Sometimes It Does Matter COMMONWEALTH, Volume 18, Issue 2 (2016). © 2016 The Pennsylvania Political Science Association. ISSN 2469-7672 (online). http://dx.doi.org/10.15367/cjppp.v18i2.118. All rights reserved. Sometimes It Does Matter The 2016 Presidential Primary Election in Pennsylvania JOHN J. KENNEDY West Chester University Since the first presidential primary was held in Pennsylvania in the spring of 1912, rarely has the state truly impacted the race. A combination of forces, nota- bly the rather late date that it has traditionally been scheduled relative to other states has all but guaranteed that the presumptive nominees of the Democratic and Republican Parties have long ago been selected. As long as this remains the case, it’s difficult to imagine the state’s voters ever being able to winnow a field of candidates, no matter how large or small it is. However, on rare occasions, the lateness of the Pennsylvania’s primary election allows the state’s voters to be one, if not the deciding force on who lays final claim to the nomination. Such was the case on April 24, 2016, when Pennsylvanians essentially settled the contest on both sides, elevating Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump toward their ultimate nominations. ennsylvania’s position in the presidential selection process has been a source of consternation for many observers for decades, and why shouldn’t it be? The nation’s fifth largest state, one that is still consid- ered a battleground politically, has been forced to the sidelines while prima- ries and caucuses in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina’s grab most of the attention, not to mention the financial benefits accorded to states that hold their primaries early in the season. In recent years, this situation has P Sometimes It Does Matter 47 become more pronounced as an increasing number of states have moved their presidential primaries or caucuses to an earlier date on the election calen- dar, a situation referred to as front- loading (Brewer and Maisel 2016). In fact, by 2008, this process had accelerated to the extent that half the states held their contests prior to February 5, supplanting the old Super Tuesday in early March (Flanigan and Zingale 2014). However, while there are times that these early states may effectively win- now the field, they have nevertheless failed to produce a decisive victor. That task is then left to the states that follow in the election calendar, one of which is Pennsylvania. Such was the case in 2016, when Pennsylvania assumed a greater role in the candidate selection process for the two major parties than ever in the history of presidential primary elections. Heading into the April 26 showdown, both of the Democratic and Repub- lican Party front- runners, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and busi- nessman Donald Trump, were coming off resounding victories the previous week in the New York primary. This appeared to have reversed the losses each had suffered the previous weeks, with Vermont senator Bernie Sanders winning seven straight primaries or caucuses and Texas senator Ted Cruz trouncing Trump in the Wisconsin primary. However, questions remained for both since the Empire State was the adopted home for Clinton and the life-l ong home for Trump, whose profile in that state looms so large that one of New York City’s most famous buildings, Trump Tower, just happens to be named in his honor. Campaigning Without the home field advantage, all four of these campaigns, along with that of Ohio governor John Kasich, who was still competing on the GOP side, descended on Pennsylvania. Although there were four other primaries held on April 26, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, and Rhode Island, the Key- stone State was unquestionably the biggest prize. Dubbed the “Acela Primary” because these five states are linked by Amtrak’s fastest carrier, the number of delegates selected in Pennsylvania by both the two parties (281) was only a little less than that of the other four combined (355). For the Democrats, despite his string of recent victories, Sanders remained a long shot to grab the nomination. He was within striking distance of Clinton among pledged delegates, trailing 1,444 to 1,245, but trailed 502 to 38 among unpledged party leaders known as superdelegates, which meant that he was now clearly a long shot to amass the 2,382 delegates required to secure the Democratic Party nomination. Overall, Clinton had won 21 primaries and 48 John J. Kennedy caucuses while Sanders prevailed in 19 prior to Pennsylvania (Couloumbis 2016a). On the Republican side, Donald Trump had astounded everyone with his success, initially grabbing the lead in public opinion polls during the previ- ous summer, later surviving a series of debates that drew record television audiences, and finally translating that into victory after victory on the GOP side. Along the way he was able to marginalize and even humiliate some of his political rivals who originally comprised the 17-candidate field, the largest ever in modern presidential politics. After rebounding in New York after the rocky patch in Wisconsin, April 26 stood as perhaps the last chance for Cruz, Kasich, or those within the party who were prepared to support anyone to derail his bid. Heading into the “Acela Primary,” Trump had amassed 847 of the 1,237 delegates needed to win, while Cruz followed with 560 delegates and Kasich just 149. The breakdown of primary, caucus, and convention victories at this point was 23 for Trump, 13 for Cruz, and only one, his home state of Ohio for Kasich. Senator Marco Rubio, who suspended his campaign follow- ing his defeat in the March 15 Florida primary, also won two (Couloumbis 2016b). In the immediate run up to primary day, Senator Sanders was the first to arrive in the state on Tuesday evening attracting a crowd estimated at over 6,000 supporters at Pennsylvania State University (Table 1). That Sanders chose to spend this night in State College, which was also the evening of the New York Primary, underscores both the importance he placed upon Pennsyl- vania for his campaign and what he correctly perceived to be his prospects in New York. The same could be said for Senator Cruz, who spent the afternoon at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia before a considerably smaller crowd of about 100 (Couloumbis 2016a). Over the course of the week, the five candidates made 24 appearances across the Commonwealth. Crowds ranged in size from a few dozen at a diner in Philadelphia in which John Kasich made the rounds to approximately 8,500 at a Sanders rally in Pittsburgh. Prominent surrogates also made a number of appearances across the state. Clinton’s campaign used these supporters more extensively. Her allies included her husband, President Bill Clinton, New Jersey senator Cory Booker, former Arizona congresswoman Gabrielle Gif- fords, and various state officials from Pennsylvania including Senator Robert Casey. Meanwhile, Vermont Ice Cream moguls Ben and Jerry and actresses Susan Sarandon and Rosario Dawson stumped for Sanders. Dawson created a stir when she raised the name of Monica Lewinsky as