Is Pennsylvania drifting towards solid GOP?

[The_Doctor]

Of interest, 18-24 voted 50-45% for Clinton in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania is 81% white (so I'd assume 78-79% white in 2020). Trump's Administration probably dictates how this age cohorts would view the GOP and vote accordingly in 2020 and 2024. If he stabilizes and demonstrates he's a viable GOP model, younger Pennsylvanian whites might go GOP more heavily. If not, I can see the rising Generation Z types revolting and putting PA in the blue column again. To date, downballot, I still haven't seen the GOP strength that's been demonstrated elsewhere in the Midwest on the row office level. 

[Virginiá]

Of interest, 18-24 voted 50-45% for Clinton in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania is 81% white (so I'd assume 78-79% white in 2020). Trump's Administration probably dictates how this age cohorts would view the GOP and vote accordingly in 2020 and 2024. If he stabilizes and demonstrates he's a viable GOP model, younger Pennsylvanian whites might go GOP more heavily. If not, I can see the rising Generation Z types revolting and putting PA in the blue column again. To date, downballot, I still haven't seen the GOP strength that's been demonstrated elsewhere in the Midwest on the row office level.  

The 18-24 group was quite a spectacular change in PA. Of all the age groups, this was really the only one which underwent a fundamentally large shift to the Republican. Every other group was only small improvements, if that. It should be noted that most of the 18-24 year olds in 2016 would not be previous Obama voters.

Might be useful to keep an eye on Trump's approvals among 18-29 year olds in PA. I think he could just as easily lose this group than hold them, and overall it is in the GOP's best interests to make a positive imprint on them now... except that it's hard to see that being the case. Nationally at least, Trump is absolutely bombing with 18-29 year olds. It's consistently his worst age group.

[The_Doctor]

Of interest, 18-24 voted 50-45% for Clinton in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania is 81% white (so I'd assume 78-79% white in 2020). Trump's Administration probably dictates how this age cohorts would view the GOP and vote accordingly in 2020 and 2024. If he stabilizes and demonstrates he's a viable GOP model, younger Pennsylvanian whites might go GOP more heavily. If not, I can see the rising Generation Z types revolting and putting PA in the blue column again. To date, downballot, I still haven't seen the GOP strength that's been demonstrated elsewhere in the Midwest on the row office level.  

The 18-24 group was quite a spectacular change in PA. Of all the age groups, this was really the only one which underwent a fundamentally large shift to the Republican. Every other group was only small improvements, if that. It should be noted that most of the 18-24 year olds in 2016 would not be previous Obama voters.

Might be useful to keep an eye on Trump's approvals among 18-29 year olds in PA. I think he could just as easily lose this group than hold them, and overall it is in the GOP's best interests to make a positive imprint on them now... except that it's hard to see that being the case. Nationally at least, Trump is absolutely bombing with 18-29 year olds. It's consistently his worst age group.

Similar shift in WI, too. Correct this might be a shift among younger whites in the Rust Belt. We'll have to see.

[Technocracy Timmy]

Of interest, 18-24 voted 50-45% for Clinton in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania is 81% white (so I'd assume 78-79% white in 2020). Trump's Administration probably dictates how this age cohorts would view the GOP and vote accordingly in 2020 and 2024. If he stabilizes and demonstrates he's a viable GOP model, younger Pennsylvanian whites might go GOP more heavily. If not, I can see the rising Generation Z types revolting and putting PA in the blue column again. To date, downballot, I still haven't seen the GOP strength that's been demonstrated elsewhere in the Midwest on the row office level.  

The 18-24 group was quite a spectacular change in PA. Of all the age groups, this was really the only one which underwent a fundamentally large shift to the Republican. Every other group was only small improvements, if that. It should be noted that most of the 18-24 year olds in 2016 would not be previous Obama voters.

Might be useful to keep an eye on Trump's approvals among 18-29 year olds in PA. I think he could just as easily lose this group than hold them, and overall it is in the GOP's best interests to make a positive imprint on them now... except that it's hard to see that being the case. Nationally at least, Trump is absolutely bombing with 18-29 year olds. It's consistently his worst age group.

Similar shift in WI, too. Correct this might be a shift among younger whites in the Rust Belt. We'll have to see.

And Minnesota (Maine might also count here as well).

[TML]

The reason why Obama and Hillary won Centre County is because of the influence of Penn State's University Park Campus there.

I can't find exit polls in PA to corroborate this versus W's 53-42% win in that county. I know that nationally, 18-24 split in 2000 but in 2004 they had shifted to Kerry by 9 points. But Bush won the county twice; in 2000, 53-42% and 2004, 51-47%. Admittedly the margin shrunk from 9 to 4 points in 4 years... though Santorum carried it 62-34% in 2000.

