SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home The Key to a Romney Win in Pennsylvania: Mondale Democrats

ELECTIONATE JULY 18, 2012

The Key to a Romney Win in Pennsylvania: Mondale Democrats

Every four years, political reporters flood western Pennsylvania searching for the latest clue to decipher the shifting allegiances of coveted “Reagan Democrats,” the socially conservative voters who abandoned the New Deal coalition over cultural issues in the '70's and '80's. When a candidate visits Pennsylvania, the accompanying news reports remind us that “Reagan Democrats” are the consummate swing voters who maintain a stranglehold over the outcome of critical races in large industrial Midwestern states like Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. But although Pennsylvania bears some resemblance to Ohio and Michigan, the winning Democratic formula there is completely different: The Reagan Democrats don’t hold the keys to a Romney win in the Keystone state—the Mondale Democrats do.

Why the confusion? At first glance, Pennsylvania looks just like a Midwestern state. Western Pennsylvania has a reputation as an industrial hub, and Pennsylvania's demographic indicators—including median income, educational attainment, and race—are reminiscent of states like Ohio and Michigan. But over the last three decades, Pennsylvania's flagging manufacturing industry was superseded by a diversifying post-industrial economy. Even Pittsburgh, the city with a football team called the "Steelers," is now dominated by burgeoning health care, education, finance, and high-tech sectors.

As a result, Pennsylvania's political character increasingly resembles the states of the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic, where similar economic and social changes have left Democrats competitive or leading in moderate, affluent, and educated suburbs, but trailing heavily in the working class hinterlands left behind by globalization. In the Midwest, by contrast, most suburbs lean decidedly Republican, leaving Democrats dependent on securing a near majority of the white non-college vote.  In 2008, Obama's victories in the industrial Midwest were the product of a strong showing among whites without a college degree. In fact, between 40 and 50 percent of Obama voters in Ohio and Michigan were whites without a college degree, compared to just 27 percent of Obama's coalition in Pennsylvania—a tally more reminiscent of Virginia or Colorado than Ohio and Michigan.

Even a quick glance at the map confirms the similarities between Pennsylvania and the Mid-Atlantic states. Obama carried Philadelphia and its well-educated suburbs, just as Obama carried Washington and the northern Virginia suburbs. Obama improved in the Germanic countryside of eastern Pennsylvania and Virginia, but struggled in Appalachia and the decaying industrial and coal towns further west where Democrats once excelled. In all three states—Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia—the 2008 results are a complete reversal from two decades ago.

So why are we still talking about Pennsylvania as though it's the same state it was two decades ago, with the same Reagan Democrats ready to be fought over? As you can see, Democrats haven’t won Pennsylvania by reclaiming the Reagan Democrats. Instead, Gore won by flipping Reagan Republicans in the Philadelphia suburbs, even while bleeding old supporters in western Pennsylvania. In 2008, Obama went even further, making additional gains in eastern Pennsylvania suburbs while outright losing eight of the nine counties that Mondale won in 1984.

In Ohio and Michigan, Romney can win by peeling off Reagan Democrats and convincing white working class voters to return to the Republican fold. Pennsylvania is a completely different game. If the Romney campaign wants to win there, the Reagan Democrats won’t do them too much good; after all, Republicans have been winning the Reagan Democrats for thirty years. Instead, Romney needs to flip Mondale Democrats—the conservative but once Democratic-leaning voters of western Pennsylvania that even Reagan didn't win in 1984—as well as educated and affluent suburban voters in eastern Pennsylvania.

To be sure,  Romney can't win with Mondale Democrats alone. Even if Obama lost a staggering 30 percent of his 2008 white working class supporters, he would still win 50 percent of the vote in Pennsylvania. In that scenario, he would win just 29 percent of the white non-college vote—worse than his performance among white working class voters in Tennessee. Instead, Romney will need gains among both Mondale Democrats and the well-educated and affluent voters outside of Philadelphia. But that still means that Reagan democrats are one group he should feel free to ignore. 

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 3 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

3 comments

Nice analysis. The last sentence of the next-to-last paragraph captures it all, and shows why PA is going to be out of reach for Republicans at the national level this year and probably for a good long time -- because former moderate Republicans in the Philly suburbs have abandoned a party run by know-nothing Southerners (and to whom a fellow moderate Republican like Romney must now pledge full allegiance) and because those white, working class Democrats who have been voting Democrat the past 30 years are unlikely to switch their votes to Mitt Romney when they were faithful to Mondale, Dukakis, Kerry and Gore. One little quibble is that Pittsburgh's suburbs are politically more like those of Midwestern cities such as Detroit, Cleveland and Milwaukee than those of Eastern metropolises like Philly, Baltimore, DC and New York. The more affluent ones (with a few exceptions) are still bastions of Republicans and laissez-faire politics. The less affluent, middle class or working class ones tend to vote Democratic at the local level but have voted Republican for President and Governor (when Republicans have nominated competent candidates). The poorer suburbs are largely Democratic, not least because many of them have a significant number of African-Americans. So far, metro Pittsburgh has not seen the trend from the Philly suburbs where moderate Republican suburbanites have rejected national Republicans because of their stances on social issues, taxes or foreign policy.

- wildboy

July 19, 2012 at 9:25am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Nate Cohn knows Pennsylvania like a person who orders a cheesesteak with brie. Romney wins Pennsylvania if the new voter suppression law, which at this moment disenfranchises several hundred thousand voters, stands. The Republican leader of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives was refreshingly candid when he said, right after the law was passed, the this law guaranteed Romney wins PA. The Republicans know this, and that is why they passed this poll tax. I hope the lawyers who are changing this law in the state and federal costs know what they are doing, for this immoral law cannot stand.

- SFergessen

July 19, 2012 at 10:10am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Romney wins Pennsylvania if the new voter suppression law, which at this moment disenfranchises several hundred thousand voters, stands." I agree that the voter ID law in Pennsylvania is crap and it would be nice if it was overturned in court (though I would not bank on that, since it is not nearly as inviduous as the Texas law under challenge and recent Supreme Court precedent bacs voter ID laws if they are not inviduously discriminatory). That said, the comment about disenfranchisin hundreds of thousands of people can't be taken at face value. For a better analysis of the effect of voter ID laws, see Nate Silver's analysis below. Mike Turzai, who was quoted about how the voter ID law would deliver Pennsylvania to Romney, might have been candid but he was also frankly exaggerating things in front of a partisan audience that had demanded the law be passed in the first instance. I would frankly be surprised if this law leads to that much of a drop-off in voting among inner-city black voters, especially where many of them would still have sufficient ID's to register their votes or could be given provisional ballots if they did not have ID in the first place. And bear in mind that the voters who really give Democrats victories in Pennsyvania -- middle-and working-class blacks in Philly and its inner suburbs, Republican-proof white working class and retired voters in Pittsburgh, Scranton/Wilkes-Barre, Allentown and Erie, educated suburban voters in the Philly burbs and the educated liberals of Philly and (to a lesser extent) Pittsburgh -- all have adequate voter ID's. If anything, the voter ID law might dissuade some Republican-leaners in rural areas of Pennsylvania from voting, whch is not the intent but might have enough effect to offset dissuaded inner-city voters in Philly or Pittsburgh. http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/measuring-the-effects-of-voter-identification-laws/

- wildboy

July 19, 2012 at 11:30am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close