Fun Fact: PA is Just as Much of a Swing State as OH, IA, or CO

[Nyvin]

We've seen Pennsylvania's PVI trend rightward before, it really doesn't mean as much as people here are making it out to be.



In fact PA's PVI has shifted rightward three times over the last 50 years and it hasn't crossed the threshold once.

It seems like the main reason it goes right is that the NATION's vote shifts to the left faster than PA does.     It would explain why the nominal vote totals in PA have favored Democrats in the last few elections (2004 vs 2012) despite the PVI moving away from the Dems.

[eric82oslo]

I was talking about PVI.  It amazes me how many people fail to understand the concept of PVI (and also that how the state voted in 1992 is irrelevant now).

True. If I'm not absolutely mistaken, then Colorado and Pennsylvania were both tied for being the closest tipping point state in 2012. How anyone can call that 100% Democratic is beyond me. Colorado is drifting rapidly towards Democrats and already is more Democratic than the nation, while Pennsylvania is drifting the other way, how come then that Colorado is extremely volatile while Pennsylvania is a safe Democratic state. It just doesn't make any sense.

[Torie]

We've seen Pennsylvania's PVI trend rightward before, it really doesn't mean as much as people here are making it out to be.



In fact PA's PVI has shifted rightward three times over the last 50 years and it hasn't crossed the threshold once.

It seems like the main reason it goes right is that the NATION's vote shifts to the left faster than PA does.    It would explain why the nominal vote totals in PA have favored Democrats in the last few elections (2004 vs 2012) despite the PVI moving away from the Dems.

What exactly does the bolded language mean please?  It makes no sense to me. In 2000 and 2004 the nation shifted rightward, and PA less so. In 2008 the nation sifted leftward and PA less so. In 2012, the nation shifted rightward, and PA more so. I fail to see any pattern of elasticity or whatever your point is. More to the point, is whether or not the trend to the Pubs in the last two elections is a blip or representative of a longer term trend. Charts won't help you with that.

[MT Treasurer]

The Democrats' insistence that PA is not a battleground state is both pathetic and hilarious. It was one of the few states that didn't trend Democratic from 2000-2012.

^ Yep, here's the state version of this map:

And regarding those "statistics" that are supposed to "prove" that PA is a safe blue state, well, you know what Mark Twain said: There are lies, damned lies and then there are statistics.

[DrScholl]

The problem with that notion is that Pennsylvania has areas that trended Republican, but also areas that trended Democratic or otherwise have not been elastic or are just static. Southwest Pennsylvania's trends are about maxed out at this point and it's not a large enough region to swing the state Republican enough to flip. The areas that have trended Republican are also declining in population overall.

[eric82oslo]

We've seen Pennsylvania's PVI trend rightward before, it really doesn't mean as much as people here are making it out to be.

In fact PA's PVI has shifted rightward three times over the last 50 years and it hasn't crossed the threshold once.

It seems like the main reason it goes right is that the NATION's vote shifts to the left faster than PA does.     It would explain why the nominal vote totals in PA have favored Democrats in the last few elections (2004 vs 2012) despite the PVI moving away from the Dems.

It doesn't matter much whether it leans Republican or Democratic. What matters is if its close to being the tipping point or not. It's the Electoral College that matters, not the popular vote. And right now Pennsylvania might very well be the single closest state to being the tipping point, just like it was the second closest in 2012. Now certain candidates of course have much more working class credential than other candidates - and as Pennsylvania is probably among the 10 most working class of states in the US, that matters a lot. Among those who have a lot of working class cred I think we find Sanders, Clinton, Trump, Santorum, Huckabee and probably Jim Webb as well. All of these candidates should perform better in Pennsylvania relative to other candidates. Obama was a typical candidate that had very little, if any, working class appeal, and that might explain the rightward trend of the state in the last two elections. Soon enough we'll get the answer to that.

[Torie]

The problem with that notion is that Pennsylvania has areas that trended Republican, but also areas that trended Democratic or otherwise have not been elastic or are just static. Southwest Pennsylvania's trends are about maxed out at this point and it's not a large enough region to swing the state Republican enough to flip. The areas that have trended Republican are also declining in population overall.

The Philly burbs trended a couple of points to the Pubs in 2012 and that area is growing disproportionately in PA. Ditto for Lancaster and York Counties. On what basis are you asserting that the Pub trend in Southwest PA has maxed out? Is Cambria County in SW PA by the way?

So many crystal balls here, none really data based, so little time. Is this a syndrome of youthful enthusiasm or what?