someone who has also been a victim of bullying by the Clintons. Lewinsky, of course, had an alleged affair with the former president while an intern in the White House. Also, an Sometimes It Does Matter 49 Table 1. democratic Party Candidate Campaign Appearances, April 19–26, 2016 date Candidates Site City Tuesday, April 19 Bernie Sanders Pennsylvania State University State College Ted Cruz National Constitution Center Philadelphia Wednesday, April 20 Hillary Clinton St. Paul’s Baptist Church Philadelphia The Fillmore Philadelphia Ted Cruz Antique Automobile Club Hershey Thursday, April 21 Bernie Sanders Scranton Cultural Center (a) Scranton Santander Performing Arts Center Reading Philadelphia Expo Center Oaks Donald Trump Farm Show Complex (b) Harrisburg John Kasich Penn State- Brandywine (c) Media Friday, April 22 Hillary Clinton Curds and Whey Jenkintown Bernie Sanders Sharon Baptist Center Philadelphia Gettysburg College Gettysburg Ted Cruz Lackawanna Station Hotel (d) Scranton Saturday, April 23 Ted Cruz Gateway High School (e) Monroeville Sunday, April 24 Hillary Clinton Triumph Baptist Church Philadelphia African Episcopal Church of St. Thomas Philadelphia Monday, April 25 Hillary Clinton Philadelphia City Hall Philadelphia Bernie Sanders David Lawrence Convention Center (f) Pittsburgh National Constitution Center Philadelphia Drexel University Philadelphia Donald Trump West Chester University West Chester John Kasich Penrose Diner Philadelphia Tuesday, April 26 Hillary Clinton Pennsylvania Convention Center Philadelphia Sources: Philadelphia Inquirer, except as otherwise noted: (a) from times- tribune.com, (b) from mccall. com, (c) from centredaily.com, (d) from timesleader.com, (e) from wtae.com, (f) from wpxi.com. endorsement for Sanders from former congressman and Philadelphia mayor Bill Green attracted attention. The Republican candidates did not use surrogates as extensively, though for Trump it probably wasn’t as necessary, as he commanded so much atten- tion through his own media pronouncements. It was perhaps telling that only Hillary Clinton decided that it was in her interest to spend election night in 50 John J. Kennedy Philadelphia. The other winner, Donald Trump had already decamped back home to Trump Tower in New York where he claimed victory later that night. The Vote After the votes were counted, Pennsylvania had delivered a resounding vic- tory for both Clinton and Trump in their respective primaries. Additionally, Clinton won three of the four other states contested on April 26, only losing to Sanders in Rhode Island. For Sanders, it made the nomination fight even more of an uphill battle, though he would soldier on, hoping that something (perhaps a Clinton indictment) could derail her campaign enough to give him an opening with the unpledged delegates. For the GOP, however, the race was now essentially over. Senator Cruz would make one last-ditch attempt to stop Trump, but the momentum that the businessman now possessed propelled him to another big victory the following week in Indiana. Following that result, Cruz announced that he had suspended his campaign. The following day, Governor Kasich followed suit. On the Democratic Party side, Clinton amassed a plurality of just over 203,000 votes on her way to securing almost 56% of the vote overall, a 12- point victory over her rival (Table 2). She benefited enormously by running up both Table 2. democratic and Republican Vote for President in Pennsylvania Primary by Region, 2016 Democrats Clinton Percentage Sanders Percentage Totals Southeast 420,838 61% 274,675 39% 695,513 Southwest 207,217 56% 163,773 44% 370,990 Northeast 93,649 53% 81,631 47% 175,280 Central “T” 213,403 50% 211,802 50% 425,205 Totals 935,107 56% 731,881 44% 1,666,988 Republicans Trump Percentage Cruz Percentage Kasich Percentage Totals Southeast 207,660 53% 75,367 19% 108,787 28% 391,814 Southwest 167,242 58% 60,254 21% 62,090 21% 289,586 Northeast 100,472 67% 28,025 19% 20,880 14% 149,377 Central “T” 427,219 59% 181,860 25% 118,246 16% 727,325 Totals 902,593 57% 345,506 22% 310,003 19% 1,558,102 Source: Raw data were provided by the Pennsylvania Department of State. Regional numbers are based on the author’s categorizations. Data are rounded to the nearest whole number. Sometimes It Does Matter 51 the largest plurality of votes in Philadelphia (89,606) and the largest percent- age (63%). Combined with its four surrounding suburbs, Clinton collected over 146,000 more votes than Sanders and 60% overall in the Philadelphia suburbs. Her plurality in this region also accounted for roughly three- quarters of her overall statewide victory.1 Heading north, the former Secretary of State also carried both the Lehigh Valley (though she narrowly lost Carbon County) and the Scranton- Wilkes Barre area, described below as the Northeast. Clinton also dominated the southwest, sweeping the nine counties in this traditionally Democratic stronghold. Nevertheless, the share of counties carried by the two candidates was closer than these overall numbers would indicate, with Clinton winning 37 counties and Sanders 30. The problem for Sanders was that his support tended to be isolated in less populated areas. For example, with 58% of the vote, Sanders achieved his largest share in Columbia County, but that netted him only 1,097 more votes toward his total. Of the 10 most populous counties in the state, Sanders carried just two, Lancaster and Berks (sixth and ninth, respectively). In fact, those are the only two counties within the top twenty most populous in the state that he was able to win. Similarly, Sanders’ support was largely isolated in Pennsylvania’s Central “T” region, which he narrowly lost by less than 2,000 votes (Figure 1). Simi- larly, the Vermont senator captured 14 of the top 20 counties in which Repub- licans have the largest share of registered voters. Many of these counties also are more sparsely populated so claiming victory in one might not net many Figure 1. Democratic Party Vote for President by County, 2016. (Pennsylvania Department of State.) 52 John J. Kennedy more votes. Of course, the fact that a candidate has won a particular county may not mean much beyond that fact, an example being Clinton’s one vote victory in two counties, Bedford and Fulton. On the Republican side, the magnitude of Donald Trump’s victory in what was at the time still a competitive race for his party’s nomination highlights why both of his remaining competitors were on the verge of abandoning their bids. He dominated each of the state’s geographic regions, scoring a majority in each, with a high of 67% in the Northeast. Trump registered over 70% of the vote in six counties, including a high of 77% in Luzerne, and over 60% in 30 additional ones. His competitors kept him below 50% in only four of the state’s 67 counties (Centre, Chester, Lancaster, and Montgomery). In fact, the 44% that Trump received in culturally conservative Lancaster County was his lowest overall in the state. The race for second really didn’t matter at this point, though for the record Ted Cruz managed 22% to John Kasich’s 19%. The former’s strongest showing was in Lancaster County (32%), while 31% in