Third is St. Joseph County (home to Notre Dame). This county is 12% African American plus has a sizable student/university population. Fourth is Monroe County, centered around Bloomington and Indiana University. Monroe is only 3% African American but, as noted, has a large student/university population. Finally, La Porte County is 10% African American. In the 2004 election, all of these counties gave Kerry a victory with the exception of St. Joseph which narrowly went to Bush.

Can we use this county level data, plus the Pennsylvania results, to make some projections? Because we don’t have a recent Indiana primary to use as a baseline for predicting turnout, I decided to look at the 2004 general. Using 2004, we see that the counties I’ve identified as most favorable to Obama provided 29% of the statewide turnout. Comparing this to Pennsylvania, we see Obama perhaps in a worse position. The more rural counties provide a greater share of the vote in Indiana than they did in Pennsylvania. So, making the assumption that Obama wins those counties I identified, he might end up further behind than he did in Pennsylvania (this also assumes Pennsylvania like margins in the remaining counties). This also assumes he wins with comparable percentages. It is perhaps a stretch to think that he’ll match or exceed the 65% of the Philly vote he got in Indianapolis. Whereas Philadelphia is roughly 45% African American, Indianapolis is only one-quarter black.

So, based strictly on this cursory demographic examination, things don’t look so good in Indiana for Obama. How might he fare better? One variable working in his favor, as several commentators have noted, is the “Midwest” factor. Whereas Obama has had a problem in more “Appalachian” regions (see here), Indiana’s geography and ethnic patterns are a bit different. Furthermore, bordering his home state of Illinois, there will be a greater level of familiarity with him, especially in the northwestern corner of the state (Lake, La Porte, St. Joseph Counties). A second variable is the fact that Indiana, unlike Pennsylvania, is an open primary. Obama has consistently outperformed Clinton among independent and Republican leaning voters who have participated in Democratic contests this year. So, to the degree that Obama is able to close the gap with Clinton in Indiana, it would seem that it's these voters that he’ll have to rely on.

Suburban Diversity

Noam Sheiber at the New Republic has some interesting analysis of the voting in the Philadelphia suburbs. He suggests that we should perhaps view suburbs--and their corresponding partisanship--along a continuum. Noting that Obama did better in the more Republican leaning suburban counties, this brings us back to the "electability" debate and the role of independents. Today, Obama campaign manager David Plouffe argued that Obama's appeal to these swing voters makes him the better candidate for the fall. Data from rural central Pennsylvania points to gains for Obama, relative to Ohio, in heavily Republican areas as well. Though not suburban, these voters seem willing to give Obama close consideration.

Philadelphia

We're now starting to get some ward level results for Philadelphia. Since the exit polling started coming out, the correlation between race and support for Obama/Clinton has intensified. I'm not the first one to present the contrast shown above, but I thought I'd put my two cents in. If you look at the city of Philadelphia, broken down by race, you see a pretty solid linkage between race and vote choice. This is a dynamic similar to what we saw in Ohio seven weeks ago and its a trend that's gotten Obama supporters extremely nervous. Further complicating this is the fact that the upscale suburbs that I thought would do well for Obama were much more evenly split.

So how do we explain this?? There seem to be a couple of explanations--perhaps in combination--that can give us some answers. The first explanation would be that, yes, white working class voters won't vote for a black candidate. The "Pennsyltucky" or Appalachian phenomenon is used to bolster this argument. As I've been mulling this data and these maps, my mind keeps going back to the state I'm most familiar with and would seem to act as a counterfactual--Wisconsin. While not Appalachian, Wisconsin is certainly filled with white ethnics and working class voters. Yet it went overwhelmingly to Obama. Not only did he win where one thought he would--Milwaukee and Madison--but he won by large margins statewide.