[DrScholl]

The problem with that notion is that Pennsylvania has areas that trended Republican, but also areas that trended Democratic or otherwise have not been elastic or are just static. Southwest Pennsylvania's trends are about maxed out at this point and it's not a large enough region to swing the state Republican enough to flip. The areas that have trended Republican are also declining in population overall.

The Philly burbs trended a couple of points to the Pubs in 2012 and that area is growing disproportionately in PA. Ditto for Lancaster and York Counties. On what basis are you asserting that the Pub trend in Southwest PA has maxed out? Is Cambria County in SW PA by the way?

So many chrystal balls here, none really data based, so little time. Is this a syndrome of youthful enthusiasm or what?

The word is spelled crystal. With that said, with Southwest Pennsylvania losing population, that doesn't leave much room for significant growth to swing the state. Lancaster and York have trended Democratic from where they were in 2004, and the trends in 2012 in the suburbs towards Republicans were not enough to flip the state. Considering that there are lot of moderates in Philadelphia's suburbs and Republicans have moved further right, those areas are going to remain at best static for Republicans against a conservative candidate for President.

[Torie]

The problem with that notion is that Pennsylvania has areas that trended Republican, but also areas that trended Democratic or otherwise have not been elastic or are just static. Southwest Pennsylvania's trends are about maxed out at this point and it's not a large enough region to swing the state Republican enough to flip. The areas that have trended Republican are also declining in population overall.

The Philly burbs trended a couple of points to the Pubs in 2012 and that area is growing disproportionately in PA. Ditto for Lancaster and York Counties. On what basis are you asserting that the Pub trend in Southwest PA has maxed out? Is Cambria County in SW PA by the way?

So many chrystal balls here, none really data based, so little time. Is this a syndrome of youthful enthusiasm or what?

The word is spelled crystal. With that said, with Southwest Pennsylvania losing population, that doesn't leave much room for significant growth to swing the state. Lancaster and York have trended Democratic from where they were in 2004, and the trends in 2012 in the suburbs towards Republicans were not enough to flip the state. Considering that there are lot of moderates in Philadelphia's suburbs and Republicans have moved further right, those areas are going to remain at best static for Republicans against a conservative candidate for President.

That's nice. Still no actual data however to back up your asserted theories that the recent Pub trend is PA is coming to a halt.  And I don't blame you for not adducing any data, because frankly dear, there is none. It's all speculation. Thanks for catching the typo by the way.

[Nyvin]

We've seen Pennsylvania's PVI trend rightward before, it really doesn't mean as much as people here are making it out to be.



In fact PA's PVI has shifted rightward three times over the last 50 years and it hasn't crossed the threshold once.

It seems like the main reason it goes right is that the NATION's vote shifts to the left faster than PA does.    It would explain why the nominal vote totals in PA have favored Democrats in the last few elections (2004 vs 2012) despite the PVI moving away from the Dems.

What exactly does the bolded language mean please?  It makes no sense to me. In 2000 and 2004 the nation shifted rightward, and PA less so. In 2008 the nation sifted leftward and PA less so. In 2012, the nation shifted rightward, and PA more so. I fail to see any pattern of elasticity or whatever your point is. More to the point, is whether or not the trend to the Pubs in the last two elections is a blip or representative of a longer term trend. Charts won't help you with that.

Look...the only way it's possible to show Pennsylvania is "trending Republican" at all is if you compare the state's percentages to the nation's percentages.    Looking at the total votes in the state it would seem that the Democrat's position has strengthened.

2000:   2,485,967 Gore
         2,281,127  Bush

2004:  2,938,095    Kerry
        2,793,847   Bush

2008:   3,276,363   Obama
         2,655,885   McCain

2012:  2,990,274   Obama
         2,680,434   Romney

If you discount the 2008 outlier,  the vote totals barely budge between 2004 and 2012 in favor of Democrats.      And percentage wise Obama did better than Kerry or Gore in 2012 (and obviously 2008).    Kerry and Gore never passed 51% of the PA vote,  Obama did both times.  The Republicans haven't been able to repeat their 2004 performance since.

The ONLY WAY POSSIBLE to show any kind of Republican Trend therefore is to compare it to the Nation's vote.    The nation obviously voted more Democratic in 2008-2012 than in 2000-2004.    So in other words the Trend is basically showing the Nation moving in the direction of the Democrats while Pennsylvania does too...but at a much slower pace.    Giving the illusion of a Republican Trend.