Chester County marked a high for the latter.2 Behind Donald Trump’s total sweep of Pennsylvania’s counties, the victo- ries that both he and Clinton registered over their rivals were otherwise quite similar, with the Republican receiving 57% of the vote compared to 56% for the Democrat. In raw numbers, Clinton narrowly outpolled Trump by slightly under 33,000 votes, which is almost exactly 1% of the 3.2 million votes cast combined between the two parties. The Delegate Battle In the week prior to primary day there was as much discussion of the way in which delegates to the national committee were allocated than actual policy issues. In fact, on the GOP side, the delegates, in essence became political candidates themselves, holding events, appearing in various news outlets, and expending resources in order to generate support for their candidacy. To some degree, the contests between these delegates for a coveted spot at the national convention competed with the attention afforded the actual presi- dential contenders. While the method by which Democrats select their delegates is certainly not without its critics, the process on the Republican side is at least more com- plicated and perhaps more controversial. A product of the State Republican Party in Pennsylvania, it has been in existence for decades. Overall, Penn- sylvania had 71 delegates slated to attend the Republican National Conven- tion in Cleveland, Ohio. Of those, 17 are selected in a traditional manner that many states use, being allocated automatically to the candidate that wins Sometimes It Does Matter 53 statewide. These delegates include 14 who are later selected by the Republican State Committee and, along with three National Committee members, are bound on the first ballot to vote for top vote getter. What generated all of the attention, however, was the process in how the remaining 54 delegates, all unbound, are determined. These 54 delegates comprise the largest collection of uncommitted delegates nationally and adds an additional layer of politicking. Not just a campaign among the three can- didates who remained, it also became a contest for the 162 individuals who ran for these 54 slots across the state. To make the ballot, all that was required was to post 250 signatures. Newspapers, talk- radio hosts, and even national cable stations all began identifying who these individuals were in an attempt to ascertain who they were supporting. One journalist even personally inter- viewed 65 of them to find out where they stood (Smith 2016). Losing some delegate battles to Cruz in the weeks leading up to Pennsyl- vania only fed into Trump’s claim that the system was “rigged” or “crooked” and ultimately played so well into his campaign narrative that it undoubtedly contributed to his overwhelming victory. Because of the size of his victory, controversy surrounding the delegate selection system was ultimately moot, as the New Yorker walked away with 42 of 54 available. Of those, 31 were individuals who had declared themselves as Trump supporters prior to the primary and an additional 11 who had professed support to the winner of their congressional district. Ted Cruz received only 4, while 3 others were pledged to the most electable candidate, which was perceived by most as a vote for Kasich (Greenpaper.com 2016). At the time this manuscript was submit- ted, the final five unbound delegates remained uncommitted. The foremost criticism of the manner in which the Democratic Party selects its delegates centers on its unpledged delegates. These superdelegates were established in 1982 by the Hunt Commission in an attempt to give party leaders a greater say in the selection of their party’s nominee. This came after the insurgent candidacies of George McGovern and Jimmy Carter had grabbed the party nomination in previous cycles. However, criticism of this is leveled at the national party and not at the state Democratic Party, since that is where these rules are made. The Democrats send 210 delegates overall to the national convention, a figure divided between those categorized as pledged and unpledged. Within the pledged category, 189 are allocated to candidates based upon the primary returns. Of those, 127 are determined by the propor- tional vote that each candidate receives in each of the state’s 18 congressio- nal districts. The 62 pledged delegates that remain are distributed according to each candidate’s statewide percentage of the vote. Additionally, there is a 15% mandatory threshold required of the candidate to receive delegates based 54 John J. Kennedy upon those allocated at either the congressional district or statewide level (Pennsylvania Democratic Party 2016). Of those considered part of the unpledged group, 13 are members of the Democratic National Committee, while the 6 members of the state’s congres- sional delegation (1 senator and 5 House members), and the governor, Tom Wolf, are designated automatically. Former governor Ed Rendell, chosen as the one distinguished party leader rounded out the list of superdelegates (Pennsylvania Democratic Party 2016). Voter Turnout Other than the size of the victory for the two front- runners, perhaps the big- gest story of the 2016 presidential primary in Pennsylvania was the dramatic difference in turnout recorded between the two parties. As Table 3 indicates, 51% of Republican Party voters cast their ballot on April 24, the majority of whom voted for Donald Trump. In contrast, only 41% of Democrats felt that it was worth their effort to cast a ballot for either Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders. This suggests a large enthusiasm gap between how each of the party’s rank and file voters views their candidates, which should be of particular concern for Democrats heading into the fall. Additionally, turnout on the Democratic Party side was largely driven by just a few counties, particularly those located in the southeast part of the state. Had it not been for these voters, turnout for the Democrats would have been nothing short of abysmal, especially in comparison to the GOP turnout. While turnout in the southeast was still relatively low at 45% , four points less than that on the Republican side, the gap was much smaller than in the other regions, where it reached double digits in each. Republican voters were Table 3. democratic and Republican Party Turnout for Pennsylvania Primary, 2016 democrats Votes Percentage Republicans Votes Percentage Southeast 1,558,077 698,831 45% 824,089 402,213 49% Southwest 908,934 375,364 41% 573,491 294,142 51% Northeast 466,792 176,920 38% 303,914 151,791 50% Central “T” 1,122,147 430,312 38% 1,420,625 746,329 53% Totals 4,055,950 1,681,427 41% 3,122,119 1,594,475 51% Source: Raw data were provided by the Pennsylvania Department of State. Regional numbers are based on the author’s categorizations. Data are rounded to the nearest whole number. Sometimes It Does Matter 55 particularly motivated in the Central “T,” where turnout reached 53%, a stag- gering 15 points higher than Democratic turnout in this 47 county area.3 Additionally, in only 12 of the state’s 67 counties did the Democrats reg- ister turnout higher than their overall 