Now either Wisconsin is an outlier or we need to look for other explanations. Two come immediately to mind. The first is political. In both Pennsylvania and Ohio Senator Clinton had powerful and popular governors--and their respective machines and GOTV operations--on her side. John and I have already speculated that this might explain Clinton's success in the Philly suburbs. In Wisconsin, Governor Jim Doyle is an Obama supporter. The second explanation brings race back in but speaks more to the calendar of the Democratic race. Wisconsin voted before the Reverend Wright controversy erupted. Thus, Badger state voters were looking at an Obama who hadn't had much of his shine rubbed off. Wisconsin voted after Obama had run off an impressive streak of consecutive wins in Virginia, Maryland, Washington, and elsewhere. In other words, momentum was on his side and states were voting in a compacted schedule, thus minimizing the chance that any attack on Obama could metastasize. By the time Ohio, and especially Pennsylvania came around, he had not only been subject to much greater scrutiny but would have to spend weeks on these issues as they dogged his campaign. Thus, white voters may be perfectly willing to vote for a black candidate as long as they haven't been thinking about race beforehand. When that issue becomes activated, Obama fares worse.

Levittown Wipeout

We're starting to get some detailed numbers in, although Philadelphia city breakdowns remain elusive. A few posts ago I pointed to Bucks County as a possible area of strength for Obama. Looking at the results we see how poorly he did there, despite some demographics I thought could work in his favor. The final Bucks County totals show a 63-37% Clinton win.

One part of the county we might focus on to view as a microcosm of Obama's suburban underperformance is Levittown. Built after its New York counterpart, the planned suburban community offered an oasis to post-war city dwellers seeking greener pastures. These originals settlers were heavily Catholic and Jewish. The racial breakdown of Levittown is currently 94% white with the remainder evenly divided between African Americans and Latinos. While suburban, it is more middle than high income.

Levittown is not incorporated as its own township but is instead made up of Bristol Township, Falls Township, Middletown Township, and Tullytown. Combining the vote totals for these four townships, I was able to get the vote totals for Clinton and Obama. What we see is that not only did Clinton get a higher percentage than her statewide showing, but Levittown gave her a higher percentage than her overall total in Bucks County. The final margin was 67-33%.

So, as we start to look for reasons why Obama was unable to hold Clinton to single digits, its places like Levittown that may give us some answers. While we thought the Philly suburban ring might be the key to an Obama surprise, it seems now that despite what we saw in some earlier states, we were perhaps being too optimistic.

***Update: A reader pointed me to this long article on Levittown from a recent New York Times Magazine.

Penn Primary Nite LIVE Blogging

It looks like Obama's strategy to rack up big margins in the affluent Philly suburban counties has been stymied.

10:09 PM:
With 19% reporting. Hillary Clinton is winning Northampton County, home to Lehigh University but also Bethlehem Steel, whose union workers have come out for her. JVLaB

10:24 PM:
As John and I sit here trying to get good numbers, I'm focusing on Philadelphia and the surrounding suburbs. In a few of my past posts, I've pointed to Montgomery and Bucks counties as potential boons to Obama's chances--at least in the sense that they could allow him to blunt Clinton's numbers elsewhere across the state. It seems, at least now, as if Obama has underperformed here, especially in Montgomery.

I'm also interested in getting, probably tomorrow, some detailed numbers from the city of Philadelphia. When I do, I'm going to look back at some previous presidential races in Philly and see if we can see some parallels, neighborhood by neighborhood. If you've read my posts going back to the beginning of electiondissection.com, 1968 will be the first place I look. CBMurray

10:34 PM:
Looks like Northampton County's precincts might be starkly split, between university-heavy Obama wins and union-heavy Bethlehem and Allentown. JVLaB

10:40 PM:
McCain is only mustering about 72% against a dormant Huckabee campaign and a meandering Ron Paul. Interesting note: McCain is bringing in that number statewide. No "Pennsyltucky" effect boosting Huckabee's numbers there. JVLaB

