- Pennsylvania: The Keystone to America’s Political Future - November 3, 2024
A former president at a McDonald’s fry station, an assassination attempt that shook the nation, Ukraine’s President inspecting an ammunition plant and the vice president on a cross-state tour with a crowd of Republicans. As the 2024 presidential election approaches, all eyes are once again on Pennsylvania—the state that has, in recent years, been the kingmaker in national politics. In a nation more polarized than ever, Pennsylvania remains a wild card, its unique blend of urban progressivism and rural conservatism representing the heart of America’s political divide. But how did Pennsylvania, once a bastion of industrial strength, become the key of American elections? The answer lies in its complex history of economic transformation and demographic shifts, which continue to shape its role as the ultimate swing state.
Pennsylvania has never been just another state; it’s the mirror of America’s political soul, and right now, that mirror reflects a fragmented, conflicted identity. Rooted in the industrial powerhouse that once drove the nation’s economy, the state’s political culture emerged from the steel mills and coal mines of Pittsburgh, Scranton, and Allentown. Back then, unions were king, and Democratic Party loyalty was nearly a birthright. (Fort, T. C., Pierce, J. R., & Schott, P. K. 2018). But those days are long gone. The closure of factories and the global shifts in economic power have cracked the foundation of Pennsylvania’s political alliances, leaving both parties scrambling to capture its unpredictable electorate.
What was once a clear-cut map of labor strongholds and Republican-leaning rural regions has become a mosaic of contradictions. Suburban counties, once the pride of Republican strategists, now lean left as educated professionals, immigrants, and younger voters flood the Philadelphia suburbs. Meanwhile, the old industrial heartlands—disillusioned and economically battered—have become fertile ground for populist, protectionist rhetoric. The state’s volatile landscape is the product of this economic fracture and the cultural anxieties that followed, reshaping its identity into something far more elusive than the political models of the past.
The story of Pennsylvania’s political shift can’t be told without understanding its economic collapse. Globalization didn’t just erode the competitiveness of the state’s once-mighty manufacturing sector—it decimated entire communities (Scala, D. J., & Johnson, K. M. 2017). Towns built around steel mills and coal mines became the Rust Belt’s poster children for job loss and economic despair. And with that decline came a seismic shift in political identity. For decades, Democrats counted on the loyalty of these working-class voters, but as factories closed and jobs vanished, many felt abandoned by the party of labor.
This disillusionment has bred a political volatility that candidates like Donald Trump have been able to exploit, not with traditional conservative policies, but with populist promises of protectionism, nationalistic pride, and the restoration of American industry. The Reagan Democrats of the 1980s were the first tremor, but by 2016, Pennsylvania’s once-reliable Democratic base had been fully disrupted. Now, the Rust Belt is a battleground, with disillusioned union workers aligning with Republicans in an unprecedented shift that has redefined Pennsylvania’s political landscape.
The political battlefield isn’t confined to old industrial towns. Pennsylvania’s suburbs, especially around Philadelphia, have undergone a demographic revolution. Once a bastion of Republican strength, these suburban areas are now trending Democratic, a shift accelerated by an influx of immigrants, young professionals, and college-educated voters. The issues that resonate here are not those of the Rust Belt. Healthcare, education, environmental policy, and social justice dominate the discourse, and these suburban voters, unlike their rural counterparts, are often more progressive on such issues.
But this isn’t just a straightforward shift from red to blue. The state’s political map now looks more like a mosaic, where the suburban-urban divide intertwines with the rural heartland’s conservatism. It’s this complexity that makes Pennsylvania such a wild card in national elections. Winning here requires threading the needle between these divergent constituencies, and both parties must craft messages that resonate with an increasingly fragmented electorate.
The Battle for Pennsylvania: 2008 to 2020
The last few election cycles have crystallized Pennsylvania’s unpredictable nature.
Pennsylvania’s political unpredictability is not simply a byproduct of voter sentiment shifts—it’s the battleground where tactical election strategy and demographic reality collide. Over the years, presidential campaigns have learned the art of harnessing state-specific dynamics to swing crucial electoral votes. As Richard Powell (2004) suggests, even in a world of nationalized strategies, the nuances of local factors—like a candidate’s home state or the choice of a running mate—can tip the scales in a fiercely contested election. Pennsylvania has long been the stage where these delicate moves play out, revealing a pattern of strategic finesse that remains critical to winning the White House. Take, for example, the phenomenon of the “home-state advantage.” Powell highlights how candidates, particularly vice-presidential picks, often see an electoral bump when hailing from a pivotal state. Pennsylvania has seen this in action multiple times—whether it’s candidates leveraging regional pride or their ability to appeal to the local economic concerns that resonate so deeply in the state’s post-industrial regions. Powell underscores that, although the margins may seem small, in a place like Pennsylvania, where elections are decided by razor-thin margins, these local factors can be decisive.