41% average. This includes those five counties in the southeast, along with the Democratic strongholds of Alle- gheny and Lackawanna Counties. Centre County, where the Democrats hold a modest edge, also was above the average. The remaining counties on this list are all located along the Susquehanna River (Wyoming, Union, Perry, and Cumberland) and are also all staunchly Republican. Conversely, in 49 counties, turnout was below the overall 41% average, while in 7 others, it was the exact average. Overall, turnout among Democrats across the state ranged from a high of 50% in Montgomery County to a low of only 29% in Fulton and Jefferson Counties (Figure 2). In comparison, voter turnout on the GOP side, generated primarily by Donald Trump, was nothing less than remarkable. At 51%, not only was it more than half of registered Republicans statewide, it was also more consis- tently distributed across the entire Commonwealth. Turnout on the Republi- can side was above the statewide average in 40 of Pennsylvania’s 67 counties and even with the statewide average in another 9 counties. Therefore, in only 18 counties was it behind the overall average. The highest turnout on the GOP Figure 2. Democratic Party Turnout by County, 2016. (Pennsylvania Department of State.) 56 John J. Kennedy Figure 3. Republican Party Turnout by County, 2016. (Pennsylvania Department of State.) side was recorded in Wyoming County, located in the far Northeastern part of the state, where an astonishing 62% of registered Republicans turned out in a primary election. The lowest turnout figure was in Philadelphia, where only 37% of Republican voted (Figure 3). Philadelphia was also the only county in the state in which Democratic Party turnout eclipsed that of the GOP (44% to 37%). In fact, the Democrats in only 10 other counties stayed within single digits of their rivals, and again four of those were the suburban Philadelphia counties. Historical Perspective Examining Pennsylvania’s 2016 primary turnout from a historical perspec- tive is also informative. Table 4 lists the Voting Age Population (VAP) turnout for the Pennsylvania primary since its inception in 1912. The 31.6% turnout in 2016 marks the fourth highest level of turnout in the state’s primary his- tory, trailing only the 1912, 1980, and 2008 contests. Those are also the only four years in which turnout surpassed the 30% mark, and not surprisingly these are also the four more contested presidential races in the state’s primary history. Sometimes It Does Matter 57 Below, Figure 4 illustrates the fluctuation in the VAP that has occurred over time. The first Pennsylvania primary election took place on April 13, 1912, one day before the sinking of the Titanic, and it was also one of the most tumultu- ous contests that the state would ever witness. It was one of 13 states nationally that moved to a primary system, opening up the process in some degree to each party’s rank and file. This was a significant increase from just four years earlier in 1908 when only four states held primaries (Gans 2010). Figure 4. Voting Age Population Turnout Rates in Pennsylvania Primary since 1912. (For Years 1912–2008: Curtis Gans, ed., Voter Turnout in the United States, 1788–2009. [Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press, 2010]. For years 2012 and 2016: Presidential Primary Vote Turnout, USElectionProject.com.) Table 4. Voting Age Population Turnout Rates in Pennsylvania Primary since 1912 year VAP Turnout Rate year VAP Turnout Rate year VAP Turnout Rate year VAP Turnout Rate 2016 31.6% 1988 26.7% 1960 17.8% 1932 11.4% 2012 14.2% 1984 26.0% 1956 24.3% 1928 N/A 2008 33.3% 1980 33.0% 1952 21.1% 1924 3.3% 2004 17.7% 1976 26.2% 1948 9.0% 1920 8.9% 2000 14.7% 1972 19.4% 1944 7.8% 1916 20.4% 1996 15.1% 1968 12.1% 1940 13.2% 1912 30.2% 1992 25.3% 1964 9.9% 1936 21.3% Sources: For years 1912–2008, Curtis Gans, ed., Voter Turnout in the United States, 1788–2009 (Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press, 2010). For years 2012 and 2016, Presidential Primary Vote Turnout, USElectionProject.com. 58 John J. Kennedy The bitter battle between former president Theodore Roosevelt and his running mate, and now president, William Howard Taft, escalated through- out the primary season and would divide the GOP in Pennsylvania as it had throughout the nation. Taft had the support of Republican boss and U.S. senator Boies Penrose as well as the powerful Philadelphia machine, while Roosevelt efforts were led by former U.S. senator William Flynn of Pittsburgh. While Roosevelt won with 60% of the vote and walked off with a majority of the delegates, he fell short of the nomination largely due to the national lead- ership of the GOP ultimately rallying around Taft (“Election Results” 1912). At this time, the overwhelming majority of delegates were selected in state conventions by state committees and not in primaries. Through much of this time the impact of the state’s primary was negli- gible, either because many of the delegates were still selected independently of the primary in conventions or because the primary came rather late in the calendar. There was also a history of “favorite sons” candidacies up through the 1960s, which were commonly used in many states as a way for party lead- ers to exert greater control over the state delegation process and to also have more clout at the national convention.4 Additionally, write- in candidacies were also the norm up until the 1980s. In fact, twice, in 1923 and 1964, every candidate was a write- in. In other years, such as 1944 (Franklin Roosevelt), 1948 (Harry Truman), 1960 (Rich- ard Nixon), 1968 (Eugene McCarthy), only one candidate was listed on the ballot for each party. Everyone else was a write- in. Even as late as 1976, Ron- ald Reagan was a write- in, his name not appearing on the ballot. The impact of primaries throughout the years was minimal and certainly not the major political event that they are today (Gans 2010). It wasn’t until 1980 that primaries in Pennsylvania began to approach a style that would be recognizable today. That year was also the second time that turnout reached the 30% mark and stands as the second highest in the state’s primary history. Generating this interest was a competitive race for both parties. On the GOP side, George Bush’s more moderate stance played well among Republican voters and he easily defeated the more conservative Ronald Reagan by 8 percentage points. However, the controversy surrounding the delegate selection process appeared for the first time after Reagan walked off with a majority of the convention delegates. Of course, Reagan also eventu- ally prevailed, selected Bush as his running mate uniting the party, and went on to win in the fall (Gans 2010). Such was not the case on the Democratic side, in what was one of the most acrimonious contests ever to appear in either party’s history, perhaps rivaled only by the Roosevelt/Taft fight. Like the 1912 internecine battle, this also Sometimes It Does Matter 59 involved a sitting U.S. president; this time Jimmy Carter was challenged from the left by Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts. While Kennedy narrowly prevailed in