Is Pennsylvania's state politics different from the rest of the country? (Philadelphia: house, inspections)

[BajanYankee]

Also, nobody bothered to address the question from the article I posted.

The puzzling thing, however, is why Appalachian working-class whites are moving so rapidly right. It cannot be simply race: both Vice President Al Gore and Senator John Kerry were white, after all, yet they still did progressively worse. It cannot be simply elitism, either: Governor Mike Dukakis and Governor Adlai Stevenson were intellectual technocrats, yet they won what Mr. Kerry and Mr. Gore could not.

NAFTA, perhaps?

[Duderino]

Originally Posted by BajanYankee

Okay. So let me get this straight. The majority of people in Pennsylvania support gay marriage. But what happened is that these zany legislators got into office and drafted a bill that made it through subcommittee and eventually onto the floor in both houses and passed (and the Governor signed it into law). And this bill just materialized out of thin air and did not reflect the will of the general population. The legislature just did it on a whim. And Tom Corbett is now defending this whimsical law and comparing gay marriage to incest simply because he wants to. It has nothing to do with reading internal polling data that costs tens of thousands of dollars to generate and taking a political position that he finds to be most expedient.

So, basically you refuse to acknowledge that the majority of Pennsylvanians support gay marriage? Again, PA's DOMA law was passed in the 90s -- is it not now 2013? You're asserting the political environment is exactly the same.

Corbett is clearly pandering to a small conservative minority that actually cares about preventing gay marriage from happening. Again, the popular opinion is on the pro-gay marriage side, but the intensity tends to be on the anti-gay marriage side (although that is waning quickly). He has to draw a contrast with the Democrats -- don't you acknowledge that?

Originally Posted by BajanYankee

But that's really getting away from the point. I only brought up religion to let pman know that these aren't "pro business" conservatives; they are true social conservatives.

There are, of course, social conservatives in Pennsylvania -- I never stated anything to the contrary. Where you'd be incorrect is to assert they carry a lot of clout in the electorate (even among the state GOP), or if they are socially conservative with the same intensity as social conservatives elsewhere.

In other words, you might find a pro-life, anti-gay marriage Republican from Bedford County, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're going to make those issues front-and-center. Let's be honest -- social issues are often for show. Rarely do we make changes to social-related policy.

Originally Posted by BajanYankee

It's VERY different. Pennsylvania has the second highest NRA enrollment in absolute numbers after Texas. And because the urban areas in Pennsylvania do not dominate the state the way NYC dominates New York, or the way Baltimore and the DC burbs dominate Maryland, you wind up with a state legislature that's very much influenced by the gun lobby.

You keep saying this, but aside from merely having a high amount of NRA membership, please demonstrate to me how the gun lobby in Pennsylvania is so influential. High NRA membership does not directly equate to legislative actions.

Originally Posted by BajanYankee

This doesn't make any sense because Republicans virtually everywhere have become more conservative. That's why, in my opening post, I said that Pennsylvania is no exception to the national trend. The Republican Party has shifted hard to the right and Pennsylvania Republicans have shifted along with it. The whole reason that someone like Rick Santorum can get elected is because the state has become more conservative. This is a recent shift that has been well documented, but instead of reading the literature I post, [b]you seem to be content to talk out of your butt. No, nobody like Rick Santorum had been elected before because the state wasn't as conservative then.

And no one has been elected like him since! I'm pretty sure that qualifies as an anomaly. Would you find an article published like this today if Santorum-esque Republicans had such a good chance of getting elected again?

Corbett, GOP confront worries of a Santorum replay

I will admit that more conservative candidates have gained more traction (mostly of the Tea Party variety), but they have not made traction at the STATEWIDE level in Pennsylvania -- only in their isolated rural bubbles.

Originally Posted by BajanYankee

I mean, George W. Bush won 48% of the popular vote in Pennsylvania in 2004. That's saying a lot.

So you're just going to ignore the last 2 presidential elections when PA voted Democratic by >5%? Going from a razor-thin victory for the Dems to a substantial victory for the Dems in recent years means Pennsylvania is becoming more conservative? You do realize that makes no sense whatsoever.

