This is the third part of a series of posts analyzing the swing state Pennsylvania. Part four can be found here.
Philadelphia's Suburbs
There used to be a time when Republicans could count on Philadelphia's suburbs to counter Democratic margins from the city. This is Philadelphia, circa 1988:
Not anymore. Philadelphia, 2008:
Philadelphia's suburbs stretch across four counties: Bucks, Chester, Delaware, and Montgomery. Their Democratic shift threatens to turn Pennsylvania blue for the foreseeable future.
This is the second part of a series analyzing the swing state Pennsylvania. The next part can be found here.
Like Florida, and unlike Ohio, Pennsylvania's political geography can be divided into three. The industrial southwest is reddening, the populous southeast is bluing, and Pennsyltucky remains, as James Carville memorably described it, "Alabama without the blacks." (Actually, Pennsyltucky is a fair bit less conservative.)
The following section will concentrate on Philadelphia, the region upon which Democrats draw the most votes.
There is a good piece in this month's edition of Atlantic Magazine in which Witold Rybczynski, a professor of urbanism at UPenn, argues the case for "returning to cities" if we really want to fight climate change. In it, he argues that our response to climate change has been too oriented towards "accessorizing" green features and less towards behavioral, systemic change. He also argues what we know- that living in cities creates a far smaller carbon footprint, and that a skyscraper with zero green features beats a suburban office park with solar panels, because of the people working in it and how they get to the office.
I think it's a very good point. The attitude towards "green", in my experience, has become more an attempt to impress your peers through accessorizing than actual change. Telling your neighbors you drive a hybrid, bragging about slapping a solar panel on your suburban roof, etc. are common things I hear among my friends and back home. But what I've never heard is anyone saying that in the name of battling climate change, they're going to move from their free-standing suburban house that consumes an immense amount of energy, complete with water and chemical-guzzling lawn, and give up the other trappings of suburban life. That is Rybczynski's central argument- if we're really going to take a bite out of climate change, we need (a) more buildings like multi-family walkups that can be dense enough to support public transit nearby (b) people willing to change their already set-in lifestyles.
Two points I want to make. The first is that (a) can always be done- more zoning for multi-family walkups, etc. Incentivizing it is another story. My boyfriend got a tax credit for purchasing his Prius- why shouldn't there be something similar for those who live in environments in which it is more likely to exert a low-carbon footprint (walking to the convenience store, using public transit to get to work, etc.)? It will take a whole new style of thinking for legislators and the general public. The popular approach to climate change is to accessorize, not to completely change where you live and how to get from points A to points B. And making an argument for rewarding people for living in cities via tax credits could raise a fair amount of opposition.
I also think there's a challenge of the audience for this, which brings me to (b). My parents have lived in the same Buffalo suburban 3-bedroom home with a gorgeous veggie garden for over 25 years, like living there, like driving their own cars, etc. Asking them, at their age, to sell their home and move to a hi-rise in the city of Buffalo (which has had negative population growth since 1960 for a reason), give up the backyard garden, take the bus to work when they've always driven, etc. just isn't happening. Nor should every suburbanite be asked to. I doubt my parents are the only ones who feel this way.
I think people just out of college and deciding where to live are one market. For instance, I have two friends (a couple) from college who are now finishing med school. They both are getting jobs in DC proper, but contemplating buying a house out in Virginia, not near a Metrorail stop. I'm trying to convince them to buy one of the many unsold condos here in DC instead, and be able to walk to most of the places they need to go. This kind of audience is one target to commit to a low-carbon lifestyle.
In other words, incentivize and target an audience from the very start instead of having to ask them to give up their lifestyle 40 years later. I think older families are the ones you can get to buy more locally-grown produce and switch off lights more- useful, but small, steps. Recent graduates and similar audiences are the ones to go after to make the big changes Rybczynski is arguing are critical.
Chris Cillizza's Friday House Line: MN-03 drops from 12 to 15, NJ-07 moves up from 9 to 7 and WA-08 moves up to #17 from 19 even after a SurveyUSA poll this week showing Dave Reichert leading among likely voters 51% - 45% in WA-08.
Cilliza's counting on a strong Obama showing in WA-08 (a D+2 district) to propel Burner to victory. I still wonder if community ties trump ideology and resume - even in a potential realignment year. However, the numbers and a strong Obama ground game may work in Burner's favor in this district.
MN-03, an R+1 district drops from 12 to 15 and Republican Erik Paulsen gets a big boost from Stu Rothenberg in Roll Call. Writes Cilliza:
15. Minnesota's 3rd (Open seat, R): There's no tougher grader of candidates for Congress than Stu Rothenberg. So when Stu praises a candidate, we listen. Of Republican Erik Paulsen, Stu wrote: "I wouldn't say my interview with Erik Paulsen went well. I'd say it was spectacular." (Stu's column at Roll Call is subscriber-only.) WOW. Paulsen, a sitting state senator, has drawn similar reviews from Republican strategists who believe he is one of the most able candidates they have fielded this cycle. (The Fix has not yet met him -- hint, hint.) Democrats nominated Ashwin Madia, an Iraq vet and first-time candidate. (Previous ranking: 12)
This race started out as a #3 race on the Friday House Line when Congressman Jim Ramstad announced his retirement last fall. Recently, noted Republican operative and opposition researcher Michael Brodkorb joined the Paulsen team.
The most troubling aspect for Burner is that Reichert leads among independents by 13 points and that she holds only a 2 point lead among women. Reichert holds a 15 point lead among men and Burner also trails Reichert by 3 percentage points among likely voters ages 18-35.
There are no suprises in Reichert's lead among regular church goers (Reichert 64%, Burner 31%) and among the anti-choice crowd (Reichert 79%, Burner 18%).
However, this is a poll of likely voters currently registered in Washington State. As we all know, this is a year of record turnouts in primaries and caucuses across the country.
What do these three districts have in common? All three are currently represented by Republicans and have solid pockets of high information voters, creative class professionals and symbolic analysts. They are suburban in nature and boast a healthy dose of diversity be it geographic, economic, ethnic or racial. Obama should do quite well in these districts and has already scored impressive caucus victories in both Minnesota and Washington State.
These districts and their congressional representatives also hold the key to a progressive governing coalition in an Obama administration. Much as southern democrats and Bush Dogs have held the key to democratic legislation and progressive progress over the last generation, suburban congressional democrats will exert crucial influence in energy policy, transportation, immigration, healthcare, telecommunications and technology policy over the next decade.
Over the next several weeks we will explore these districts and their candidates. We’ll examine current polling data where it exists, look at current patterns of representation and the strengths and weaknesses of the democratic challengers in each district (MN-03 and NJ-07 are open seats due to retirements by republican congressman).
