Role reversal

The Obama-Clinton race in Pennsylvania has taken an odd turn today as Senator Bob Casey Jr. threw his weight behind Barack Obama after previously vowing to remain neutral in the race (he apparently made a decision to enter the fray at the bequest of his daughters who are fervent Obama supporters). The two most high-profile Democratic endorsements in the state are Sen. Casey and current PA Governor Ed Rendell who is backing Hillary Clinton. That both of these influential public figures have stamped their approval on one of the two remaining candidates is not a shock; but the side that each has come down on is quite surprising—from a purely demographic standpoint.

Rendell and Casey ran against each other in the primary race of the Democratic Gubernatorial nomination in 2002. Casey was initially seen as the more electable candidate owing to his more moderate views and the familiarity of his name (his father was the 44th Governor of Pennsylvania); the state establishment accordingly threw their support behind him. Casey’s strong hold were in the rural swaths of Pennsylvania: he scored well among blue-collar workers and those members of the Democratic party with more socially moderate views. Casey himself was a Catholic who opposed abortion rights and was more to the right on gun control issues than most of the party.

Rendell on the other hand was an upstart former Mayor of Philadelphia. His strongholds were in urban areas and he only ended up carrying 10 out of 67 counties in the eventual primary vote. He polled significantly better among the African-American population of Pennsylvania and held an upper hand with more affluent and educated liberals; he was also able to attract a significant portion of disenchanted Republicans who were subsequently dubbed “Rendellicans.”

Does this sound familiar at all? Two voting coaltions—one of white working-class voters in rural areas with more conservative views and one of African-Americans, wealthier Democrats and crossover Republicans in generally urban and suburban areas? Taking away the gender and youth disparities between Clinton and Obama voters and you’ve pretty much got the same thing. So it’s curious that Rendell has come down for Clinton and Casey for Obama. In many ways, each campaign sees their respective big-name endorsers as instruments for chipping away at their opponents base. But seeing as the crucial voting bloc this election (I hesitate to use the word “swing vote”) has been white, blue-collar workers, the advantage has to go to Obama. Remember, Clinton has never focused truly hard at securing part of Obama’s base—hey pyrrhic victories have come because she was able to safeguard her own.