When you're getting LESS VOTES eight years later that is anything BUT a Republican trend.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Seems to me, and I've said it before, PA tends to vote reliably a little bit Democratic, and then on top of that, a little bit against the incumbent President's party, if there's an incumbent running for re-election. Look at 1992 through 2012 and tell me this isn't consistent with the data.

[Torie]

OK. So based on four data points, and getting rid of one of the four that proves inconvenient, so we label that a noisome "outlier," and toss it in the dust bin, we find that PA does not swing overall at all much, be damned what the nation is doing, because it is a law of Newtonian physics, that in PA, while internally, things are swinging all over the place, the net effect must be close to a wash, sort of like the speed a light is constant, or where there is action in one place in PA, there will be nearly an equal opposite reaction elsewhere. Some might call that "data mining."

Again, I don't mean to single you out as a particularly egregious perp in this regard. Date mining is the secular religion of loads and loads of posters around here, and I am using this topic as an excuse to explore and expose this little phenomenon that so many of us have made into an almost obsessive hobby. Awareness of ignorance is the first step to knowledge. It's tough, and hard to do, but the first step is to say, hey, I have no idea really what will happen next. There just isn't any model of any statistical significance, with a reasonable explanation to back it up, that allows for any such extrapolations, that is other than GIGO.

So let's both just say it together, both of us, in unison - we just don't know what will happen next in PA. It's all speculation.  There, we did it. Don't you feel better now?

[Ljube]

OK. So based on four data points, and getting rid of one of the four that proves inconvenient, so we label that a noisome "outlier," and toss it in the dust pin, we find that PA does not swing overall at all much, be damned what the nation is doing, because it is a law of Newtonian physics, that in PA, while internally, things are swinging all over the place, the net effect must be close to a wash, sort of like the speed a light is constant, or where there is action in one place in PA, there will be nearly an equal opposite reaction elsewhere. Some might call that "data mining."

Again, I don't mean to single you out as a particularly egregious perp in this regard. Date mining is the secular religion of loads and loads of posters around here, and I am using this topic as an excuse to explore and expose this little phenomenon that so many of us have made into an almost obsessive hobby. Awareness of ignorance is the first step to knowledge. It's tough, and hard to do, but the first step is to say, hey, I have no idea really what will happen next. There just isn't any model of any statistical significance, with a reasonable explanation to back it up, that allows for any such extrapolations, that is other than GIGO.

So let's both just say it together, both of us, in unison - we just don't know what will happen next in PA. It's all speculation.   There, we did it. Don't you feel better now?

Torie, the real question here is: Are there enough Republican votes in Pennsylvania to beat the Democratic vote there? Is 2.7 million votes max for pubs, in which case the only way pubs can win there is if dems fail to turn out.

[Torie]

Seems to me, and I've said it before, PA tends to vote reliably a little bit Democratic, and then on top of that, a little bit against the incumbent President's party, if there's an incumbent running for re-election. Look at 1992 through 2012 and tell me this isn't consistent with the data.

That was true for 1996 (the Perot factor kind of messes up the data for 1992 and 1996), 2004 and 2008. It was not true for 1984, and 1972 looks flat. I guess it was also true for 1976 if one considers Ford an incumbent. Again, however, there are far too few data points, and each election has its own dynamics, with a ton of other factors in play other than incumbency, to draw any statistical significance from all of this, to wit, the PA voters are a bit grumpy, and unhappy, and thus tend to consider incumbency at the margins a negative, or less of a positive,  relative to the nation as a whole.

I think we need Muon2 to give us all a seminar on the topic of statistical significance, with Jimtex as his assistant. Humility is a virtue, hubris a sin. And the more you know, the more you know how much you really don't know. I'm old enough to finally know, that I'm just butt ignorant in general. I only predict with much confidence at all when drunk or stoned, or both,  typically at this point.

[Nyvin]

OK. So based on four data points, and getting rid of one of the four that proves inconvenient, so we label that a noisome "outlier," and toss it in the dust pin, we find that PA does not swing overall at all much, be damned what the nation is doing, because it is a law of Newtonian physics, that in PA, while internally, things are swinging all over the place, the net effect must be close to a wash, sort of like the speed a light is constant, or where there is action in one place in PA, there will be nearly an equal opposite reaction elsewhere. Some might call that "data mining."

Again, I don't mean to single you out as a particularly egregious perp in this regard. Date mining is the secular religion of loads and loads of posters around here, and I am using this topic as an excuse to explore and expose this little phenomenon that so many of us have made into an almost obsessive hobby. Awareness of ignorance is the first step to knowledge. It's tough, and hard to do, but the first step is to say, hey, I have no idea really what will happen next. There just isn't any model of any statistical significance, with a reasonable explanation to back it up, that allows for any such extrapolations, that is other than GIGO.