Pennsylvania, thanks in part to a last-minute endorsement by Phil- adelphia Mayor Bill Green, it still wasn’t enough to prevent the incumbent from reclaiming the nomination, thanks in large part to a series of primary victories that he had rolled up in the early stages of the campaign. Again, just as in 1912, the fissure between the two combatants and their supporters didn’t heal in time to prevent the opposition party from winning in November. The highest primary turnout recorded in Pennsylvania history would occur more recently in 2008, when Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama squared off against one another in a dramatic primary contest. While this year produced intense competition on both sides, what Pennsylvania experienced in 2008 on the Democratic side was unparalleled. This was due not only to the continuing struggle between the contenders but the sheer amount of time that existed between the most recent primary to take place in Mississippi on March 11. For six weeks, Pennsylvania was the center of the political universe and the drama produced by both sides did not disappoint. First, during this time, in late March, a video appeared in which the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, pastor at Obama’s Chicago church, was caught making particularly incendiary racial statements from the pulpit. While Obama rejected these comments, the ques- tion of whether he was actually in attendance on the day of the service was the source of much speculation (“The Wright Controversy” 2008). Then with two weeks to go before the primary, Obama faced perhaps the greatest crisis of his entire campaign. A video was leaked from a fundr aiser in San Francisco in which he commented that working-class people “cling to guns or religion” because they had been abandoned by their political leaders. Both Clinton and the Republicans presented it as evidence that he was elitist and condescending to working-class voters. Obama was clearly put on the defensive as election day approached. In addition, the Democratic organiza- tion throughout the state was largely behind Clinton, particularly in vote-r ich Philadelphia, where former mayor and then governor Ed Rendell spearheaded her efforts (Seelye 2008). Clinton rode all this to an overwhelming victory in the state, racking up 55% of the vote. However, unlike this year, it was her opponent who came in with the delegate lead, and her victory in Pennsylvania proved to be too little too late. However, unlike the Republicans in 1912 and the Democrats in 1980, the rift between the two camps largely disappeared by the fall allowing the party to regain the presidency. What develops between now and November between the Clinton and Sanders factions will certainly impact the final out- come once again. 60 John J. Kennedy Turnout Revisited Another way to address turnout, which can provide further insight on the state of this campaign and also the history of the state’s primary selection process, is comparing the percentage of voters within the two parties to their share of registered voters. Those results, listed in Table 5, examine this aspect of turnout since the modern era of presidential primaries began in 1980 and provide insight on two fronts. First, it is clearly evident, and not surprising, that the competiveness of the nomination fight within a particular party has a major impact on the level of overall turnout. For instance, turnout was over 40% in both the Democratic and Republican primaries three times, 1980, 1992, and 2016, all years when both sides offered a competitive race for presi- dent. While the race in 1992 was largely settled by the time the Pennsylvania primary arrived in April, interest in politics that year was at a high not seen in decades, thanks in part to a recession, and also a compelling third party bid initiated by H. Ross Perot. Thus, while Paul Tsongas and Patrick Buchanan’s quests were clearly on the verge of coming up short on the Democratic and Republican sides, respectively, interest remained high throughout that spring in the political process. The impact that the competiveness of a race can have on turnout is also clearly evident when there is an incumbent president unopposed on one Table 5. democratic and Republican Party Turnout Compared with Registered Voters year Registered democrats Registered Republicans democratic Turnout Republican Turnout democratic Turnout Percentage Republican Turnout Percentage 2016 4,062,360 3,126,164 1,681,427 1,594,475 41.4% 51.0% 2012 4,131,280 3,061,125 616,102 808,115 14.9% 26.4% 2008 4,200,109 3,186,057 2,336,480 816,928 55.6% 25.6% 2004 3,706,122 3,230,496 729,882 861,551 19.7% 26.7% 2000 3,633,822 3,161,402 704,150 643,085 19.4% 20.3% 1996 3,147,836 2,765,840 724,069 684,204 23.0% 24.7% 1992 2,710,389 2,362,748 1,265,495 1,008,777 46.7% 42.7% 1988 2,848,528 2,279,849 1,507,890 870549 52.9% 38.2% 1984 3,176,515 2,230,508 1,597,055 616916 50.3% 27.7% 1980 2,917,087 2,190,441 1,600,820 1,211,222 54.9% 55.3% Source: Pennsylvania Department of State. Data were tabulated by the author. Sometimes It Does Matter 61 party column while the other has a contest, albeit one that might be basi- cally decided by the time of Pennsylvania’s primary. In 1984, the Democratic contest between Walter Mondale and Gary Hart was certainly not settled at this point, and turnout was 23 points greater than the Republicans who were poised to renominate President Reagan. However, there was also roughly a 12-point differential in 2012 when it was Democratic president Barack Obama running unopposed, and it was the Republicans who still had a race, albeit one in which by this time it was almost certain that Mitt Romney was the one headed toward the nomination. Additionally, there are also times when a competitive race further down the ballot might be credited with producing a spike in turnout. Such was the case in 2004, when even though turnout was down overall as the presiden- tial race was all but decided by April on the Democratic side and President George  W. Bush was unopposed, GOP turnout was seven points higher, thanks to the competitive primary challenge that Specter faced from Con- gressman Pat Toomey. The Contrasting Results of 2008 and 2012 The most compelling data, however, as it pertains to the upcoming election this fall is the difference in Democratic and Republican turnout this year as it contrasts with the Democratic Party turnout in 2008. Despite more than 900,000 registered voters statewide, Democrats only outnumbered Republi- cans heading to the polls on primary day in 2016 by slightly less than 87,000 voters. Consistent with this data, the percentage difference between the two parties was considerable at 9.6%. This “enthusiasm gap” between the two par- ties should be of particular concern for the Democrats as they head into the fall campaign and perhaps portends that Pennsylvania will be one of the key battleground states. What should be of particular concern to Democrats is the turnout lev- els recorded this spring in their Clinton/Sanders contest, compared with the numbers achieved by Clinton eight years ago in her battle with Barack Obama. More than 655,000 more Democrats lined up to cast their ballot in 2008 than they did this year. Again, the percentage difference follows and produces an incredible 14.2% gap between these two electoral cycles. Making this even more worrisome is that not only were both still vigorously being fought (thus worth comparing) but that they’re the same individual; Hillary Clinton, was the eventual winner in both races (and by basically the same margin). 