It seems funny, at least to this native Pennsylvanian, that after months of political maneuvering, hours of media pandering, and miles of jet-setting across the nation in an attitude not unlike the frenzied prospector in search of hidden bits of gold (in this case, replace “gold” with “elderly retirees” and “fence-sitting independents”), this race for the White House would hinge so greatly on the outcome of April’s Pennsylvania Primaries. Much of the mainstream media (of course discounting that crazy old uncle known as Fox News Channel) is pretty much determined, with zero percent of the precincts reporting, that whoever is the Democratic candidate for President will ultimately take the White House in November. With this it seems very likely that the results of Pennsylvania’s primary just might be, pardon the pun, the keystone upon which the victor will gallivant all the way to Pennsylvania Avenue.
A look at the current delegate tallies between the two candidates shows a lead for Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton, though the totals are not too far off. If anything, it seems to show a split in the American Democrat, since neither candidate could procure enough delegates to clinch a win. As a resident of Pennsylvania and an occasional watcher of news programs, satirical or otherwise, I have seen an awful lot of attention cast towards this state, both by the media and the candidates themselves. Both sides have made numerous visits, and many pundits whose credentials tell us they are to be trusted are certain that Pennsylvania’s outcome could mean the end of one candidate’s campaign. As a Pennsylvania Democrat with every intention to vote in the primary, I feel both a considerable amount of pressure and just a little bit of doubt that the Keystone State will provide the best gauge or absolute clincher for breaking this logjam between Clinton and Obama. In fact, it might be just as split as the rest of the nation.
Although recent polls indicate a double-digit lead for Hillary Clinton, support from in-state politicos has not been nearly as consistent. While Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell and Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter have both pinned their support for the New York Senator, Senator Robert Casey, generally considered a conservative democrat for certain social stances, has recently come out in support of Senator Barack Obama. This latter endorsement could be more significant, given the demographics of Pennsylvanians. What is interesting to consider is the geographic—and therefore political—set-up of the state. On both the extreme west and
east of the state are its two largest cities, Pittsburgh and Philadelphia. Both have significant populations of union workers and racial minorities, which are often cited as leading demographics in the Democratic Party. Yet the middle of the state, besides the State capital of Harrisburg, is primarily rural country, sparsely populated yet generally different in political affiliation with each end of the state. In a sense, this configuration is not too different from the United States at large, since both the West and East Coasts in recent history have been considered “blue states” while much of what is called the “Heartland” has been traditionally “red.” In the past few Presidential elections, the Democratic Party has carried the state, mainly on the backs of its Democratic juggernaut in the big cities. Yet even with
these similarities, it might be noted that the Pennsylvania Democrat isn’t entirely like those found in, say, California or Texas.
As mentioned earlier, a strong union presence amidst those who fall under the moniker of “blue collar” helps contribute to the Democratic Party’s success in Pennsylvania. In short, bearing in mind the inevitable exception, many Pennsylvanians affiliate themselves along party lines for economic reasons in spite of incompatible social stances, much the same way that many Republicans often concede their party’s economic stances (which ultimately might not be beneficial to them) in lieu of their considerably conservative social stances. With the common belief, if not stereotype, that Senator Obama holds stances that are generally more left of those of Senator Clinton, it is no surprise, then, that Clinton holds a double-digit lead in preliminary polling of Pennsylvania voters. Yet, as mentioned, the endorsement of conservative Democrat Senator Casey for Barack Obama might help sway some Pennsylvania Democrats who might not see the two candidates as polar opposites in their ideology any longer. It is hard to say whether the socially more moderate Pennsylvania Democrat that otherwise has similar economic stances with the rest of the party’s national constituency is so far preferential to Clinton due to her stigma as “less liberal,” though recent Presidential elections seem to indicate for the state a heavier importance of economic matters.
On April 22nd the rest of my state and I will have an important decision to make, one that might mean the whole kit and caboodle for the “Ballot Bowl,” as CNN so colorfully puts it. For purposes of not wanting to seem slanted or dictatorial I will not indicate which way I am leaning, but the issues I raised regarding what may be the important issues for other Pennsylvania Democrats are very similar to the ones that require my own discernment. It might even be strange to say that regardless of who receives my vote on April 22nd, he or she will not receive my support in the
November election; that is, if I opt to vote for John McCain. For those who
wish for a clearer picture after the dust has settled from the Pennsylvania Primary, I say I would not be surprised if things just might be all the more nebulous.