10:46 PM:
This story in today's Washington Post gives a nice portrait of a changing Reading, Pennsylvania. Now half Latino, the city finds itself in the midst of transition from what it once was--blue collar, white ethnic--into a place not quite yet defined. As of now, Berks County has gone heavily to Clinton, 58%-42%. CBMurray

10:52 PM:
Clinton clobbering Obama in what many expected to be Obama-favorable Bucks County by a 2 to 1 margin, and in Montgomery County, Clinton is winning by her statwide margin, 54-46%. JVLaB

11:06 PM:
Exit Polls. Obama does better among men. However, the cleavages of age and race remain stark. Also of interest is education. Despite Obama's earlier advantages among the most highly educated, he split with Clinton among those with college and post-graduate degrees. Income also seems to be a bit more murky with Obama doing best among the highest bracket but Clinton doing very well in the 100-150K range. CBMurray

11:14 PM:
Talk about your “bitter” voters! In Centralia, the fabled ghost town where a mere 21 residents still live above a coal mine fire that’s been smoldering for 40 years, Clinton beats Obama by 4 to 1 – votes that is. JVLaB

11:49 PM:
Obama wins Dauphin County, whose seat is heavily Afro-Am Harrisburg, the “Keystone Kapital.” Obama runs away there, but stays competitive in the largely white surrounding townships, especially in more prosperous localities like Swatara, Susquehanna, Lower Paxton and Derry. JVLaB

Pennsylvania Paradox

Building upon Prof. CBMurray’s post, Philly’s bellwether suburban Montgomery County sits at the heart of this year’s Pennsylvania Paradox, where the Democratic presidential primary finds Keystone political players and their traditional constituencies all mixed up. Lining up behind Hillary Clinton is Gov. Ed Rendell, the Upper West Side-born socially liberal Jewish former Philly mayor with a history of battling public employee unions. Barack Obama’s most prominent surrogate is Sen. Robert Casey, Jr., the pro-gun, pro-life Catholic Democrat; a union stalwart and a scion of Scranton.

Rendell lost the 1986 Democratic gubernatorial primary to Casey’s father, the late Robert Casey, Sr., but defeated Casey, Jr. for the same nod in 2002. (ElectionDissection.com would be remiss if we failed to note that a Clinton-Casey clan rivalry dates back to 1992 when nominee Bill Clinton refused a Democratic convention speaking slot to Casey, Sr. to air his anti-abortion views, despite a long history of both families sharing the services of consultants Paul Begala and James Carville.) Rendell won that contest by racking up huge majorities in the affluent, socially liberal suburban counties that ring his Philly base. Rendell beat Casey, Jr. by 13 points, but won only 11 of the Keystone State’s 67 counties.

Casey, Jr. even mustered over 20% in the city of Philadelphia, where pro-union, pro-life urban ethnic Catholic Democrats are not yet extinct. But in Montgomery County, home of the tony “Main Line” towns that were once the heart of WASPy liberal Republicans, Rendell trounced Casey, Jr. 88%-12%, and racked up margins nearly as lopsided in surrounding Bucks, Delaware and Chester counties.

Despite Rendell’s indefatigable barnstorming for HRC this year, given Obama’s strength among college educated, affluent social liberals this primary season, the post-primary map is likely to resemble that 2002 Rendell-Casey, Jr. map, but with Casey-endorsed Obama winning Rendell territory and HRC romping away in Casey Country: Pittsburgh, Coal Country and Appalachian “Pennsyltucky,” her traditional down-scale, union-heavy base this cycle.

Montgomery County leads these trends. In fact, Montgomery was the only county that Casey père couldn’t carry in his landslide 1990 reelection. The Main Line forsook the pro-life Democrat of working class roots for Barbara Hafer, the liberal Republican state auditor and a vociferous advocate of abortion rights. (Despite hailing from suburban Pittsburgh, Hafer’s career reflects Montgomery’s political evolution: she switched parties in 2003 and her daughter is vying for the Dem nod to challenge freshman Republican U.S. Rep. Tim Murphy (PA18).

