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

[eschaton]

Around the country, we've increasingly seen a polarization of liberals and conservatives within the Republican and Democratic parties, but for whatever reason, it doesn't seem like the same thing has happened in Pennsylvania on the local level.

Don't get me wrong, it's not as if there's no association between ideology and the parties. But it seems like both parties have around half of their representatives in the state legislature who, functionally speaking, hold identical viewpoints regardless of party. They are "partisan" insofar as they work to advance their team, but the actual difference in how a "moderate Republican" from the Philadelphia suburbs and a "Conservative Democrat" from rural Western Pennsylvania votes seems to be very small, and mostly surrounds provincial issues like bringing home money to their district.

Again, this is the way it used to be everywhere. But in similar fairly closely divided states, like Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, etc it seems as though the extreme sides of both parties have been much better at marginalizing the old establishment. What keeps them so strong here?

[ki0eh]

Pennsylvania is a deeply conservative (small "c") state with a hyper-localized system of government, bomb-throwing change from left or right has always been resisted and fractionalized decentralization makes it more difficult. Also city/suburban/rural cleavages are confused by west/east/middle/northeast sectional lines. It seems well lubricated special interests haven't quite united ideologically either. So the path to a "tea party takeover" is much rougher here.

[BajanYankee]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Around the country, we've increasingly seen a polarization of liberals and conservatives within the Republican and Democratic parties, but for whatever reason, it doesn't seem like the same thing has happened in Pennsylvania on the local level.

Don't get me wrong, it's not as if there's no association between ideology and the parties. But it seems like both parties have around half of their representatives in the state legislature who, functionally speaking, hold identical viewpoints regardless of party. They are "partisan" insofar as they work to advance their team, but the actual difference in how a "moderate Republican" from the Philadelphia suburbs and a "Conservative Democrat" from rural Western Pennsylvania votes seems to be very small, and mostly surrounds provincial issues like bringing home money to their district.

Again, this is the way it used to be everywhere. But in similar fairly closely divided states, like Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, etc it seems as though the extreme sides of both parties have been much better at marginalizing the old establishment. What keeps them so strong here?

I don't think Pennsylvania is an exception to the national trend. I mean, is Pat Toomey's election to the Senate not evidence that Pennsylvania voters have become more conservative? The types of Republicans winning statewide contests in Pennsylania today are not like the Republicans who won statewide contests in the 80s.

And I don't think Pennsylvania is really exceptional with regard to its local politics either. They say that "all politics is local," right? If you go to South Carolina, I'm sure state representatives there display the same provincialism. Politics is nothing but horse trading and there tends to be more comity on the floor of state legislatures than there is in Congress.

And there's usually a lot of cooperation between Republicans and Democrats within Congressional delegations. That may come as a suprise to some who see Congress as a perpetual stalemate between ideologues.

[BajanYankee]

Originally Posted by ki0eh

Pennsylvania is a deeply conservative (small "c") state with a hyper-localized system of government, bomb-throwing change from left or right has always been resisted and fractionalized decentralization makes it more difficult. Also city/suburban/rural cleavages are confused by west/east/middle/northeast sectional lines. It seems well lubricated special interests haven't quite united ideologically either. So the path to a "tea party takeover" is much rougher here.

Huh?

Pennsylvania has always been a slightly left-leaning state. I say "slightly" because it's much more socially conservative than New York, Massachusetts, Maryland or New Jersey. Demographically, the makeup of the state is very similar to Ohio though Ohio tends to lean slightly to the right of center in presidential elections.

That said, the Tea Party has had success in Pennsylvania. Pat Toomey successfully ran as a Tea Party candidate on a pro-life, pro-gun rights, anti-gay rights platform.

[pman]

Originally Posted by BajanYankee

I don't think Pennsylvania is an exception to the national trend. I mean, is Pat Toomey's election to the Senate not evidence that Pennsylvania voters have become more conservative? The types of Republicans winning statewide contests in Pennsylania today are not like the Republicans who won statewide contests in the 80s.