[BajanYankee]

Originally Posted by Duderino

So, basically you refuse to acknowledge that the majority of Pennsylvanians support gay marriage? Again, PA's DOMA law was passed in the 90s -- is it not now 2013? You're asserting the political environment is exactly the same.

I'm not asserting the political environment is exactly the same. My point is that if Pennsylvania were as liberal as you think it is, there would have never been a law in the first place.

You basically have two things occurring at once in Pennsylvania. The Philadelphia burbs are growing bluer. And the western and southwestern portions of the state (minus Pittsburgh) are becoming redder. The difference maker is that the Philly burbs are growing at a much faster rate than the more conservative areas of the state.

But again, this has nothing to do with my original point. The point was that the liberal-conservative divide in Pennsylvania is widening in Pennsylvania just as it is elsewhere.

Originally Posted by Duderino

There are, of course, social conservatives in Pennsylvania -- I never stated anything to the contrary. Where you'd be incorrect is to assert they carry a lot of clout in the electorate (even among the state GOP)

Well, they clearly carry a lot of clout in the electorate. New York City does not have the same struggles with Albany that Philly has with Harrisburg.

Originally Posted by Duderino

or if they are socially conservative with the same intensity as social conservatives elsewhere.

WHERE DID I SAY THAT????

Originally Posted by Duderino

In other words, you might find a pro-life, anti-gay marriage Republican from Bedford County, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're going to make those issues front-and-center. Let's be honest -- social issues are often for show. Rarely do we make changes to social-related policy.

Immigration, affirmative action and abortion are social issues, and no, they are not "for show."

Originally Posted by Duderino

You keep saying this, but aside from merely having a high amount of NRA membership, please demonstrate to me how the gun lobby in Pennsylvania is so influential.

Um, perhaps because Democrats run as pro-gun, NRA-endorsed candidates.

Originally Posted by Duderino

And no one has been elected like him since! I'm pretty sure that qualifies as an anomaly. Would you find an article published like this today if Santorum-esque Republicans had such a good chance of getting elected again?

This an equally silly assertion. Nobody like George W. Bush has been elected since he left office either. And Santorum was elected twice. That wasn't a fluke.

Originally Posted by Duderino

So you're just going to ignore the last 2 presidential elections when PA voted Democratic by >5%? Going from a razor-thin victory for the Dems to a substantial victory for the Dems in recent years means Pennsylvania is becoming more conservative? You do realize that makes no sense whatsoever.

Republicans have become more conservative. Presidential elections are different because Dem turnout is higher. And the 2008 election in particular was very different with the country leaning much farther to the left than it usually does (Indiana, Virginia and North Carolina all going blue). That was largely attributable to a very unpopular president and a terrible economy.

But it's state elections that tell a more complete story. Pennsylvania used to elect more moderate Republicans, but that has changed. The state's Republicans today are more conservative than they were in the past. And these Republicans get elected in statewide contests (whereas they don't in, say, California).

Pennsylvania is different from states like New York or Maryland in that, depending on the national political winds, a very conservative Republican has more than a fighter's chance. A very conservative Republican has ZERO chance in Maryland no matter how Republicans are trending nationwide. You will NEVER see a Rick Santorum or Pat Toomey win office in Maryland.

Politically, PA's closest peer is Ohio.

[BajanYankee]

You're basically carrying over a conversation from another thread, which is causing some confusion here, imo.

In that thread, your argument was basically "PA is not as conservative as you make it out to be!!!" But how conservative was I actually making it out to be? I never said it was Mississippi. I just said that it was more conservative than most states surrounding it. Specifically, I said it was more similar to Ohio than New York or Maryland.

In this thread, I said that Pennsylvania conservatives are real social conservatives (as opposed to supporting the Republican Party because of pro-growth policies). When Barack Obama was talking about "bitter people who cling to their guns and religion," he was talking about Pennsylvania, not Missouri or Louisiana. And these conservatives make up a much larger percentage of the electorate than some are willing to admit. If they didn't, someone like GWB could NEVER be competitive in the state. Bush was not competitive in New York, New Jersey or Massachusetts because those states do not have many social conservatives.