And after voting for him in ’94 and 2000 (against pro-life Pittsburgh-area fmr. U.S. Rep. Ron Klink), Montgomery County lost patience with trade-bashing, gay-baiting Sen. Rick Santorum, favoring none other than Bob Casey, Jr. against him, 62-38%, surpassing Casey’s statewide margin.

This evolving partisanship is marked by stunning shifts in party registration totals, which might give Obama a fighting chance to pull off an upset. ElectionDissection.com advisor Bill Boyle pointed us to this graphic, illustrating the steep drop-off in those suburban Philly counties in Republican and independent registrations coupled by even sharper gains for Democrats. A reporter friend who spent time on the ground in Pennsylvania’s hotly contested 2004 Republican Senate primary recounted how, to narrowly fend off a challenge for renomination from then-U.S. Rep. Pat Toomey, Sen. Arlen Specter scrambled to re-register Philly ‘burb voters who had switched parties to vote for Rendell in ’02, suggesting that the graphic might be even more dramatic had Specter not needed to undertake that effort.

Hillary’s saving grace may be Montgomery’s heavily Jewish precincts, which have turned out historically for both Republicans (Specter, fmr. U.S. Rep. Jon Fox) and Democrats (U.S. Rep. Allyson Schwartz, fmr. U.S. Rep. Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky) with ties to the Jewish community. The test will be whether Jewish voters who favored Hillary Clinton in Florida (note her margins in CDs 19, 20 & 22), New York (see Riverdale’s Assembly District 81) and Maryland (see precincts in Pikesville, B’more Co.) will do so in enough numbers here to tamp down Obama’s expected margin of victory, neutralizing Obama’s Rendell 2002-inspired strategy.

Keystone State Tour--Stop 4

Just north of Montgomery County is our next destination, Bucks County. Politically, Bucks and Montgomery have had a very similar recent history and trajectory. While traditionally Republican in orientation, the county has become not only competitive but has begun siding with Democratic candidates at the national and statewide level in recent cycles. Kerry won Bucks County in 2004 with just over 51% of the vote. Gore got just less, 50.5%, in 2000. Bucks was part of Governor Ed Rendell’s southeastern Pennsylvania sweep, garnering 70% here.

At the congressional level, Bucks county is essentially all of the 8th district. For the past few House elections, the 8th has been decided on a razor’s edge and it has alternated between Democratic and Republican control. The last iteration was a flip to the Democratic side in 2006 with Patrick Murphy’s defeat of Michael Fitzpatrick with just over 50%. Fitzpatrick had served just one term after taking over for Republican Rep. James Greenwood who had held the seat with relatively substantial margins since 1992. Prior to Greenwood, the district was held by Democrat Peter Kostmayer.

Demographically, Bucks County is a bit different from its southern neighbor, Montgomery. Most observers have bisected the county into “upper Bucks” and “lower Bucks.” Drawing on an old “Almanac of American Politics,” the authors write:

“Bucks County is one of those place names that have entered our literary imagination. The northwestern or upper part of the county is rolling farmland, easily reached by train from New York and Philadelphia. It has long been the residence of well-known writers and artists, who live in stone Quaker farmhouses near such villages as New Hope and Lumberville. These neighbors are sometimes Pennsylvania Dutch farmers or, more often, comfortably-off people with jobs somewhere closer-in in the Philadelphia area. But this is not the whole story of Bucks County; Upper Bucks has only about half the district’s population. Lower Bucks County is an entirely different place—predominantly industrial and blue collar.”

The county was the home to the second Levittown built in the U.S. and this part of the county acted as a repository for blue collar migrants leaving Philadelphia proper in the 50’s and 60’s. It is this rural/blue collar divide that made the district so competitive for so long. While much of the industrial base, including U.S. Steel, has seen drastic cutbacks in recent years, Democratic fortunes have been helped by the leftward drift of much of the traditional Republican voting base. Unlike Montgomery county, there is not a large university presence in the county.