So let's both just say it together, both of us, in unison - we just don't know what will happen next in PA. It's all speculation.   There, we did it. Don't you feel better now?

Selectively using PVI and ignoring all other data points to show a Republican Trend is MUCH MUCH more of an example of data mining than anything I posted.

[Torie]

OK. So based on four data points, and getting rid of one of the four that proves inconvenient, so we label that a noisome "outlier," and toss it in the dust pin, we find that PA does not swing overall at all much, be damned what the nation is doing, because it is a law of Newtonian physics, that in PA, while internally, things are swinging all over the place, the net effect must be close to a wash, sort of like the speed a light is constant, or where there is action in one place in PA, there will be nearly an equal opposite reaction elsewhere. Some might call that "data mining."

Again, I don't mean to single you out as a particularly egregious perp in this regard. Date mining is the secular religion of loads and loads of posters around here, and I am using this topic as an excuse to explore and expose this little phenomenon that so many of us have made into an almost obsessive hobby. Awareness of ignorance is the first step to knowledge. It's tough, and hard to do, but the first step is to say, hey, I have no idea really what will happen next. There just isn't any model of any statistical significance, with a reasonable explanation to back it up, that allows for any such extrapolations, that is other than GIGO.

So let's both just say it together, both of us, in unison - we just don't know what will happen next in PA. It's all speculation.  There, we did it. Don't you feel better now?

Torie, the real question here is: Are there enough Republican votes in Pennsylvania to beat the Democratic vote there? Is 2.7 million votes max for pubs, in which case the only way pubs can win there is if dems fail to turn out.

Based on a few data points, as to which there are a plethora of different variables in play with respect to each of the data points, there are 2.7 million Pub votes in PA in the same way that the speed of light is 186,000 miles per second? The law of physics here is that no matter what the total vote total in PA, the Pubs get about 2.7 million votes, albeit they often are quite different voters, with their subtotals bouncing around in various parts of the state, but it all nets about to about 2.7 million, and so the only real variable is how many who don't vote Pub bother to go the the polls at all. Makes sense to me!

[Slander and/or Libel]

Seems to me, and I've said it before, PA tends to vote reliably a little bit Democratic, and then on top of that, a little bit against the incumbent President's party, if there's an incumbent running for re-election. Look at 1992 through 2012 and tell me this isn't consistent with the data.

That was true for 1996 (the Perot factor kind of messes up the data for 1992 and 1996), 2004 and 2008. It was not true for 1984, and 1972 looks flat. I guess it was also true for 1976 if one considers Ford an incumbent. Again, however, there are far too few data points, and each election has its own dynamics, with a ton of other factors in play other than incumbency, to draw any statistical significance from all of this, to wit, the PA voters are a bit grumpy, and unhappy, and thus tend to consider incumbency at the margins a negative, or less of a positive,  relative to the nation as a whole.

I think we need Muon2 to give us all a seminar on the topic of statistical significance, with Jimtex as his assistant. Humility is a virtue, hubris a sin. And the more you know, the more you know how much you really don't know. I'm old enough to finally know, that I'm just butt ignorant in general. I only predict with much confidence at all when drunk or stoned, or both,  typically at this point.

Oh, I'm not trying to predict anything or claim that my observation had any statistical rigor. I was just making an observation that was roughly consistent with the data.

[Torie]

OK. So based on four data points, and getting rid of one of the four that proves inconvenient, so we label that a noisome "outlier," and toss it in the dust pin, we find that PA does not swing overall at all much, be damned what the nation is doing, because it is a law of Newtonian physics, that in PA, while internally, things are swinging all over the place, the net effect must be close to a wash, sort of like the speed a light is constant, or where there is action in one place in PA, there will be nearly an equal opposite reaction elsewhere. Some might call that "data mining."

Again, I don't mean to single you out as a particularly egregious perp in this regard. Date mining is the secular religion of loads and loads of posters around here, and I am using this topic as an excuse to explore and expose this little phenomenon that so many of us have made into an almost obsessive hobby. Awareness of ignorance is the first step to knowledge. It's tough, and hard to do, but the first step is to say, hey, I have no idea really what will happen next. There just isn't any model of any statistical significance, with a reasonable explanation to back it up, that allows for any such extrapolations, that is other than GIGO.

So let's both just say it together, both of us, in unison - we just don't know what will happen next in PA. It's all speculation.  There, we did it. Don't you feel better now?