Yet Powell doesn’t stop at the obvious. He for example also looks into the fading myth of convention-site selection as a strategic boost, debunking the assumption that hosting a party’s convention will yield significant electoral rewards in that state. Pennsylvania has played host before, but Powell’s findings make it clear: these grand displays of political theater rarely move the needle. The real electoral levers remain in the nuanced, tactical decisions on home-state appeal, and the strategic deployment of candidates who can galvanize local voters—factors still alive and well in Pennsylvania’s volatile political landscape.
Powell (2004) also cuts through the conventional political playbook to expose a well-entrenched myth: the idea that having a governor from the same party provides a significant edge in presidential elections. For decades, campaigns have funneled resources into gubernatorial races, banking on the belief that these state leaders can rally voters, secure media attention, and mobilize the ground game to tip the scales in close elections. It’s a comforting narrative, reinforced by cases like George W. Bush’s 2000 campaign, where GOP governors were credited with helping secure early wins.
But Powell challenges this assumption, pointing to studies like Alan Abramowitz’s (2002), which show that gubernatorial control has almost no measurable impact on presidential votes. Even in Pennsylvania, where high-profile governors like Ed Rendell (Democrat, 2003-2011) and Tom Corbett (Republican, 2011-2015) were expected to deliver crucial victories for their respective parties, the data indicates little correlation between gubernatorial influence and presidential outcomes. Despite the persistent belief that governors can marshal in-state resources to deliver electoral wins, Powell’s analysis suggests this influence is more fiction than fact. In an age where party machines have faded and national campaigns dominate, even in key battlegrounds like Pennsylvania, the electoral advantage tied to state governorships is less relevant than many believe.
Current Governor Josh Shapiro, elected in 2022, has similarly focused on state-level governance, but whether his influence and national media attention will affect Pennsylvania’s swing-state status in the 2024 presidential election remains uncertain. Shapiro’s ability to navigate key issues such as the economy and healthcare may impact voter sentiment, but the national dynamics of presidential races are likely to continue overshadowing gubernatorial influence.
Shifting Political Dynamics: 2008-2020
The period from 2008 to 2020 witnessed profound shifts in Pennsylvania’s political landscape. Historically, Pennsylvania had leaned Democratic in presidential elections, largely due to its industrial base and working-class voters in cities such as Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. However, as the state’s economy changed and its demographics evolved, Pennsylvania became a key battleground, with both major political parties focusing heavily on winning its 19 electoral votes. A change from 20, after the 2020 census results (Le Wang 2021). The state’s economy, transitioning from manufacturing to services, saw losses in manufacturing jobs, which disproportionately affected areas like Allegheny and Luzerne counties, altering voting behavior. Between 2000 and 2020, the state lost over 300,000 manufacturing jobs (Miller, C. 2020), pushing many disaffected workers toward populist messaging. The growing suburban regions, such as Montgomery County, simultaneously became critical voting blocs, with affluent suburban areas increasingly shifting to the Democratic side.
The Obama Elections: 2008 and 2012
In the 2008 and 2012 elections, Pennsylvania played a central role in Barack Obama’s electoral victories. In 2008, Obama won the state with 54.7% of the vote (New York Times 2008), capitalizing on widespread discontent with the George W. Bush administration and the economic recession that deeply affected Pennsylvania’s industrial and manufacturing sectors. The collapse of the steel industry in Pittsburgh and the closure of coal mines in counties like Greene and Fayette had a significant political impact. Obama’s message of hope and change resonated with voters across the state, particularly in urban areas and among younger voters, minorities, and the growing suburban population. The city of Philadelphia, for example, delivered a significant share of the votes, with Obama receiving over 85% of the vote in 2008 (PA Department of State 2008).
His iconic “A More Perfect Union” speech, which is argued by some to have been a deciding factor (Hertzberg, H. 2008) to propel him to national stardom, was not delivered in Philadelphia without reason. Addressing racial tensions at the National Constitution Center, Obama sought to root his message of unity in the very state where the nation’s founding principles were written. The speech, considered a turning point in his candidacy (Pew Research Center, 2008), resonated widely, helping to quell controversy and solidify his standing in the Democratic primary race.
Obama’s ability to connect with working-class voters in key areas such as Scranton and Erie also contributed to his success. These regions, which had traditionally supported Democratic candidates due to their unionized workforce and economic challenges, responded favorably to Obama’s focus on economic recovery and job creation (Greenhouse, S. 2008) His campaign effectively mobilized these voters, securing his victory in Pennsylvania and solidifying the state’s Democratic-leaning tendencies during this period. In Scranton, for instance, Obama won more than 60% of the vote in 2008, (PA Department of State 2008) continuing the area’s strong support for Democratic policies.