Both Obama and Clinton have made numerous visits to the county. If endorsements matter, Obama is positioned well. He has the support of Congressman Murphy and recently received the nod by the Bucks County Courier Times. Like with Montgomery, though, this is Governor Rendell’s backyard and he has been working tirelessly for Clinton. Working against Obama in the county is its small African American population, only 4%. On the plus side for Obama is the economic profile. We’ve seen a correlation between county wealth and support for Obama (see earlier post). Bucks County is the state’s third wealthiest in terms of per capita and median household income and has a low unemployment rate compared to the state average. For Obama to be close or win, he's going to have to run up large margins in these suburbs to offset losses in the rural parts of the state.

Keystone State Tour--Stop 3

Our next stop on the Pennsylvania tour is Montgomery county. For those familiar with the Philadelphia area, this is the “main line” communities that extend westward from the city. Once the retreat of old money industrialists and financiers, Montgomery county has become much more politically competitive. A large county with over 750,000 residents, there are a lot of votes to be had. Thus, a concentrated effort can reap big rewards. While it used to be solid Republican country, and still elects a large number of Republicans, Montgomery county gave John Kerry 56% in 2004. To give you a sense of this change both Gore and Clinton won the county (54%, 49%, 43%) following several cycles of Republican dominance (Bush ’88-60%; Reagan ’84—64%; Reagan ’80—58%; Ford ’76—57%).

Due to some pretty dramatic gerrymandering, the county is shared by a number of congressional districts, but the two major officeholders are congressmen Joe Sestak (D) and Jim Gerlach (R). An indication of the area’s changing politics, Sestak unseated longtime Republican incumbent Curt Weldon in 2006. Although certainly helped by Weldon’s ethical indiscretions, Sestak victory highlights how competitive the area has become. This tightness is further evidenced by Gerlach’s close encounters over the past few election cycles. In his past three races, Gerlach has received 51%, 51%, and 50.7% respectively, and has managed to survive as a result of his long service to the district (12 years in the state legislature) and moderate voting record.

Looking to next week’s primary, one would think that if Obama is going to keep the race close he’s going to need to do very well here. The county fits very much into the profile of areas he’s been doing well in. It’s more upscale and has a large university population with schools like Bryn Mawr, Haverford, and Vilanova all in the area.

However, Clinton backer and consummate Pennsylvania pol Governor Ed Rendell is strong in the area. He received 72% in the county in 2006 and you can bet he’s not going to let Obama have an easy win in his back yard. Congressman Sestak has also endorsed Clinton. Watch this county closely next week.

Keystone State Tour--Stop 2

For our second stop in Pennsylvania, we'll focus on the congressional district in which this story takes place. Pennsylvania’s 17th is a mixed rural/industrial district which is centered in the state capital, Harrisburg. Currently represented by Democrat Tim Holden, the 17th’s voting behavior, in recent elections, has been mixed. While having Holden maintain the seat for the Democrats, the district gave Bush 58% in 2004. Prior to redistricting after the 2000 census, the current district was divided between the old 6th and 17th. The area gave Bush 55% against Al Gore. Republican gubernatorial candidate Lynn Swann also did well in the district in 2006.

