Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You're ignoring the impact of gerrymandering here, which has significantly enhanced the seat count for the Republicans in regards to both the congressional delegation and the state legislature. Given how Democratic votes are concentrated in Philly and Pittsburgh, even fair maps would probably result in a Republican majority, but it would be a much more frail one.
One thing which has been little reported though is regardless of whether Tom Wolf wins re-election, the Democrats are going to draw the next state legislative maps in 2021. The reason is the state legislative maps are drawn in a nominally "bipartisan" manner where the PA Supreme Court picks the tie-breaking vote. As Democrats have a super-majority on the Supreme Court, this means (barring new legislation being rammed through, or recall elections which never succeed) the Dems will pick the tiebreaker, resulting in a D-gerrymander instead of an R-gerrymander.
Thank you for injecting some actual FACTS and CONTEXT into the conversation. I don't know why that's so difficult to find on city-data. And yes, the current Supreme Court make-up will have very interesting implications for Pennsylvania politics in the future in terms of redistricting.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Pennsylvania has over 900,000 more registered Democrats than Republicans. By simple measure of what the majority of residents actually identify with politically and believe overall in their heart-of-hearts about policy decisions, it's a blue state. That's a fact.
Gerrymandering has simply subjugated Democratic power in Pennsylvania like few other states (combined with the fact that Democrats either got WAY too complacent this past election, or completely disenchanted, or both).
It is also a fact that only 33% of all potential voter adult Pennsylvanians actually voted for Trump. That's 1 in 3, folks. Last I checked, that's far from representing the majority of the electorate.
Statements like this one make me think (a) your powers of observation are off (b) you haven't been over this way recently.
Also, the point appears to be - and I've yet to see much evidence to the contrary - that, using your terminology, there aren't a lot of people who "want to move to Pittsburgh rather than just accept Pittsburgh" for whatever reason.
The definitions I use, at least, are those of the Bureau of the Census.
It includes in a metropolitan area any county where more than a certain percentage of residents (I forget how many, but it's less than 50) commutes to jobs in one of the counties currently in the metropolitan area - not just the county containing the core city.
A county adjacent to a metropolitan area that contains a large employment center where many of its own residents work may therefore not be included in a metro area definition. The Federal prison and Army base, for instance, kept Leavenworth County, Kan., out of the Kansas City, MO-KS MSA (two of whose core counties it touches) until the most recent Census. I don't think there's anything similar in any of the seven Southwestern Pennsylvania counties the Census Bureau includes in the Pittsburgh MSA.
Politically speaking, Pennsylvania is purple and has been for some time. The narrowness of Trump's win in the state should drive that point home - and keep in mind that Clinton carried only 11 of the state's 67 counties: the five in the Southeast (this relative uniformity of voting pattern is a recent development; Chester County usually breaks Republican), Lehigh (but not Northampton), Monroe (a county in the Poconos that's experienced an influx of NYC expats), Allegheny, Lackawanna (but not Luzerne), Dauphin (the one county I didn't expect to see in the Clinton column, despite Harrisburg's presence in it) and Centre (State College).
Again we're not talking about the metro, we're talking about what constitutes a "Suburb" .... Reading is apart of the Philadelphia metro, however Reading is NOT a Suburb of Philadelphia.
Pittsburgh's Suburbs barely reach beyond the borders of Allegheny County. I don't know why Philly folks are trying to argue this.
Again we're not talking about the metro, we're talking about what constitutes a "Suburb" .... Reading is apart of the Philadelphia metro, however Reading is NOT a Suburb of Philadelphia.
Pittsburgh's Suburbs barely reach beyond the borders of Allegheny County. I don't know why Philly folks are trying to argue this.
Well, you got something else wrong here:
Berks County is not part of the Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE MSA, though it is part of the Philadelphia-Reading-Camden, PA-NJ-DE-MD CSA (Combined Statistical Area).
The Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington MSA consists of the following eleven counties:
In Pennsylvania: Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery, Philadelphia In New Jersey: Burlington, Camden, Gloucester, Salem In Delaware: New Castle In Maryland: Cecil
I still maintain your definition of a "suburb" is too narrow, and that the Census Bureau's definition of a metropolitan area gets closer to capturing the economic interdependence of a city region. But I can see something to your definition: for instance, Chester, Pa., the oldest and poorest city in the Commonwealth and the original county seat of first Chester, then Delaware County, definitely has its own "suburbs": Parkside, Trainer and Upland boroughs, and Aston, Chester and Brookhaven townships.
Yet I was one of several Philadelphians who commuted to a job in Chester for a while. Hence the metropolitan interconnection that this narrow definition misses.
However: In the six New England states, where counties are pretty much nonentities, the Census Bureau uses cities and towns as the building blocks of MSAs. Were we to do that in the Mid-Atlantic region, we probably would find that parts of the counties included in an MSA aren't really part of the metropolitan commutershed (Upper Bucks County in this area, for instance, or the eastern half of Burlington County in New Jersey, as that county stretches almost all the way across the state).But: Since the commute the Census Bureau uses is not necessarily one into the core city, we might not find this to be the case. An Upper Bucks resident, for instance, could drive to work in Lansdale or Bristol, both of which are in the metropolitan commutershed.
Edited to add: I will give you this much: Reading is no more a "suburb" of Philadelphia than Wilmington is. Both are better understood as "satellite cities." Moreover, they are satellite cities because the larger metropolis nearby expanded to encompass their commutersheds; once upon a time they were separate "metropolitan" centers in their own right.