Obama swept it by 12 points in 2008, then won it 1 point in 2012, then Hillary won it by 2 points in 2016. For the record the township data does say that in 2016, the state college borough voted by 65-27% Clinton. But nationally, in both 2008 and 2012, young voters swung to the Democrats by wide margins.

Are we sure that this is the reason? This county has undergone definitely a transition from being a reliably Republican county to a Democratic county with about 75,000 votes cast.

Remember that in places with major colleges/universities, the decisive voting bloc is not the college-aged students (who, in many cases, have their votes count toward their hometowns, not their college towns), but the professors, lecturers, and other staff who work in these universities. These people are pretty much all highly educated, and thus tend to vote for left-leaning candidates.

In the case of Centre County, people who live in and around State College tend to vote Democratic, while people in the outer rural areas tend to vote Republican. Aside from Obama and Hillary, this county also voted for Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996. Note that Bush won college-educated voters overall in 2000 and 2004, which is probably why he managed to win this county during his elections.

[The_Doctor]

The reason why Obama and Hillary won Centre County is because of the influence of Penn State's University Park Campus there.

I can't find exit polls in PA to corroborate this versus W's 53-42% win in that county. I know that nationally, 18-24 split in 2000 but in 2004 they had shifted to Kerry by 9 points. But Bush won the county twice; in 2000, 53-42% and 2004, 51-47%. Admittedly the margin shrunk from 9 to 4 points in 4 years... though Santorum carried it 62-34% in 2000.

Obama swept it by 12 points in 2008, then won it 1 point in 2012, then Hillary won it by 2 points in 2016. For the record the township data does say that in 2016, the state college borough voted by 65-27% Clinton. But nationally, in both 2008 and 2012, young voters swung to the Democrats by wide margins.

Are we sure that this is the reason? This county has undergone definitely a transition from being a reliably Republican county to a Democratic county with about 75,000 votes cast.

Remember that in places with major colleges/universities, the decisive voting bloc is not the college-aged students (who, in many cases, have their votes count toward their hometowns, not their college towns), but the professors, lecturers, and other staff who work in these universities. These people are pretty much all highly educated, and thus tend to vote for left-leaning candidates.

In the case of Centre County, people who live in and around State College tend to vote Democratic, while people in the outer rural areas tend to vote Republican. Aside from Obama and Hillary, this county also voted for Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996. Note that Bush won college-educated voters overall in 2000 and 2004, which is probably why he managed to win this county during his elections.

OK that makes more sense. Thanks.

I guess I've exhausted PA talk. I hope the OP thinks I answered him in detail anyway. It was an interesting topic.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I agree, I was a bit tired when I wrote this. But I think upon review, I’m talking about people who would make it out of the GOP primaries. They’re more likely to be strong anti-immigration types like Donald Trump or Ted Cruz than moderate Republicans.

If you’re thinking Marco Rubio, that’s a possibility for someone who could pick up moderate suburban support and still retain West Pennsylvania’s growing GOP partisans. But increasingly, if you look at the swing of the suburbs, they’re not merely responding to specific partisans. They’re responding to the swing of the national GOP. 20 years ago, when George W. Bush ran for President as a far more moderate Republican on many issues (compassionate conservatism), he did far better than Trump did in the suburbs.

But I’ll get to that in the rest of your post.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Correct. But Specter’s brand of Republican is actually a winner in the Northeast. It’s the philosophy that has enabled New York and New England Republicans to flourish. The Party’s shift rightwards has eliminated the Republican Party’s federal strength in the Northeast and New England because people like Specter have been forced to switch parties or fail to straddle the primaries and general election.

He won in 2004 against Pat Toomey only because of George W. Bush’s and the national Republicans coming to his aid. So I agree. But I also would speculate that Specter’s brand of conservatism was far more viable in the Northeast than Rick Santorum (who posted smaller margins than Specter in the General) or Pat Toomey (who twice, has posted slender wins).

The Republican Party, however, in Pennsylvania and nationally has changed. The Philadelphia suburban GOP voters are now becoming extinct because they’re switching to the Democrats.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I agree completely. The protectionist message and immigration hardline played well in speeding up the realignment of West Pennsylvania towards the Republican Party. George W. Bush was a free trader and soft on immigration which angered West Pennsylvania and didn’t pick up enough suburban voters in the Philadelphia area to win (because he was socially conservative).