62 John J. Kennedy Below, Table 6 addresses Clinton’s decline through a different lens, mark- ing a contrast between her vote totals and overall percentage in each of Penn- sylvania’s four political regions. Only in the southeast, was she able to increase both her overall numbers (over 40,000 votes) and percentage (11%). This is largely attributable to the support that Barack Obama received in these counties, particularly in Phila- delphia in the 2008 contest. While she was able to maintain the same percent- age (62%) in the “T,” Clinton’s number did decline by almost 160,000 votes in the region. In the southwest and northwest, however, there was a falloff of over 138,000 and 82,000 votes, respectively, accounting for a sharp decrease of 15 percentage points in each. As for individual counties, in 2016, her raw vote increased in only four counties, three of which, Chester (187 votes), Dauphin (105), and Delaware (3,224) only slightly.5 Only in Philadelphia, where she experienced an increase of 65,012 was the difference of any significance. Again, this increase is also more likely due to the fact that she wasn’t running against Barack Obama, whose support in the African- American community was unrivaled, than it was to an sudden jolt of support for Clinton’s own campaign. What should be particularly concerning to Clinton’s supporters is the decline she experienced in some of the most stalwart Democratic counties in the state, such as over 45,000 fewer in Allegheny, 20,000 in Lackawanna, and 27,000 in Luzerne. Along with more partisan balanced counties such as Bucks and West more- land, her numbers also slipped considerably by over 24,000 and 26,000, respectively. Assuredly, these are the type of places that Trump and the GOP will be targeting in the fall. As for comparing her overall percentages, Clinton was able to increase her share in ten counties, Allegheny, Centre, Chester, Dauphin, Delaware, Table 6. hillary Clinton’s Vote Comparison between 2008 and 2016 by Pennsylvania Political Region 2008 Votes 2016 Votes Votes +/– 2008 Percentage 2016 Percentage Percentage +/– Southeast 379,945 420,838 40,893 48% 59% 11% Southwest 345,820 207,217 –138,603 70% 55% –15% Northeast 176,546 93,649 –82,897 68% 52% –15% Central “T” 372,728 213,403 –159,325 62% 62% 0% Totals 1,275,039 935,107 –339,932 62% 57% –5% Source: Raw data were provided by the Pennsylvania Department of State. Regional numbers are based on the author’s categorizations. Data are rounded to the nearest whole number. Sometimes It Does Matter 63 Lancaster, Montgomery, Philadelphia, Potter and Union, four of which are located in the southeast. The sole county in this region in which her per- centage declined was in Bucks. Nevertheless, while her percentage share did increase overall in 2016, Clinton’s significant 339,451 vote drop indicates some weakness and suggests that this percentage increase is probably due more to that fact that she was running against a more popular candidate in 2008. Indeed, as Table 7 illustrates, a comparison of exit poll results follow- ing Clinton’s 2008 and 2016 Pennsylvania primary victories reveals one of her greatest challenges heading into the fall (Trump’s victory was so domi- nant that the GOP exit polls reveal little). Some variances can be expected, such as the shift in voting along racial lines (given her opponent was Obama Table 7. exit Poll Results, Pennsylvania democratic Presidential Primary, 2008 and 2016 2008 2016 number Clinton obama number Clinton Sanders Gender Male 42% 49% 51% 40% 49% 50% Female 58% 59% 41% 60% 60% 39% Vote by Age 18–29 12% 40% 60% 12% 17% 83% 30–44 19% 47% 53% 24% 47% 53% 45–59 37% 56% 44% 41% 65% 34% 60 and Older 32% 62% 38% 23% 67% 31% Vote by Race White 80% 63% 37% 68% 51% 47% Black 15% 10% 90% 19% 70% 30% education No College Degree 53% 58% 42% 45% 55% 45% College Graduate 47% 51% 49% 55% 56% 43% Is hillary Clinton honest and Trustworthy? Yes 58% 77% 23% 58% 81% 17% No 40% 23% 77% 38% 18% 82% Area Type Urban 29% 40% 60% 48% 57% 43% Suburban 31% 59% 41% 31% 59% 41% Rural 20% 63% 37% 21% 48% 50% Source: CNN.com: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#PADEM; http://www.cnn.com/election/primaries/states/pa/Dem. 64 John J. Kennedy eight years earlier) and some that might seem surprising, such as how her numbers increased overall on the question of trustworthiness. However, the most startling contrast within these two sets of exit polls can be traced to those Democratic primary voters between the ages of 18–29. Within this sub- group, Clinton’s support declined from 40% in 2008 to just 17% this year. For her to win in November, much will hinge on whether she can win back these younger voters who served as the bedrock of Bernie Sanders campaign. Whether she is able to attract those voters who opposed her in the primary, such as Obama did with her voters eight years ago, will go a long way toward deciding not only who grabs Pennsylvania’s 20 electoral votes, but also who takes the biggest prize itself. 65 APPENDIX A Table A.1. Categorization Key for Pennsylvania’s Political Geographic Regions Southeast (5) Southwest (9) northeast (6) Central “T” (47) Bucks Chester Delaware Montgomery Philadelphia Allegheny Armstrong Beaver Butler Fayette Greene Lawrence Washington Westmoreland Carbon Lackawanna Lehigh Luzerne Monroe Northampton Adams Bedford Berks Blair Bradford Cambria Cameron Centre Clarion Clearfield Clinton Columbia Crawford Cumberland Dauphin Elk Erie Forest Franklin Fulton Huntingdon Indiana Jefferson Juniata Lancaster Lebanon Lycoming McKean Mercer Mifflin Montour Northumberland Perry Pike Potter Schuylkill Snyder Somerset Sullivan Susquehanna Tioga Union Venango Warren Wayne Wyoming York Source: Categorizations based upon the author’s groupings were initially presented in John J. Kennedy, Pennsylvania Elections Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2005. 