A Tale of Two Metropolitan Areas: Part Three

Lessons Learned

After completing Parts One and Two about how Pennsylvania's two major metropolitan areas are shifting politically, there are some lessons we can learn from the past election.

Republicans have precious few areas where they can run up large margins.  One thing I consistently found looking at municipal level data across two divergent metropolitan areas is a lack of high population areas that Republicans dominate.  It is true that Republicans excel in some areas.  But they are either sparsely populated rural areas or exurban developments without significant population yet.  By contrast, Democrats can count on many highly populated places to give them large margins.  Democrats have traditionally been the party of the cities, so it is no surprise that they run up huge vote totals there.  Republicans were traditionally able to counter this by similarly large rural margins, and impressive suburban totals.  These days however, the ability for Republicans to win big votes in the suburbs isn't there.

The Pittsburgh and Philadelphia areas are stand-ins for two types of political regions and how their politics are shifting.  The Philadelphia area represents the swing of the college-educated and non-whites towards Democrats.  The same phenomenon has happened in Northern Virginia, Long Island, suburban Chicago, St. Louis County, and even Orange County.  If you wonder why Republicans are shut out nationally, it is because their candidates are receiving 45 percent of the vote in Nassau County, 40 percent in Fairfax County, and 42 percent in Dallas County.  McCain barely broke 50 percent in Orange County, the living embodiment of Reagan's America!

The Pittsburgh area represents the swing of non-college educated whites towards Republicans.  Western Pennsylvania is an ancillary part of the one section of the country that has moved towards Republicans, the Interior South.  Western Pennsylvania is quite obviously not part of the South, and most of the areas I described in Part Two wouldn't be classified as part of Appalachia (I left those counties out).  But it does share some cultural affinities with the South.  After all, who was Obama talking about when he made his "bitter clinger" speech?  He should have known that even prosperous suburbanites in suburban Pittsburgh go hunting.  This countercyclical direction reminds me of Western Pennsylvania's turn towards national Democrats such as Mondale and Dukakis, even as they were getting slaughtered nationwide.

What is really disquieting for the future is that, at least in 2008, the Republican Party is on the losing side of demographic change.  On paper, you would prefer to have the Philadelphia Metro area swinging your way rather than the Pittsburgh Metro area coming your way.  Part of this preference is based upon the Philadelphia area's greater diversity.  Compare the non-white population in each of these counties in 2000:

Philadelphia Metro:

• Delaware County: 21.2%
• Montgomery County: 15.6%
• Bucks County: 12.5%
• Chester County: 14.5%

Pittsburgh Metro:

• Allegheny County: 16.5%
• Westmoreland County: 3.9%
• Butler County: 2.8%
• Washington County: 5.3%
• Beaver County: 8.2%

Keep in mind that in the interceding nine years, these percentages have only increased in Metro Philadelphia, and have not declined in Metro Pittsburgh.  The era of monolithically white suburbs not only is over, but has been over for some time.  The Republican Party has not adapted to that reality.  It has only been able to keep pace in areas with little diversity.  By some measures, the Pittsburgh area has the lowest percentage of Hispanics of any major metropolitan area in the country.  My high school, right north of the city limits of Pittsburgh, was 95 percent white.  A similar school in suburban Philadelphia would certainly have more minorities.

In the Philadelphia area, the Republican Party does best with those who are middle-class and above.  This is to say that once you reach a certain income level, roughly $50,000 household income in 2000, income cannot predict how you will vote.  There is great fluctuation between different communities, with some municipalities at a certain income level casting 60 percent of their votes for McCain and others giving him 30 percent.  A better way to view the Republican Party in the Philadelphia area is to view it as the The Party of the Periphery, only strong in semi-rural areas outside most suburban development.

In the Pittsburgh area, the Republican Party is strongest with the upper-middle class.  Western Pennsylvania follows a more traditional pattern where the more money you have, generally the more likely you are to be Republican.  It is not quite as steep a divide as it would have been 50 years ago and rich areas like Fox Chapel are immune to this, but Pittsburgh's suburban bourgeoisie is instinctively Republican.  In Allegheny County, McCain earned over 60 percent of the vote in the following municipalities: Pine Township, Sewickley Heights, Richland Township, Marshall Township, Franklin Park, and Bradford Woods.  With the exception of wealthy Sewickley Heights, these areas are all certainly upper-middle class.  They are also all adjoining to each other, part of either the North Allegheny or Pine-Richland School Districts in the North Hills.  Compare them to communities of similar incomes in the Philadelphia area; for instance, the municipalities making up the Council Rock School District.  The five municipalities that comprise Council Rock gave McCain the following percentages: 57 percent, 53 percent, 46 percent, 52 percent, and 43 percent.  While a series of neighboring communities in the Pittsburgh area votes more or less the same, a similar set of communities in suburban Philadelphia show little coherence in their voting patterns.

There is not one simple strategy for Republicans to reconnect with Pennsylvania voters.  Some think that the party needs to moderate on social issues, because they are killing GOP prospects in moderate suburbs.  In the case of the Philadelphia suburbs, I think this is true.  But outside of Southeastern Pennsylvania, Republican stands on social issues gain more votes than they lose.  Pennsylvania is a very open state on cultural issues, with any non-radical/reactionary approach being electorally viable.  Similarly, some conservatives advocate a move towards a very populist Republican Party that has no truck for "elites".  It would be a mass movement of "the people", meaning non-educated professionals.  This also wouldn't help, as it would finish off the Republican Party in the Philadelphia area while perhaps reversing the Republican advantage among Pittsburgh suburbanites.  A Republican Party that draws its base more narrow will only create a larger Democratic Party.  A Republican Revival is not a simple matter of ditching issues or eschewing certain constituencies.

What I take out of the past election is that the traditional shape of Pennsylvania politics is gone.  For over a century, Chester County was part of any winning Republican coalition.  The idea that a Republican could lose Chester County and even be remotely competitive would've been fanciful.  Likewise, since the New Deal, Beaver County was part of a Democratic winning coalition.  Only perceived radicals like McGovern could prevent residents from punching their tickets for Democrats.  But traditonal allegiances have been shed.  It seems as though certain groups of people can never be part of the same party in a two-party system (The South and New England have never been together in any party system).  Now, the Republican Party in Pennsylvania has gone from being the party of The Philadelphia Story to the party of The Deerhunter.