However, I contend Trump did not create a long lasting formula to win Pennsylvania. He drew from the counties that were losing population the most and pushed the Philadelphia suburban counties to embrace Hillary Clinton. The fastest growing counties, on balance, swung to the Democrats, as I showed.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, that’s an interesting hypothetical. But let’s assume a conventional limited government Republican with protectionist and an immigration hardline (basically Coolidge of 1924, now that I think of it). Such a Republican would probably win Pennsylvania but it wouldn’t be a landslide. For instance, let’s do it this way. Let’s add all the counties Toomey won that Trump didn’t and see what we get. I’ll just recreate the margin.

The President won Pennsylvania by 44,292 votes. I’ll add the counties where Toomey won but he didn’t.

COUNTY | CLINTON MARGIN | TOOMEY MARGIN | Cumulative Swing

Bucks … 2,699 | 18,189 | 65,180 votes
Centre … 1,184 | 1,040 | 67,404 votes  
Chester … 25,568 | 6,110 | 99,082 votes

I won't do a full workup because I think this demonstrates the point well enough.

So, the Republican margin, at their best performances, might have been a 100,000 vote margin out of Pennsylvania for Trump. What’s interesting is that Toomey didn't, for the most part, run too far ahead or behind of Trump. Over 90% of Toomey voters were also Trump voters.

Roughly put, even the best GOP margin out of Pennsylvania might be 100,000 in 2016 and maybe 200-300,000 in 2020 (assuming Lackawanna and Monroe counties flips). In a 6.5 million electorate that votes in 2020, that translates into a 51-47% win roughly. A strong win but doesn't make Pennsylvania a GOP state.

The fundamental problem is that even with someone like Rubio, I don’t see the suburbs flipping GOP strongly. It would require the GOP to adopt a very different platform.

Not sure if you agree or disagree. But that’s my feeling anyway.

Rubio is a horrible fit for PA for all the same reasons as Bush. He is also a neocon and a many of those rural Trump Democrats are either anti-war or at the very least against the kind of foreign policy adventurism that characterized Bush's time. This is at play in the suburbs as well and literally helped to drive those re-registrations that so doomed Specter, up even higher than they otherwise would have been.


The Republicans have to remain pro-life, pro-gun and semi-critical of high levels of legal immigration and sanctuary cities (position on legalization matters less but it certainly takes the headline of the issue).

Beyond that they should go moderately libertarian on social issues, center-right on economics (use infrastructure and energy as proxies achieve results promised through trade saber rattling) and embrace foreign policy restraint. This will put them better in line with younger voters on all these issues and embrace the coming realities as opposed to constantly pretending it is 1985.

That is leagues away from the "moderation" of Arlen Specter. Here we get to a point that is critical, moderate is a catchall phrase that can mean anything or nothing.

I would also point out that PA has had several "moderate" Republicans (of the traditional variety you speak), who were hard line on immigration. New Jersey had a few as well. There are several listed for instance on NumbersUSA's website that are regarded as Rinos overall, but have A and A+ ratings, which is rather extreme considering what they grade on.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

And also shifting the focus from say culture wars to immigration, enables you to grab "traditionalists" who are not motivated by religion be that lapsed Catholics or what not and appeal to them in both an economic and a crime perspective (Sanctuary Cities) and in so doing moderate while still coming off as hardline, just on a different issue.


The problem for the Republicans is that they cannot moderate because they are tied down by the think tank operation that is keeping them stuck in the 1980's. Conservatives also constantly expound their energies rooting out who is and who is not a true conservative and foisting them from among their midst. This is actually not Conservative in nature, in fact it is based in pure radicalism. Constant purification of the movement is actually rather Leninist and beckons to the 1920's Soviet Union.

As long as the GOP is being controlled by such "Leninist Methodology", you will have more Trumps as the GOP (which looks vastly difference from the GOP of 1980's and who is being completely ill served by its leadership who constantly is stuck in the 1980's), strives to toss off their chains.
 
There would not be a Trump without a Ted Cruz and there would not be a Ted Cruz without these outside groups constantly conniving to dispose of anyone who dares question the tax cut theology.

This means the only way to nominate someone more moderate is for them to do the moderation under the guise of nationalism and/or by sounding tougher than the others, ie Trump. This bypasses the issues and accrues support in a psychological manner. It also means, you end up with people like Trump as the nominee, and ultimately, as President.

[RINO Tom]

The reason why Obama and Hillary won Centre County is because of the influence of Penn State's University Park Campus there.

I can't find exit polls in PA to corroborate this versus W's 53-42% win in that county. I know that nationally, 18-24 split in 2000 but in 2004 they had shifted to Kerry by 9 points. But Bush won the county twice; in 2000, 53-42% and 2004, 51-47%. Admittedly the margin shrunk from 9 to 4 points in 4 years... though Santorum carried it 62-34% in 2000.