And I don't think Pennsylvania is really exceptional with regard to its local politics either. They say that "all politics is local," right? If you go to South Carolina, I'm sure state representatives there display the same provincialism. Politics is nothing but horse trading and there tends to be more comity on the floor of state legislatures than there is in Congress.

And there's usually a lot of cooperation between Republicans and Democrats within Congressional delegations. That may come as a suprise to some who see Congress as a perpetual stalemate between ideologues.

PA sent Pat Toomey and Bob Casey. I have found Toomey to be surprisingly willing to work with others, notably Casey. I think the two represent the embodiment of the PA faction. I can't say as I much agee that your disdain for toomey represents a real shift. The fact that people can vote for toomey and casey at the same time is a mark of strength not ideological conformity

[BajanYankee]

Originally Posted by pman

PA sent Pat Toomey and Bob Casey. I have found Toomey to be surprisingly willing to work with others, notably Casey. I think the two represent the embodiment of the PA faction. I can't say as I much agee that your disdain for toomey represents a real shift. The fact that people can vote for toomey and casey at the same time is a mark of strength not ideological conformity

The United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives are two completely different things. Senators serve longer terms, which changes the dynamics of the relationships among members. And the rules that govern the Senate are very different. It's a very different culture than what exists on the other side of the Hill.

And many states will send a more conservative Republican and a more moderate Democrat to the Senate. That's not unique to Pennsylvania. Senate races don't occur in the same year like they do in the House (every two years). The political mood of the state as well as the national issues in that particular election year can largely dictate outcomes in those elections.

At the end of the day, however, the trend in nearly all states (Pennsylvania included) has been the election of Republicans who are more conservative than the Republicans elected in generations prior.

[ki0eh]

Originally Posted by BajanYankee

Huh?

Pennsylvania has always been a slightly left-leaning state. I say "slightly" because it's much more socially conservative than New York, Massachusetts, Maryland or New Jersey. Demographically, the makeup of the state is very similar to Ohio though Ohio tends to lean slightly to the right of center in presidential elections.

That said, the Tea Party has had success in Pennsylvania. Pat Toomey successfully ran as a Tea Party candidate on a pro-life, pro-gun rights, anti-gay rights platform.

It seems like we agree. Especially if you remember how Corbett with Republican majorities in both houses of the legislature pushed through liquor privatization in his first hundred days.

[BajanYankee]

It must also be kept in mind that Congress is full of men and women (mostly men) who hope to be POTUS some day. And the Senate is a more realistic political launching pad than the House (more name recognition for one). So much of what is done during their tenure in the Senate is setting the foundation for a potential run for the White House (particularly for freshmen Senators like Pat Toomey or, ahem, Barack Obama). House members, who have no realistic shot of winning the presidency, and serve a more narrow base of special interests, can afford to be more combative.

[BajanYankee]

I like this blog a lot. Anybody want to take a stab at the following question?

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.

Analyzing Swing States: Pennsylvania, Part 4 | The Politikal Blog

[pman]

Originally Posted by BajanYankee

The United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives are two completely different things. Senators serve longer terms, which changes the dynamics of the relationships among members. And the rules that govern the Senate are very different. It's a very different culture than what exists on the other side of the Hill.

And many states will send a more conservative Republican and a more moderate Democrat to the Senate. That's not unique to Pennsylvania. Senate races don't occur in the same year like they do in the House (every two years). The political mood of the state as well as the national issues in that particular election year can largely dictate outcomes in those elections.

At the end of the day, however, the trend in nearly all states (Pennsylvania included) has been the election of Republicans who are more conservative than the Republicans elected in generations prior.

and by conservative I suppose you mean pro business and job growth rather than pork barrel spending.

so people elected toomey because he's anti-gay? really? have you ever set foot in Pennsylvania?