66 Table B.1. democratic Vote for President in Pennsylvania Primary by County, 2016 County Clinton Percentage Sanders Percentage Adams 3,863 48% 4,101 51% Allegheny 123,715 55% 99,078 44% Armstrong 2,992 48% 3,073 50% Beaver 13,531 57% 9,873 42% Bedford 1,388 49% 1,387 49% Berks 21,063 48% 22,078 51% Blair 3,965 47% 4,360 52% Bradford 1,809 49% 1,839 50% Bucks 46,917 56% 36,173 43% Butler 8,790 52% 7,833 46% Cambria 8,507 47% 9,024 50% Cameron 186 42% 240 54% Carbon 3,384 49% 3,460 50% Centre 8,458 45% 10,331 55% Chester 33,082 56% 26,193 44% Clarion 1,529 49% 1,511 49% Clearfield 3,194 47% 3,414 51% Clinton 1,704 49% 1,739 50% Columbia 2,504 40% 3,601 58% Crawford 3,707 49% 3,789 50% Cumberland 12,421 52% 11,513 48% Dauphin 18,474 57% 13,787 42% Delaware 46,252 60% 30,824 40% Elk 1,601 45% 1,846 52% Erie 20,395 52% 18,362 47% Fayette 9,195 58% 6,460 41% Forest 251 52% 221 46% Franklin 4,707 52% 4,282 47% Fulton 366 49% 365 49% Greene 2,268 53% 1,927 45% Huntingdon 1,304 43% 1,666 55% Indiana 4,049 50% 3,839 48% Jefferson 1,249 44% 1,507 53% Juniata 664 46% 754 52% APPENDIX B 67 County Clinton Percentage Sanders Percentage Lackawanna 23,020 57% 17,308 42% Lancaster 19,840 48% 21,321 52% Lawrence 5,845 59% 3,981 40% Lebanon 4,669 50% 4,599 49% Lehigh 20,430 52% 18,338 47% Luzerne 20,542 52% 18,543 47% Lycoming 3,808 44% 4,730 55% McKean 1,053 46% 1,190 52% Mercer 6,530 57% 4,739 41% Mifflin 1,201 48% 1,242 50% Monroe 8,169 53% 7,042 46% Montgomery 75,628 59% 52,132 41% Montour 846 48% 890 50% Northampton 18,104 51% 16,940 48% Northumberland 3,582 49% 3,632 50% Perry 1,329 43% 1,752 56% Philadelphia 218,959 63% 129,353 37% Pike 2,009 51% 1,894 48% Potter 402 41% 560 57% Schuylkill 6,534 51% 6,040 47% Snyder 1,125 50% 1,081 48% Somerset 3,114 48% 3,206 50% Sullivan 312 50% 296 48% Susquehanna 1,680 50% 1,610 48% Tioga 1,055 43% 1,354 55% Union 1,626 50% 1,579 49% Venango 2,020 48% 2,087 50% Warren 1,836 52% 1,665 47% Washington 15,872 57% 11,262 41% Wayne 1,859 47% 2,026 52% Westmoreland 25,009 54% 20,286 44% Wyoming 1,156 48% 1,209 50% York 18,459 51% 17,544 48% Totals 935,107 56% 731,881 44% Source: Pennsylvania Department of State. Data are rounded to the nearest whole number. 68 Table C.1. Republican Vote for President in Pennsylvania Primary by County, 2016 County Trump Percentage Cruz Percentage Kasich Percentage Adams 9,773 57% 4,076 24% 2,705 16% Allegheny 61,469 51% 24,091 20% 33,318 28% Armstrong 7,718 67% 2,205 19% 1,363 12% Beaver 11,499 57% 4,490 22% 3,747 19% Bedford 6,577 63% 2,564 25% 963 9% Berks 29,260 59% 10,622 22% 8,196 17% Blair 13,178 61% 5,243 24% 2,652 12% Bradford 6,665 61% 2,415 22% 1,575 14% Bucks 51,461 57% 17,139 19% 20,240 22% Butler 20,054 57% 7,813 22% 6,922 20% Cambria 10,988 65% 3,508 21% 2,077 12% Cameron 503 58% 195 22% 137 16% Carbon 6,032 72% 1,433 17% 709 9% Centre 10,027 49% 5,215 26% 4,569 22% Chester 35,631 47% 15,038 20% 23,908 31% Clarion 4,230 61% 1,460 21% 1,026 15% Clearfield 8,017 67% 2,310 19% 1,423 12% Clinton 3,236 65% 1,055 21% 550 11% Columbia 6,071 67% 1,714 19% 1,064 12% Crawford 7,672 55% 3,617 26% 2,290 16% Cumberland 22,977 51% 12,200 27% 9,031 20% Dauphin 21,310 53% 10,200 26% 7,320 18% Delaware 43,237 52% 13,456 16% 23,640 28% Elk 2,688 67% 667 17% 577 14% Erie 16,495 52% 7,856 25% 6,507 21% Fayette 8,550 70% 2,224 18% 1,327 11% Forest 598 64% 180 19% 138 15% Franklin 15,653 58% 6,958 26% 3,671 14% Fulton 1,779 64% 660 24% 242 9% Greene 2,532 65% 845 22% 430 11% Huntingdon 5,236 62% 1,885 22% 981 12% Indiana 7,743 62% 2,634 21% 1,816 15% Jefferson 5,222 66% 1,505 19% 1,047 13% Juniata 2,394 56% 1,163 27% 553 13% APPENDIX C 69 County Trump Percentage Cruz Percentage Kasich Percentage Lackawanna 14,430 70% 3,368 16% 2,606 13% Lancaster 38,257 44% 27,470 32% 18,766 22% Lawrence 6,969 60% 2,636 23% 1,801 15% Lebanon 13,694 55% 6,789 27% 3,806 15% Lehigh 21,383 55% 9,079 24% 7,377 19% Luzerne 28,680 77% 4,633 13% 3,371 9% Lycoming 12,917 62% 5,349 26% 2,217 11% McKean 3,901 63% 1,151 19% 960 16% Mercer 8,454 55% 3,085 20% 3,429 22% Mifflin 4,310 59% 1,788 24% 1,041 14% Monroe 10,252 69% 2,499 17% 1,798 12% Montgomery 51,593 48% 21,503 20% 31,370 29% Montour 1,745 59% 617 21% 512 17% Northampton 19,695 61% 7,013 22% 5,019 16% Northumberland 8,241 64% 2,865 22% 1,464 11% Perry 5,519 57% 2,780 29% 1,092 11% Philadelphia 25,738 57% 8,231 18% 9,629 21% Pike 5,203 74% 955 14% 779 11% Potter 2,369 66% 709 20% 399 11% Schuylkill 16,801 74% 3,085 14% 2,342 10% Snyder 3,745 54% 2,034 29% 996 14% Somerset 9,069 64% 3,159 22% 1,540 11% Sullivan 842 64% 247 19% 183 14% Susquehanna 5,036 61% 2,067 25% 1,042 13% Tioga 4,742 61% 1,687 22% 1,140 15% Union 3,421 52% 1,953 30% 1,020 16% Venango 4,934 56% 2,389 27% 1,334 15% Warren 3,771 56% 1,716 25% 1,088 16% Washington 16,242 61% 5,444 20% 4,670 17% Wayne 6,395 68% 1,867 20% 959 10% Westmoreland 32,209 62% 10,506 20% 8,512 16% Wyoming 3,634 66% 1,110 20% 633 12% York 41,927 59% 17,086 24% 10,394 15% Totals 902,593 57% 345,506 22% 310,003 19% Source: Pennsylvania Department of State. Data are rounded to the nearest whole number. 70 Table d.1. democratic and Republican Party Turnout by County, 2016 County Registered democrats Voters Percentage Turnout Registered Republicans Voters Percentage Turnout Adams 19,565 8,035 41% 33,678 17,071 51% Allegheny 520,006 224,612 43% 246,022 120,622 49% Armstrong 15,832 6,195 39% 20,434 11,525 56% Beaver 58,855 23,773 40% 38,020 20,111 53% Bedford 9,598 2,838 30% 20,441 10,426 51% Berks 115,735 43,563 38% 95,266 49,177 52% Blair 24,000 8,460 35% 41,835 21,659 52% Bradford 10,444 3,701 35% 21,363 10,966 51% Bucks 190,862 83,927 44% 179,940 90,991 51% Butler 41,167 16,872 41% 65,265 35,453 54% Cambria 45,529 18,040 40% 29,919 16,933 57% Cameron 1,220 444 36% 1,636 872 53% Carbon 18,211 6,945 38% 16,260 8,324 51% Centre 44,939 18,912 42% 42,673 20,381 48% Chester 129,234 59,479 46% 149,589 76,240 51% Clarion 8,086 3,099 38% 12,275 6,896 56% Clearfield 21,008 6,753 32% 24,863 12,007 48% Clinton 8,983 3,504 39% 9,348 4,946 53% Columbia 15,636 6,186 40% 16,917 9,046 53% Crawford 19,359 7,614 39% 26,219 13,971 53% Cumberland 53,030 24,102 45% 81,402 45,374 56% Dauphin 82,783 32,511 39% 73,742 39,844 54% Delaware 178,249 77,439 43% 168,124 83,132 49% Elk 9,649 3,519 36% 7,834 4,031 51% Erie 95,107 39,095 41% 63,012 31,647 50% Fayette 48,796 15,940 33% 25,120 12,268 49% Forest 1,294 482 37% 1,711 938 55% Franklin 24,470 9,107 37% 50,932 27,131 53% Fulton 2,600 749 29% 5,319 2,770 52% Greene 12,615 4,316 34% 7,235 3,874 54% Huntingdon 9,106 3,013 33% 16,542 8,388 51% Indiana 20,114 8,044 40% 22,148 12,495 56% Jefferson 9,753 2,846 29% 15,937 7,963 50% Juniata 3,994 1,456 36% 7,943 4,258 54% APPENDIX D 71 County Registered democrats Voters Percentage Turnout Registered Republicans Voters Percentage Turnout Lackawanna 89,887 40,730 45% 40,036 20,710 52% Lancaster 103,052 41,358 40% 166,930 86,933 52% Lawrence 27,408 9,968 36% 21,798 11,627 53% Lebanon 26,149 9,361 36% 44,878 24,874 55% Lehigh 109,364 38,992 36% 37,516 38,588 50% Luzerne 105,473 39,547 37% 68,565 37,062 54% Lycoming 22,073 8,666 39% 35,991 20,941 58% McKean 7,269 2,280 31% 13,573 6,167 45% Mercer 33,805 11,459 34% 31,262 15,325 49% Mifflin 7,519 2,487 33% 14,552 7,320 50% Monroe 48,931 15,334 31% 33,670 14,839 44% Montgomery 257,956 128,181 50% 208,044 106,896 51% Montour 4,679 1,768 38% 5,987 2,950 49% Northampton 94,926 35,372 37% 68,809 32,268 47% Northumberland 21,695 7,322 34% 26,122 12,849 49% Perry 7,155 3,120 44% 17,028 9,650 57% Philadelphia 801,776 349,805 44% 118,392 44,954 38% Pike 13,212 3,922 30% 16,471 7,020 43% Potter 2,903 982 34% 6,696 3,577 53% Schuylkill 33,902 12,738 38% 41,098 22,627 55% Snyder 5,391 2,232 41% 13,095 6,972 53% Somerset 17,997 6,463 36% 25,685 14,176 55% Sullivan 1,533 622 41% 2,334 1,310 56% Susquehanna 8,045 3,332 41% 14,330 8,313 58% Tioga 7,174 2,442 34% 15,156 7,810 52% Union 6,987 3,220 46% 12,102 6,567 54% Venango 11,087 4,201 38% 16,567 8,885 54% Warren 10,626 3,554 33% 14,579 6,790 47% Washington 66,805 27,639 41% 50,570 26,722 53% Wayne 10,020 3,919 39% 17,216 9,357 54% Westmoreland 117,450 46,049 39% 99,027 51,940 52% Wyoming 5,244 2,398 46% 8,931 5,502 62% York 98,628 36,393 37% 137,087 71,224 52% Totals 4,055,950 1,681,427 41% 3,122,135 1,594,475 51% Source: Pennsylvania Department of State. Data were tabulated by the author. 