I mean, the term "Pennsyltucky" didn't come out of nowhere.

[BajanYankee]

Originally Posted by Duderino

2. In terms of religiosity, Pennsylvania is just "average," not to mention it's affected no doubt by its relatively large senior population:

Mississippi Maintains Hold as Most Religious U.S. State

The interesting thing about Pennsylvania is that it is quite religious for a state with two large metro areas (and 11 metros with 250,000 plus people). And it's a bit religious for a state that doesn't have a huge number of racial minorities (e.g., California or New Jersey).

PA is actually more religious than Ohio. PA has more Hispanics than Ohio, but it also has larger metro areas, so you wouldn't think it would be more religious. It's a little less religious than West Virginia (41.9) but more religious than Michigan and Wisconsin. Where PA really stands out is when you compare it to the rest of the Northeast. It is significantly more religious than all Northeastern states with the exception of NJ (which is still less religious than PA, but more religious than other NE states partly owing to more Hispanics and African Americans).

[Duderino]

Originally Posted by BajanYankee

In this thread, I said that Pennsylvania conservatives are real social conservatives (as opposed to supporting the Republican Party because of pro-growth policies). When Barack Obama was talking about "bitter people who cling to their guns and religion," he was talking about Pennsylvania, not Missouri or Louisiana. And these conservatives make up a much larger percentage of the electorate than some are willing to admit. If they didn't, someone like GWB could NEVER be competitive in the state. Bush was not competitive in New York, New Jersey or Massachusetts because those states do not have many social conservatives.

I mean, the term "Pennsyltucky" didn't come out of nowhere.

I agree with your overall point that Pennsylvania's political environment is closer to a state like Ohio than NY or Maryland. It'd be silly to argue otherwise. However, I simply do not agree with the bolded above.

Once again, yes, there is a political contingent of Pennsylvania that is pretty darn conservative. That's where we agree, but the extent to which this contingent makes up the electorate is up for debate.

I think you're well aware of the fact that people vote Republicans for different reasons. If we're going to use GWB as a litmus test for being socially conservative, let's not forget that a place like Staten Island is pretty competitive for Republicans (GWB won the borough by 56% in 2004: Government of Staten Island - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Clearly Staten Island Republicans are not the same types of Republicans as those in Mississippi.

In Pennsylvania, for example, recent polling shows pretty strong support for workplace/public protections for LGBT citizens among Republicans: 3 Republicans Join LGBT Equality Caucus, Plus Poll Results on Gay Rights Issues | PoliticsPA

So, I'm inclined to believe that the "social conservative" contingent in PA is a vocal minority. I agree that the GOP (practically everywhere) has gotten more conservative, although part of that is former "RINOs" that have left the party to become Independents or even Democrats (remember our old pal Arlen Specter)?

[Craziaskowboi]

Originally Posted by BajanYankee

...the term "Pennsyltucky" didn't come out of nowhere.

Yeah, it's because the two states have similar terrain and a history of coal mining. Fayette County is often considered to have the worst quality of life in Pennsylvania, but it's paradise compared to eastern Kentucky. For example, here's a map of median household income by ZIP code in the Appalachian Mountains:



I've outlined Pennsylvania for everybody's convenience. Notice the lack of extreme poverty in Pennsylvania, and the abundance of extreme poverty in Kentucky. And this is just one indicator in which rural Pennsylvania comes out well ahead of the other regions of the country that it's all too often compared to. If people actually knew the differences, they'd stop making the comparisons because they'd realize how ignorant they look.

[Duderino]

Originally Posted by Gnutella

I've outlined Pennsylvania for everybody's convenience. Notice the lack of extreme poverty in Pennsylvania, and the abundance of extreme poverty in Kentucky. And this is just one indicator in which rural Pennsylvania comes out well ahead of the other regions of the country that it's all too often compared to. If people actually knew the differences, they'd stop making the comparisons because they'd realize how ignorant they look.

Interesting map, thanks for posting. There really is a stark difference between Northern Appalachia and Southern Appalachia, and median income only scratches the surface.

[trackstar13]

Originally Posted by BajanYankee

I'm not asserting the political environment is exactly the same. My point is that if Pennsylvania were as liberal as you think it is, there would have never been a law in the first place.

