The Politico - March 18, 2008

 

Pennsylvania: More than new Ohio

oor Pennsylvania. As the national media focuses on the Keystone State, it has earned a new and less than admirable moniker: The other Ohio.

Of course, this description also mirrors the hope of Hillary Rodham Clinton for whom the hard-pressed, semi-depressed Buckeye State presented a political field of dreams. Moreover, to be sure, Pennsylvania’s Appalachian string of devastated former mining and mill towns constitutes its own private Ohio. The two states’ are similar in other ways; for example, proportions of African-American and other minority residents – around 15 percent - also are roughly similar.

However, beneath the similarities lie important and perhaps critical differences. Sen. Clinton’s new message of old style pessimism not surprisingly played well in Ohio in large part because it is stronger ties to an old-line Great Lakes auto industry now in free-fall. Outside of Columbus, its economy is generally so bad that, even though its housing prices did not rise much in the bubble, the state is also reeling from a rash of foreclosures.

In contrast, Pennsylvania’s three percent job growth since 2003 – admittedly below the national average – has been jackrabbit fast compared to the Buckeye State’s pathetic .5 percent. Most importantly, no place in Ohio remotely corresponds to the size, scale and complexity of the greater Philadelphia region, with its large concentrations of high-end technology and business service employment.

“I’m insulted when people compare Pennsylvania to Ohio,” suggests Brookings Institute demographer William Frey, himself a native of Allentown. “It’s not a rust-belt state but a lot of it is like New Jersey.”

Some may argue a place can receive bigger compliments, but an analysis of its demographic done by the Praxis Strategy Group certainly points out significant divergences between the two states. Although Pennsylvania also creaks a bit as an oldster state, it is clearly not losing people at anything like the torrential rate being experienced by places like Ohio. In fact, in this decade, Pennsylvania is losing about as many migrants as its gaining.

Perhaps most important, Pennsylvania also fares much better, in terms of holding onto 28-to-50 year old people with college educations. It is nothing like the magnet for young brains like North Carolina, the site of the next major primary, but it is now losing only marginally in the race for younger, educated people. This is actually good by the standards of most Northeastern states.

This demographic group may prove a pivotal one for Sen. Obama; along with African-American, younger educated people constitute his most reliable constituency. Their ranks made all the difference in Wisconsin, much to the surprise of a media that saw the Badger State as just another Midwestern basket case. Obama will need these younger, educated workers in Pennsylvania if he is to have any hope of offsetting Clinton’s advantage with both older and working class voters as well as with the state’s small, but growing Latino population.

Perspective on the economy may be the best way to differentiate between the two candidate’s constituencies, particularly amidst the current downturn. Younger educated voters may not sense a Reaganesque “morning for America” but they appear comfortable enough to buy Obama’s vague but uplifting message of “change”. In contrast, Clinton’s more hard-pressed working class white voters need help right now and want to hear specific policies that seem to address their needs.

On a regional level, Obama’s biggest hope lies in those places where younger educated voters are concentrated. Allegheny County, with its plethora of universities and medical facilities, still constitutes one of the places in the state with an above average share of educated younger residents, even though it has been losing more of them in recent years than gaining.

However, by far the greatest opportunity lies in the Philadelphia suburbs where the percentage of under-45 year olds with at least a bachelor’s degree stands at 50 percent above the national average. It is one place in the state with strong positive in flow of this demographic group. One reason: almost all the Philly region’s net jobs in finance, business services and other high-wage professions are concentrated in these areas.

These “collar counties” could help turn greater Philadelphia into a potential bonanza for Obama. He is already well positioned in the city, which boasts large pockets of proven Obama constituencies such as African-Americans and young, largely childless white professionals.

The fast growing southeast and northeast metros, places like York and Lancaster to the south and Allentown in the north, also might offer some potential gains for Obama. These areas, our data suggests, also have begun attracting educated workers, many of whom commute across the state line to work in greater D.C. or New Jersey. A substantial number also endure the morning death march to Manhattan.

“Housing prices in eastern Pennsylvania are making it very attractive to people who work in and around New York,” reports Brookings’ Frey. “Allentown may the fastest growing large metro in the Northeast.”

Yet even if these demographic trends may help Sen. Obama, the Clinton campaign probably still holds the stronger hand across the state. Most of central and western Pennsylvania – with exceptions around Harrisburg and State College – remain overwhelmingly white, relatively low in education levels and economically distressed. Like much of Ohio, these areas seem primed to go heavily for Ms. Clinton.

Ultimately, the election in Pennsylvania will turn on two things. One will be the relative ability of each campaign to mobilize their constituencies. Obama needs to inspire his millennial generation army of enthusiasts and bring them to the polls. Mrs. Clinton, for her part, must energize the well-honed Democratic machines across the state. Money is likely not to be as decisive as organization and demographics. Obama spent twice as much on media as Clinton in Ohio but still lost decisively.

The second critical factor may be the extent to which the campaigns can poach on the other’s turf. Ms. Clinton, for example, could hope that Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter can cut into Obama’s African American base. Sen. Obama might be able to repeat his success in Wisconsin and elsewhere with white male working class voters who have shown less enthusiasm than their female counterparts have for the New York senator.

As has been commonly asserted, the demographics and economic realities of Pennsylvania still favor the Clinton campaign, but not as decisively as in far more dismal Ohio. However, to blunt Clinton’s “big state Mama” momentum, Obama will have to run a more effective campaign focused on his key constituencies. If he can do this, the Illinois phenom should be able to regain the upper hand in the next big contest on May 6 in North Carolina, a state whose more youthful demographics, large black population and much stronger economy work to his advantage.

***