Demographically, the district is fairly typical of the state. It is slightly less African American (mostly concentrated in Harrisburg)—7% versus 10% statewide. The median income is right at the state average, as is the proportion of senior citizens in the district, while its population with a college degree lags the state average by about five points (17% vs. 22%). CQ’s "Politics in America" describes the district thusly:

“Anchored in the eastern part of south-central Pennsylvania, the 17th is home to Harrisburg, the sate capital, which sits 100 miles west of Philadelphia and 200 miles east of Pittsburgh. The 17th has two distinct zones: a stretch of agricultural lands along the Susquehanna River in the west, and industrial areas in Schuylkill and Berks counties in the east. Here, in GOP-minded central Pennsylvania, state government and manufacturing remain key sources of employment…The proliferation of service jobs has helped mitigate the impact of other losses…The 17th has a distinct Republican lean, but moderate Democrats can play here due to the district’s mix of agrarian and industrial communities. The GOP is strong in Lebanon County and in the areas of Dauphin outside of Harrisburg. Democrats are competitive in Schuylkill County, long a coal mining powerhouse, with comfortable margins in Shenandoah, Pottsville, and Mahanoy.”

Congressman Holden, who has yet to announce his endorsement, is a member of the Blue Dog Coalition, and is one of the most likely Democrats in the House to support President Bush on any given vote. In the 109th Congress, he supported the president’s position 54% of the time. He is pro-life, against same-sex marriage, and has voted against numerous gun control measures. He has also taken strong stands against illegal immigration.

Given this profile we would expect that this would be another area of strong support for Senator Clinton. In many ways the district mirrors the parts of Ohio that went overwhelmingly for her. Holden is a close friend of Congressman Murtha so it wouldn’t surprise me to see an endorsement of Clinton in the near future.

Keystone State Tour--Stop 1

With a few weeks until the Pennsylvania primary, I thought we’d take some time to take a tour of the state and sample a bit of its political history and demography, especially in areas that I think will prove crucial to each candidate’s success.

After the Ohio primary, I highlighted the role the southeastern part of the state played in Hillary Clinton’s win. More rural, downscale, and white than the rest of the state, the area went overwhelmingly for Clinton. Much of the prognostication about Pennsylvania is centering on Obama’s ability to regain his momentum among downscale white voters. An area I want to focus on over the next little while is the southwestern part of the state, an area that mirrors Ohio in many ways.

A steep test for Obama could be southwestern Pennsylvania’s 12th congressional district. The district, although redrawn (heavily gerrymandered) quite a bit after the last census, has been represented by Congressman Jack Murtha since 1974. The district snakes throughout SW Pennsylvania taking in some of the exurban Pittsburgh suburbs and larger cities like Washington and Johnstown. One of the “old bulls” of the House and currently the chair of the House Appropriations Committee Subcommittee on Defense, Murtha’s politics are a good fit for the district. CQ’s Politics in America describes the district thusly:

“The strangely contorted 12th hopscotches in southwestern Pennsylvania across nine counties, eight of which are shared with other districts. Once a booming center of coal, steel, and iron production, this area is diversifying to escape economic distress and industrial loss…The 12th has been a Democratic stronghold since the New Deal. Like other Pennsylvania towns with an industrial past and aging residents, Johnstown wants federal help, but many voters are more socially conservative than the national Democratic Party.”

In the 2004 presidential race, the district narrowly went for John Kerry, giving him 51%. Gore won by larger margins in the parts of the counties currently in the district. Demographically, it is overwhelmingly white (95%) with only 3% African American. The median income $30,612 is quite a bit below the state average of $42,000. It has the state’s lowest percentage of college graduates (14% vs. state average of 22%) and the highest percentage of elderly residents (19% over age 64 vs. state average of 16%).

To this point, Congressman Murtha has yet to endorse either candidate. The above demographic profile would seem to bode well for Clinton. One aspect of the district that may help Obama somewhat is the fact that in recent years the district has seen an influx of high tech biomedical and defense research (thanks in large part to Murtha’s largess in steering federal funds home). These workers, more likely to be higher income and education, fit Obama’s voter profile. Whether their votes will outweigh the pro-Clinton bias of the district remains to be seen. This district should prove to be among the most difficult for Obama, given its recent trends, while still being Democratic territory.

**Update: On Wednesday, it was announced that Congressman Murtha was endorsing Senator Clinton.