Selectively using PVI and ignoring all other data points to show a Republican Trend is MUCH MUCH more of an example of data mining than anything I posted.

I just drew a frigging PVI chart, and then extrapolated the line based on its recent slope, and the did the same for the trend line, and then said I don't have a clue what will happen next, and it's all speculation, and you call that data mining? OK, whatever. But yes, I do consider PVI to be more salient a number as to any given election, that that the Pubs get about 2.7 million votes no matter what, or that PA really doesn't swing much, because it doesn't care what the rest of the nation thinks, or that it hates incumbents, yes, I do admit that. But just because changes in PVI is more salient, does not mean that it has much value about predicting the future, because it really doesn't.

[DrScholl]

The problem with that notion is that Pennsylvania has areas that trended Republican, but also areas that trended Democratic or otherwise have not been elastic or are just static. Southwest Pennsylvania's trends are about maxed out at this point and it's not a large enough region to swing the state Republican enough to flip. The areas that have trended Republican are also declining in population overall.

The Philly burbs trended a couple of points to the Pubs in 2012 and that area is growing disproportionately in PA. Ditto for Lancaster and York Counties. On what basis are you asserting that the Pub trend in Southwest PA has maxed out? Is Cambria County in SW PA by the way?

So many chrystal balls here, none really data based, so little time. Is this a syndrome of youthful enthusiasm or what?

The word is spelled crystal. With that said, with Southwest Pennsylvania losing population, that doesn't leave much room for significant growth to swing the state. Lancaster and York have trended Democratic from where they were in 2004, and the trends in 2012 in the suburbs towards Republicans were not enough to flip the state. Considering that there are lot of moderates in Philadelphia's suburbs and Republicans have moved further right, those areas are going to remain at best static for Republicans against a conservative candidate for President.

That's nice. Still no actual data however to back up your asserted theories that the recent Pub trend is PA is coming to a halt.  And I don't blame you for not adducing any data, because frankly dear, there is none. It's all speculation. Thanks for catching the typo by the way.

There is a treasure trove of data on this site that shows where the trends are. Like much of the region, Southwest Pennsylvania has trended Republican, but is losing population, which is the long run means less of an impact on statewide totals. In short, Republicans getting big swings in that area did not swing the state.

[Torie]

In the long run, if Pubs don't start doing better with persons of color, ultimately PA will have a nice big Pub PVI, and Pubs will lose every election. In the long run, we will all be dead. Meanwhile, in the short run, there is an election in 2016. In recent times, I suspect much of the fall off in population in Western PA, is due to dying or departing Democratic voters. So if that continues, population can continue to fall (at least as a percentage of the population of the state), and the Pubs get bigger absolute margins in that area. White voters in the Philly burbs in most areas there had one of the biggest trends to the Pubs in the nation for whatever reason in 2012.

Speculate away. I have totally failed in deflecting you from that penchant, admit defeat, and now wave the white flag in surrender. We shall see if the Pubs get about 2.7 million votes in 2016, or lose by 200,000 votes, or the PVI trend of late stalls, or reverses, due to a lack of a Dem incumbent to lash out at, or whatever your metric of choice might be, leading to inevitable Pub defeat in PA, and/or a Dem PVI not smaller than what came before, or at least some Dem PVI (the latter one of course having the highest probability of all of the choices listed)- yet again. Yes,  there is a good chance one of the above will be true! Just as there is a good chance it won't be true. Be well.

[DrScholl]

And you can go back to reading the National Enquirer, hoping that Hillary dies so Republicans have a better chance at winning the election. I'm not going to getting a flame war about Pennsylvania, I'll just bookmark this thread for next year and settle the beef then.

[Torie]

And you can go back to reading the National Enquirer, hoping that Hillary dies so Republicans have a better chance at winning the election. I'm not going to getting a flame war about Pennsylvania, I'll just bookmark this thread for next year and settle the beef then.

I posted that 1) I hope Hillary does not die, and 2) I hope the article is false. Did you read that? But as to your second sentence, great idea!

[MT Treasurer]

And you can go back to reading the National Enquirer, hoping that Hillary dies so Republicans have a better chance at winning the election. I'm not going to getting a flame war about Pennsylvania, I'll just bookmark this thread for next year and settle the beef then.

lol

[YaBoyNY]

This thread is great. Top thread of the week.

[Suburbia]

Pennsylvania is a tossup state. It is. Clinton needs the Rendell model. Campaign hard in Philly suburbs, the Allentown area with the suburban women. Visit the Pennsyltucky area as much as possible. Pennsylvania is going to be a crucial state in this election.