Obama swept it by 12 points in 2008, then won it 1 point in 2012, then Hillary won it by 2 points in 2016. For the record the township data does say that in 2016, the state college borough voted by 65-27% Clinton. But nationally, in both 2008 and 2012, young voters swung to the Democrats by wide margins.

Are we sure that this is the reason? This county has undergone definitely a transition from being a reliably Republican county to a Democratic county with about 75,000 votes cast.

Remember that in places with major colleges/universities, the decisive voting bloc is not the college-aged students (who, in many cases, have their votes count toward their hometowns, not their college towns), but the professors, lecturers, and other staff who work in these universities. These people are pretty much all highly educated, and thus tend to vote for left-leaning candidates.

In the case of Centre County, people who live in and around State College tend to vote Democratic, while people in the outer rural areas tend to vote Republican. Aside from Obama and Hillary, this county also voted for Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996. Note that Bush won college-educated voters overall in 2000 and 2004, which is probably why he managed to win this county during his elections.

LOL, when will this idea die its overdue death?  Have you ever stopped to consider that 1) fields that literally require a postgraduate education (like education, for example) are already more fertile ground for left-leaning people and 2) in this specific case, those people's livelihoods are literally tied to more government spending and investing in education and they're therefore inclined to support Democratic fiscal policies?  I know you'd all like to believe it is this inherent contact with increased education that makes someone more liberal, but I have to LOL at that idea.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

And also shifting the focus from say culture wars to immigration, enables you to grab "traditionalists" who are not motivated by religion be that lapsed Catholics or what not and appeal to them in both an economic and a crime perspective (Sanctuary Cities) and in so doing moderate while still coming off as hardline, just on a different issue.


The problem for the Republicans is that they cannot moderate because they are tied down by the think tank operation that is keeping them stuck in the 1980's. Conservatives also constantly expound their energies rooting out who is and who is not a true conservative and foisting them from among their midst. This is actually not Conservative in nature, in fact it is based in pure radicalism. Constant purification of the movement is actually rather Leninist and beckons to the 1920's Soviet Union.

As long as the GOP is being controlled by such "Leninist Methodology", you will have more Trumps as the GOP (which looks vastly difference from the GOP of 1980's and who is being completely ill served by its leadership who constantly is stuck in the 1980's), strives to toss off their chains.
 
There would not be a Trump without a Ted Cruz and there would not be a Ted Cruz without these outside groups constantly conniving to dispose of anyone who dares question the tax cut theology.

This means the only way to nominate someone more moderate is for them to do the moderation under the guise of nationalism and/or by sounding tougher than the others, ie Trump. This bypasses the issues and accrues support in a psychological manner. It also means, you end up with people like Trump as the nominee, and ultimately, as President.

Is this a winning strategy in the long run?

And I agree with your earlier post and much of this one; that made a lot more sense than your initial post.

Issue wise, yes.

In terms of candidate quality, no.

Sooner or later you need quality and/or establishment candidates to embrace more centrist economic stances. These candidates will do better than Trump in the suburbs by far, but will also be more experienced, stable and sane.

The continued blocking of such candidates, will likely lead to more rogue candidates embracing these issues that the establishment is shutting off and breaking through. Leading to more rogue candidates as the nominee and ultimately, as President.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You need someone with issue positions that fit well with the Trump base on economics, FP etc, but delivered by a clean cut middle America suburban politician, with 10 years experience. So much so that even Vosem and RinoTOM find themselves fighting the urge and ultimately succumbing to the urge to vote for them.

[RINO Tom]

You need someone with issue positions that fit well with the Trump base on economics, FP etc, but delivered by a clean cut middle America suburban politician, with 10 years experience. So much so that even Vosem and RinoTOM find themselves fighting the urge and ultimately succumbing to the urge to vote for them.

Hey man, I have no problem with economic moderation.  It's not the end-all by any means, but look at my economic PM score.  I DO have a problem with empty economic promises, brash and offenseive langugage and adopting the same Robin Hood language toward the successful that we have so often accused Democrats of using to commit (not joking at ALL when I say this:) class warfare.

If the candidate you described emerged, I'm sure both Vosom and I would support him or her.  The problem is that a lot of the current supporters of Trump wouldn't ... their support for him would remain the same if he were the biggest free trader on the planet.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

You need someone with issue positions that fit well with the Trump base on economics, FP etc, but delivered by a clean cut middle America suburban politician, with 10 years experience. So much so that even Vosem and RinoTOM find themselves fighting the urge and ultimately succumbing to the urge to vote for them.