In 2012, Obama faced a more challenging re-election campaign against Republican candidate Mitt Romney. Although his margin of victory in Pennsylvania narrowed to 51.97%, he was able to maintain his support among key demographic groups, including African American voters in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh and white working-class voters in smaller industrial towns. African American voter turnout was especially significant, with Obama winning over 90% of the Black vote in Philadelphia. Obama’s focus on the auto industry bailout, which benefited Pennsylvania’s manufacturing sector, helped him retain support in regions that had been hit hard by the economic downturn, including cities like Erie, which saw increased investment in manufacturing jobs during his tenure.
The Trump Election: 2016
The 2016 presidential election marked a significant turning point in Pennsylvania’s political dynamics. Donald Trump’s victory in the state—by a narrow margin of 44,292 votes or 0.72%— (PA Department of State 2016) was a dramatic departure from previous elections. Trump’s success in Pennsylvania was emblematic of a broader shift in the political preferences of white working-class voters, particularly in rural and post-industrial regions of the state. In Luzerne County, for example, Trump flipped the area with a commanding 58% of the vote (PA Department of State 2016), despite it historically being a Democratic stronghold.
Trump’s populist message, which emphasized economic nationalism, opposition to trade deals, and a promise to revitalize manufacturing, resonated with voters who felt left behind by globalization and economic change. His ability to appeal to voters in the Rust Belt, including Pennsylvania, was a key factor in his electoral success (Shaw, D. 2016). Regions such as Luzerne County, which had historically voted Democratic, swung heavily toward Trump, reflecting the broader trend of disaffected working-class voters abandoning the Democratic Party in favor of Trump’s promises of economic renewal. Unemployment rates in counties like Luzerne and Lackawanna had hovered above the national average, with trade and factory closures being central campaign issues.
Trump’s success in Pennsylvania also highlighted the growing political divide between urban and rural areas. While he performed well in rural counties and post-industrial towns, Hillary Clinton maintained strong support in urban centers like Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, as well as in affluent suburban counties such as Montgomery and Bucks. However, Clinton’s failure to connect with working-class voters in the state’s smaller towns and rural areas ultimately cost her Pennsylvania’s electoral votes, with exit polls indicating she underperformed among non-college-educated white voters, losing this group by 30 points (PA Department of State 2016).
The Biden Election: 2020
Joe Biden’s victory in Pennsylvania in the 2020 election marked a return to Democratic dominance in the state, but it also underscored the ongoing volatility of Pennsylvania’s political landscape. Biden, who was born in Scranton, Pennsylvania, emphasized his connection to the state and his commitment to addressing the economic concerns of working-class voters. His campaign focused on rebuilding the middle class, expanding healthcare access, and combating the COVID-19 pandemic—issues that resonated with voters across Pennsylvania. Biden flipped critical counties such as Erie and Northampton (PA Department of State 2020), which had swung toward Trump in 2016, narrowing Trump’s advantage in areas reliant on manufacturing.
Biden’s success in Pennsylvania was driven by several key factors. First, he was able to reclaim support in regions that had swung toward Trump in 2016, particularly in suburban counties around Philadelphia, where voters were disillusioned with Trump’s handling of the pandemic and his divisive rhetoric. Biden’s campaign effectively mobilized these suburban voters, particularly women and college-educated individuals, who had shifted away from the Republican Party in recent years. In Montgomery County, Biden secured 62% of the vote (PA Department of State 2020), a significant increase from Clinton’s 2016 performance.
Second, Biden’s emphasis on unity and his moderate policy positions helped him win back some of the white working-class voters who had supported Trump in 2016. While Trump continued to perform well in rural areas, Biden was able to narrow the margins in key counties that had previously swung heavily toward Trump, such as Erie and Lackawanna. Erie County, in particular, played a pivotal role as it swung back to Biden with a narrow 1,500-vote lead, reflecting the shifting dynamics in traditionally Democratic strongholds. Additionally, Biden’s strong support among African American voters in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh was critical to his victory in the state. Philadelphia’s turnout delivered over 500,000 votes for Biden (PA Department of State 2020), accounting for a large portion of his statewide lead.
Ultimately, Biden won Pennsylvania by a margin of 81,660 votes, or 1.17% (PA Department of State 2020), securing the state’s 20 electoral votes and helping to propel him to the presidency. His victory in Pennsylvania underscored the importance of the state as a political battleground, as well as the ongoing shifts in voter preferences and party strategies that have shaped its electoral outcomes.