I do wonder how did non Hispanic and non Jewish White population in Pittsburgh voted compared to other metro areas. While the metro is more red than others in the Northeast, it is also much whiter. It doesn't have the Hispanic and Black populations like other metros do. Other counties may have moved right, but Allegheny went more blue as Clinton had more votes than Obama and Trump had fewer than Romney. The difference between Allegheny and the surrounding counties continues to grow and I doubt they'll ever notice it.
In 2012, 49% of Allegheny's NHW population voted for Obama.
Pittsburgh and Philadelphia also have social/cultural attitude differences that aren't reflected in a straight Dem/Repub vote. In Franklin & Marshall polls since 2000, Allegheny County voters have been much more strongly opposed to gun control, same sex marriage and abortion than voters in Philadelphia's suburban counties.
That is surprising and I can agree that currently Zelienople is the northern most exurb. However, that may change in the future with all of the development in that area.
No way. The growth is far past Zelie. I know people looking for homes with land in Eastern Lawrence county because Butler County has become too expensive. I have friends that drive in to the city for work from Northern Beaver County. I don't know how anyone can say Beaver County isn't a suburb of Pittsburgh. Heck, drive east down the turnpike and the growth goes to New Stanton. Do even half of these posters live in Pittsburgh?
No way. The growth is far past Zelie. I know people looking for homes with land in Eastern Lawrence county because Butler County has become too expensive. I have friends that drive in to the city for work from Northern Beaver County. I don't know how anyone can say Beaver County isn't a suburb of Pittsburgh. Heck, drive east down the turnpike and the growth goes to New Stanton. Do even half of these posters live in Pittsburgh?
People have always driven to jobs in Pittsburgh from much farther than New Stanton. People have driven from places in Fayette County around Connellsville, Uniontown, and the mountains to the east. Many people also commute from the Donegal and Somerset areas.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Pennsylvania has over 900,000 more registered Democrats than Republicans. By simple measure of what the majority of residents actually identify with politically and believe overall in their heart-of-hearts about policy decisions, it's a blue state. That's a fact.
That's no guarantee that those voters will vote for Democrats in gubernatorial or presidential elections. The huge voter shift in NEPA showed that the Democratic party voter registration edge doesn't mean as much as some thought.
That's no guarantee that those voters will vote for Democrats in gubernatorial or presidential elections. The huge voter shift in NEPA showed that the Democratic party voter registration edge doesn't mean as much as some thought.
There were some notable shifts, but they were clearly limited to very specific geographic areas.
If you look at exit polling, the idea of the massive cross-over vote from Democrats did not, in fact, happen. There was only a 2% greater amount of cross-over voting in 2016 as compared to 2012 among Democrats AND Republicans (that is, D's went from voting 9% R in 2012 to 11% R in 2016; R's went from voting 7% D in 2012 to 9% D in 2016).
Heck, despite the media's obsession with them during this cycle, Whites only voted 1% more Republican in 2016 versus 2012 in Pennsylvania according to the exit polling (+15 R in 2012 versus +16 R in 2016).
As I noted before, the principal reason that Trump very narrowly took the Blue Wall was a significant shift in the turnout pool--more Republicans and fewer Democrats (ostensibly far fewer African-Americans).
If you again look at very same exit polls, you'll see a net Democratic turnout of +10 in 2012 versus +3 in 2016--a 7% shift toward the Republicans in turnout alone. And, again, when you throw in a slightly greater edge for Republicans among Independent voters in 2016 (+8 R) versus 2012 (+5 R), Trump scored with a (barely) winning formula that was for so many years elusive to Republican presidential candidates.
There were some notable shifts, but they were clearly limited to very specific geographic areas.
If you look at exit polling, the idea of the massive cross-over vote from Democrats did not, in fact, happen. There was only a 2% greater amount of cross-over voting in 2016 as compared to 2012 among Democrats AND Republicans (that is, D's went from voting 9% R in 2012 to 11% R in 2016; R's went from voting 7% D in 2012 to 9% D in 2016).
Heck, despite the media's obsession with them during this cycle, Whites only voted 1% more Republican in 2016 versus 2012 in Pennsylvania according to the exit polling (+15 R in 2012 versus +16 R in 2016).
As I noted before, the principal reason that Trump very narrowly took the Blue Wall was a significant shift in the turnout pool--more Republicans and fewer Democrats (ostensibly far fewer African-Americans).
If you again look at very same exit polls, you'll see a net Democratic turnout of +10 in 2012 versus +3 in 2016--a 7% shift toward the Republicans in turnout alone. And, again, when you throw in a slightly greater edge for Republicans among Independent voters in 2016 (+8 R) versus 2012 (+5 R), Trump scored with a (barely) winning formula that was for so many years elusive to Republican presidential candidates.
There must have been some significant cross-over voting (meaning people who voted Obama in 2012 voted Trump in 2016) simply due to the size of the shifts.
In 2012, 123,741 votes were cast in Luzerne County, and Obama won 63,974 (51.7%) of those votes. In 2016, 132,731 votes were cast in Luzerne County, and Trump won 77,508 (58.8%). That's not simply a case of low Democratic turnout. For a swing of that magnitude to occur, you have to have a sizable portion of former Obama voters who voted for Trump.
I think the low African American turnout may have been a cause of Clinton's losses in Michigan and Wisconsin, but not Pennsylvania. Clinton banked 455,124 net votes in Philadelphia compared to 465,184 for Obama in 2012. She still would have lost even if she had equaled Obama's margins in Philadelphia in 2012.
I don't think there should be any dispute that Trump won Pennsylvania by significantly outperforming Romney among Non-Hispanic Whites in parts of the state outside of the Delaware Valley.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
https://www.city-data.com/forum/pennsylvania/2675342-pa-now-more-like-wv-oh-post46567888.html#post46567888