Ah, modern politics may have granted me my opening at last.

[Xing]

Yes, clearly Pennsylvania, as well as Michigan and Wisconsin, are Safe R now. I mean, they went Republican once by less than 1% in a good year for Republicans, and the Democratic candidate took two of those states for granted. Clearly they're 100% gone for Democrats, or will be very shortly.

[libertpaulian]

Yes, clearly Pennsylvania, as well as Michigan and Wisconsin, are Safe R now. I mean, they went Republican once by less than 1% in a good year for Republicans, and the Democratic candidate took two of those states for granted. Clearly they're 100% gone for Democrats, or will be very shortly.

This.  If African-American turnout was just the teensiest bit higher than it was last year, Michigan would have flipped for Clinton.

[Nyvin]

Yes, we all know the logic of Atlas Republicans - Once a state votes Republican even by 0.5%...it is officially safe R for the rest of time.

[PragmaticPopulist]

Yes, we all know the logic of Atlas Republicans - Once a state votes Republican even by 0.5%...it is officially safe R for the rest of time.

And George Bush won New Mexico by 0.79% or 5988 votes. Four years later, Obama won it by over 15%. So that must mean PA is going towards Safe R.

[TheSaint250]

The OP is just trying to explain a trend. He's not making this claim based solely on Trump winning

Everyone chill

[RINO Tom]

Yes, we all know the logic of Atlas Republicans - Once a state votes Republican even by 0.5%...it is officially safe R for the rest of time.

As opposed to Atlas Democrats suggesting that because college educated Whites revolted against ONE GOP nominee (and still voted for him in plurality!), they are going to become this core Democratic constituency or a sign of an area that might be hospitable to Democrats??

[Virginiá]

As opposed to Atlas Democrats suggesting that because college educated Whites revolted against ONE GOP nominee (and still voted for him in plurality!), they are going to become this core Democratic constituency or a sign of an area that might be hospitable to Democrats??

To be fair, my beliefs behind that particular demographic are based on more longstanding trends and the Millennial generation.

That being said, I think any alliance between the wealthier members of the white college graduate group and the Democratic Party will always be fragile. I guess it just depends on how many of those voters end up well-off enough to be swayed by the GOP's tax policy (which I might add seems more directed at the hyper-wealthy). When Millennials come to represent most of the more upscale white college graduates, tax policy is probably going to be one of the very few things Republicans have to lure them in with.

[GGSETTER]

Actually what I read happen was that around 2004 to 2010. The Philadelphia Region was trending Democrat and the Pittsburgh Region was trending Republican. Philadelphia stopped trending Democrat around 2010 but Pittsburgh continues to get more and more Republican.

[Keep cool-idge]

So something that no one has mentioned is......
Pennsylvania no matter what the pundits say was NOT a swing state from 1952-2012
The state only went republican in landslides in popular vote and electoral vote
Plus this is the first time Pennsylvania voted right of the popular vote since 1948
While Ronald Reagan was Winning nationality by 18 points he was winning Pennsylvania by only 7.5-8.5 points
So yes Pennsylvania is now the new Florida or Missouri.

[maga2020]

Will be solid GOP after the next democratic president.

Trump brought the monster vote and turned Biden democrats into republicans, Crimedelphia will be outnumbered, the future for the democrats is grim, just like in most of America, since only a handful of states have a city that's big enough to erase the rural blowouts and some of the big cities that are growing still won't be able to do that (Miami, Dallas, Houston) because they aren't solid dem like NYC, Crimecago and Los Gangsters.

[OneJ]

Pennsylvania did swing against Toomey despite the fact that he performed roughly on the same level Trump did last year. Plus, there is some population loss in areas such as SW & NE Pennsylvania, so just by acknowledging these facts, no Pennsylvania is not becoming solid Republican any time soon.

[GGSETTER]

Pennsylvania did swing against Toomey despite the fact that he performed roughly on the same level Trump did last year. Plus, there is some population loss in areas such as SW & NE Pennsylvania, so just by acknowledging these facts, no Pennsylvania is not becoming solid Republican any time soon.

South East Pennsylvania (Suburban Philadelphia) was the Republican Stronghold in Pennsylvania until recently. It slowly got more and more Democrat but since around 2010 that trend has stopped. At the same time the rest of the state has gotten a lot more Republican. I volunteered with the RNC. 2016 was the first year Pa was ranked as a Class A1 Swing State. It's the same as Florida and Ohio. It's definitely not a Solid Republican State but it is definitely becoming more Republican.

I personally think that Ohio has for the most part moved into the Republican Column. I think Pennsylvania will take its place.