2024 Outlook:
With only a few days left until election day and early voting already showing signs of a high turnout (Piper, J. 2024), Pennsylvania is poised to be the decisive battleground. In urban counties like Philadelphia, high turnout among African American and young voters remains crucial for Democrats, but the suburbs are where the real game is played. Counties like Montgomery and Bucks, which shifted significantly blue in recent years, are battlegrounds for voter registration efforts, especially targeting disaffected Republicans and newly registered independents. Meanwhile, rural counties like Luzerne and York, where Trump’s populist rhetoric has resonated deeply, are expected to maintain high voter turnout despite economic challenges (Collins, K., & Williams, J. 2024). The question is whether these traditionally red regions can outpace the growth of new suburban and urban voters, or whether Democrats’ emphasis on healthcare, economic recovery, and unifying rhetoric will sway these key areas. Pennsylvania’s demographic makeup, with increasing Latino populations in places like Allentown and rising suburban college-educated voters, makes for a complex and unpredictable race, and turnout across diverse counties will determine the winner in what’s shaping up to be another nail-biter.
Conclusion
So, what’s next for Pennsylvania? The forces of economic dislocation, cultural anxiety, and demographic change that have shaped its political landscape show no sign of slowing down. The old playbooks no longer apply. For Democrats, the challenge lies in holding onto their growing suburban base while reconnecting with the working-class voters they’ve lost. For Republicans, it’s about maintaining their appeal to disillusioned industrial communities while finding a way to win back suburban voters who have been repelled by Trump-era populism.
Ultimately, Pennsylvania remains the keystone in the arch of American politics. Its swing state status is not a relic of the past but a reflection of the nation’s deepest divisions. As long as these forces continue to shape the state, Pennsylvania will remain a bellwether for the future of U.S. elections. In many ways, as Pennsylvania goes, so goes the country—and as the 2024 election looms, the state’s unpredictable electorate will once again hold the key to the White House.
Suggested further Readings:
A Tale of Two Cities: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, and the Elusive Quest for a New Deal Majority in the Keystone State.
Beyond the Blue Wall: Exploring the Risks of Political Unrest in the 2024 Presidential Election.
The Improbable Coalition That Is Harris’s Best Hope
The three factors that will decide the election
References:
Abramowitz, A. I. (2002). Gubernatorial Influence in Presidential Elections: Fact or Myth. PS: Political Science and Politics, 35(4), 701–703. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1554813
Powell, R. J. (2004). The Strategic Importance of State-Level Factors in Presidential Elections. Publius, 34(3), 115–130. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20184913
Lo Wang, H., Hanzhang Jin, C., & Levitt, Z. (2021, April 26). Here’s how the 1st 2020 census results changed electoral college, House seats. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2021/04/26/983082132/census-to-release-1st-results-that-shift-electoral-college-house-seats
Miller, C. (2020, November 16). The decades-long decline of manufacturing jobs in Pa. | The Numbers Racket. Pennsylvania Capital-Star. https://penncapital-star.com/labor/the-decades-long-decline-of-manufacturing-jobs-in-pa-the-numbers-racket/
Hertzberg, H. (2008, November 8). Obama wins. The New Yorker. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2008/11/17/obama-wins
Pew Research Center. (2008, March 27). Obama and Wright controversy dominate news cycle: Public interest in economic news reaches 15-year high. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2008/03/27/obama-and-wright-controversy-dominate-news-cycle/
Scala, D. J., & Johnson, K. M. (2017). Political Polarization Along The Rural-urban Continuum? The Geography Of The Presidential Vote, 2000–2016. The Annals Of The American Academy Of Political And Social Science, 672, 162–184. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26362022
Fort, T. C., Pierce, J. R., & Schott, P. K. (2018). New Perspectives on the Decline of US Manufacturing Employment. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 32(2), 47–72. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26409424
Shaw, D. (2016). Assessing the Impact of Campaigning in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election. Zeitschrift Für Politikberatung (ZPB) / Policy Advice and Political Consulting, 8(1), 15–23. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26427264
Piper, J. (2024, October 20). Who has cast mail ballots so far in Pennsylvania? Highly engaged voters. Politico. https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/10/20/2024-elections-live-coverage-updates-analysis/pennsylvania-mail-ballot-vote-history-00184543
Greenhouse, S. (2008, May 6). Teamsters union defends its endorsement of Obama. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/06/us/politics/06teamsters.html
Election data and statistics 2008-2020 from Pennsylvania Department of State. (n.d.). Election returns. Pennsylvania Department of State. Retrieved October 21, 2024, from https://www.electionreturns.pa.gov/
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}