You basically have two things occurring at once in Pennsylvania. The Philadelphia burbs are growing bluer. And the western and southwestern portions of the state (minus Pittsburgh) are becoming redder. The difference maker is that the Philly burbs are growing at a much faster rate than the more conservative areas of the state.

Your above statement is incorrect and Erie county, which is in the western portion of PA, is 55% democrat in terms of registered voters and only 33% republican (the rest of the voters are independent). The city of Erie itself is even more "blue" as you call it than the county. Before you make blanket statements about PA maybe you should actually research these things a little better.

[BajanYankee]

Originally Posted by Duderino

I agree with your overall point that Pennsylvania's political environment is closer to a state like Ohio than NY or Maryland. It'd be silly to argue otherwise. However, I simply do not agree with the bolded above.

You disagree that Barack Obama said that? Or you disagree that social conservatives made Bush competitive in 2004? I'll actually have to correct myself on one thing, though: Bush lost Pennsylvania by 2.5 percentage points in 2004, not 4.

Originally Posted by Duderino

Once again, yes, there is a political contingent of Pennsylvania that is pretty darn conservative. That's where we agree, but the extent to which this contingent makes up the electorate is up for debate.

Here's an interesting chart from a poli sci blog that graphs voter ideology based on results of the 2000 presidential campaign.

Ranking states by the liberalism/conservatism of their voters « Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science

The X-axis on the graph represents economic liberalism or conservatism. The farther to the left, the more economically liberal the state is. The Y-axis represents social liberalism or conservatism. The higher up the state is, the more socially conservative it is.

Note where Pennsylvania is. During this election cycle, it was slightly more socially conservative than Virginia and a little less conservative than Florida. And the state was actually much closer to North Carolina than it was to Delaware, New York or Maryland in this regard. Pennsylvania obviously trends Democratic more than North Carolina, but that's because voters in general tend to be more liberal on economic issues. Even New Hampshire--a state that is largely white and rural with an infamous libertarian streak--is not nearly as socially conservative as Pennsylvania.

This explains why Pennsylvania tends to elect socially conservative Democrats. In California and New York, Democrats tend to be all out liberals. You don't see that too often in Pennsylvania. In PA, Dems often run as pro-life, pro-gun Democrats.

Originally Posted by Duderino

I think you're well aware of the fact that people vote Republicans for different reasons. If we're going to use GWB as a litmus test for being socially conservative, let's not forget that a place like Staten Island is pretty competitive for Republicans (GWB won the borough by 56% in 2004: Government of Staten Island - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Clearly Staten Island Republicans are not the same types of Republicans as those in Mississippi.

Really? You're going to compare Italians and Irish on Staten Island to hunters in rural Pennsylvania? Those voters are not close to being identical. The voters on Staten Island are more similar to voters in Northeast Philadelphia and Bucks County. The voters who helped GWB come within 2.5 percentage points of John Kerry were not the Irish in the Northeast, but the NRA cardholders in southwestern and western Pennsylvania. Since New York State does not have those voters in nearly the same numbers as Pennsylvania, there's no way he could ever dream of being competitive here. You didn't see Bush losing New York by 2.5 percentage points, did you? He lost it by 18 percentage points. And that's about the best a conservative Republican can do in New York.

Originally Posted by Duderino

So, I'm inclined to believe that the "social conservative" contingent in PA is a vocal minority. I agree that the GOP (practically everywhere) has gotten more conservative, although part of that is former "RINOs" that have left the party to become Independents or even Democrats (remember our old pal Arlen Specter)?

It's pretty obvious that that's what you want to believe. Social conservatives can't be a minority if the state consistently elects people that are conservative on a host of social issues. If social conservatives were truly a minority, I'd expect to see Pennsylvania electing Democrats like Carl Levin or Debbie Stabenow (pro-choice, "F" rating by the NRA, etc.). Instead, PA elects Democrats that run on pro-gun, pro-life, anti-gay marriage platforms (which is exactly the platform Bob Casey ran on back in 2006). And you say that social conservatives are a minority? Okay. You clearly want Pennsylvania to be something it's not.