72 Table demo e.1. Presidential Primary Results in Pennsylvania, 1912–2016 cratic Votes Percentage Republican Votes Percentage April 13, 1912 Wilson 98,000 100.0% Roosevelt 282,853 59.7% Taft 191,179 40.3% May 16, 1916 Wilson 142,202 98.7% Brumbaugh** 233,095 86.3% Others* 1,839 1.3% Ford* 20,265 75.0% Roosevelt* 12,359 46.0% Hughes* 1,804 70.0% Others 2,682 100.0% May 18, 1920 Palmer** 80,356 73.7% E. Wood** 257,841 92.3% McAdoo 26,875 24.6% Johnson* 10,869 3.8% Edwards* 674 0.6% L. Wood* 3,878 1.4% Others 1,132 0.1% Hoover 2,825 1.0% Others* 4,059 1.5% April 22, 1924 McAdoo* 10,376 43.7% Coolidge* 117,262 87.9% Smith* 9,029 38.0% Johnson* 4,345 330.0% Others* 4,341 18.3% La Follette* 1,224 90.0% Others* 10,523 7.9% April 24, 1928 Smith 24,102 98.1% Hoover 65,480 90.0% Walsh 420 1.7% Coolidge 4,438 6.1% Reed 54 0.2% Dawes 1,225 1.7% Fuller 998 1.4% Lowden 578 0.8% April 26, 1932 Roosevelt 133,002 56.6% France 352,092 92.9% Smith 101,227 43.1% Hoover 20,662 5.5% Others* 563 0.2% Others 6,126 1.6% April 28, 1936 Roosevelt 720,309 95.3% Borah 459,982 100.0% Breckinridge 35,351 4.7% APPENDIX E 73 democratic Votes Percentage Republican Votes Percentage April 23, 1940 Roosevelt 724,657 100.0% Dewey 52,661 66.7% Roosevelt 8,294 10.5% James** 8,172 10.3% Taft 5,213 6.6% Vandenberg 2,384 3.0% Hoover 1,082 1.4% Willkie 707 0.9% Others* 463 0.6% April 25, 1944 Roosevelt 322,469 99.7% Dewey* 146,706 83.8% Others* 961 0.3% MacArthur* 9,032 5.2% Roosevelt 8,815 5.0% Willkie* 3,650 2.1% Bricker* 2,936 1.7% Martin** 2,406 1.4% Stassen* 1,502 0.9% April 27, 1948 Truman 328,891 96.0% Stassen* 81,242 31.5% Eisenhower* 4,502 1.3% Dewey* 76,988 29.8% Wallace* 4,329 1.3% Martin** 45,072 17.5% Stassen* 1,301 0.4% MacArthur* 18,254 7.1% MacArthur* 1,220 0.4% Taft* 15,166 5.9% Others* 2,409 0.7% Vandeberg* 8,818 3.4% Truman* 4,907 1.9% Eisenhower* 4,726 1.8% Wallace* 1,452 0.6% Others* 1,537 0.6% April 22, 1952 Kefauver* 93,160 53.3% Eisenhower 863,785 73.6% Eisenhower* 28,660 16.4% Taft* 178,629 15.2% Truman 26,504 15.2% Stassen 120,305 10.3% Taft* 8,311 4.8% MacArthur* 6,028 0.5% Harriman* 3,745 2.1% Warren* 3,158 0.3% Stevenson* 3,678 2.1% Truman* 267 0.1% Russell* 1,691 0.1% Others* 9,026 5.2% Others* 1,121 0.1% 74 Table e.1 (continued) democratic Votes Percentage Republican Votes Percentage April 24, 1956 Stevenson 642,172 93.6% Eisenhower 951,932 95.5% Kefauver* 36,552 5.3% Knowland 43,508 4.4% Others* 7,482 1.1% Others* 976 0.1% April 26, 1960 Kennedy* 183,073 71.3% Nixon 968,538 98.1% Stevenson* 29,660 11.5% Rockefeller* 12,491 13.0% Nixon* 15,136 5.9% Kennedy* 3,886 0.4% Humphrey* 13,860 5.4% Stevenson* 428 0.1% Symington* 6,791 2.6% Goldwater* 286 0.1% Johnson* 2,918 4.0% Others* 1,202 0.1% Rockefeller* 1,078 4.0% Others* 4,297 1.7% April 28, 1964 Johnson* 209,606 82.8% Scranton* 235,222 51.9% Wallace* 12,104 4.8% Lodge* 92,712 20.5% Kennedy* 12,024 4.7% Nixon* 44,396 9.8% Scranton* 8,156 3.2% Goldwater* 38,669 8.5% Lodge* 4,895 1.9% Johnson* 22,372 4.9% Goldwater* 1,731 0.7% Rockefeller* 9,123 2.0% Nixon* 1,606 0.2% Wallace* 5,105 1.1% Rockefeller* 576 0.2% Smith* 1,721 0.4% Stevenson* 332 0.1% Romney* 936 0.2% Smith* 260 0.1% Kennedy* 661 0.1% Romney* 66 0.0% Stassen* 280 0.1% Others* 1,790 0.7% Others* 1,671 0.4% April 23, 1968 McCarthy 428,259 71.7% Nixon* 171,815 59.7% Kennedy* 65,430 11.0% Rockefeller* 52,915 18.4% Humphrey* 51,998 8.7% McCarthy* 18,800 6.5% Wallace* 24,147 4.0% Wallace* 13,290 4.6% Johnson* 21,265 3.6% Kennedy* 10,431 3.6% Nixon* 3,434 0.6% Reagan* 7,934 2.8% Others* 2,556 0.4% Humphrey* 4,651 1.6% Johnson* 3,027 1.1% Shafer 1,223 0.4% Others* 3,487 1.2% 75 democratic Votes Percentage Republican Votes Percentage April 25, 1972 Humphrey 481,900 35.1% Nixon* 153,886 83.3% Wallace 292,437 21.3% Wallace* 20,472 11.1% McGovern 280,861 20.4% Others* 10,443 5.7% Muskie 279,983 20.4% Jackson 38,767 2.8% Chisholm* 306 1.0% Others* 585 1.0% April 27, 1976 Carter 511,905 37.0% Ford 733,472 92.1% Jackson 340,340 24.6% Reagan* 40,510 5.1% Udall 259,166 18.7% Others* 22,678 2.8% Wallace 155,902 11.3% McCormack 38,800 2.8% Shapp 32,947 2.4% Bayh 15,320 1.1% Harris 13,067 0.9% Humphrey* 12,563 0.9% Others* 5,032 0.3% April 22, 1980 Kennedy 736,954 47.2% Bush 628,759 51.9% Carter 732,332 46.9% Reagan 527,916 43.6% Brown 93,805 6.0% Baker 30,846 2.5% Connally 10,056 0.8% Stassen 6,767 0.6% Jacobson 4,357 0.4% Fernandez 2,521 0.2% April 10, 1984 Mondale 747,267 46.8% Reagan 616,916 100.0% Hart 551,335 34.5% Jackson 264,463 16.6% Cranston 22,829 1.4% Griser 6,090 0.4% Askew 5,071 0.3% 76 Table e.1 (continued) democratic Votes Percentage Republican Votes Percentage April 26, 1988 Dukakis 1,002,480 66.5% Bush 687,323 79.0% Jackson 411,260 27.3% Dole 103,763 11.9% Gore 44,542 3.0% Robertson 79,463 9.1% Hart 20,473 1.4% Simon 9,892 0.7% Wesner 7,546 0.5% Gephardt 7,254 0.5% Larouche 4,443 0.3% April 28, 1992 Clinton 715,031 56.5% Bush 774,865 76.8% Brown 325,543 25.7% Buchanan 233,912 23.1% Tsongas 161,572 12.8% LaRouche 21,534 1.7% Harkin 21,013 1.7% Kerrey 20,802 1.6% April 23, 1996 Clinton 666,486 92.1% Dole 435,031 63.6% LaRouche 57,583 8.0% Buchanan 123,011 18.0% Forbes 55,018 8.0% Keyes 40,025 5.9% Lugar 31,119 4.6% April 4, 2000 Gore 525,306 74.6% Bush 472,398 73.4% Bradley 146,797 20.9% McCain 145,719 22.7% LaRouche 32,047 4.6% Forbes 16,162 2.5% Bauer 8,806 1.4% April 27, 2004 Kerry 585,683 74.1% Bush 861,555 100.0% Dean 79,799 10.1% Edwards 76,762 1.0% Kucinich 30,110 0.4% LaRouche 17,528 0.2% April 22, 2008 Clinton 1,275,039 54.6% McCain 595,175 72.9% Obama 1,061,441 45.4% Paul 129,323 15.8% Huckabee 92,430 11.3% 77 democratic Votes Percentage Republican Votes Percentage April 24, 2012 Obama 616,102 100.0% Romney 468,374 60.0% Santorum 149,056 18.4% Gingrich 84,537 10.4% Paul 106,148 13.1% April 26, 2016 Clinton 925,125 55.6% Trump 899,125 56.7% Sanders 725,042 43.6% Cruz 343,464 21.7% De La Fuente 14,353 0.9% Kasich 307,473 19.3% Carson 14,777 0.9% Rubio 11,870 0.9% Bush 9,491 0.6% Source: Deborah Kalb, ed., CQ Guide to US Elections. 7th ed. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press, 2016. * Denotes “write- in candidate.” ** Denotes “favorite son candidate.” 78 Table F.1. hillary Clinton’s Vote Comparison between 2008 and 2016 by Pennsylvania County County 2008 Votes 2016 Votes Votes +/– 2008 Percentage 2016 Percentage Percentage +/– Adams 6,567 3,863 –2,704 58.1% 48.1% –10.0% Allegheny 169,707 123,715 –45,992 54.4% 55.1% 0.7% Armstrong 7,246 2,992 –4,254 71.5% 48.3% –23.2% Beaver 28,331 13,531 –14,800 69.8% 56.9% –12.9% Bedford 3,711 1,388 –2,323 70.1% 48.9% –21.2% Berks 36,064 21,063 –15,001 58.0% 48.4% –9.6% Blair 8,875 3,965 –4,910 64.8% 46.9% –17.9% Bradford 3,877 1,809 –2,068 65.8% 48.9% –16.9% Bucks 71,757 46,917 –24,840 62.6% 55.9% –6.7% Butler 15,278 8,790 –6,488 63.3% 52.1% –11.2% Cambria 23,572 8,507 –15,065 71.8% 47.2% –24.6% Cameron 409 186 –223 59.3% 41.9% –17.4% Carbon 7,922 3,384 –4,538 78.1% 48.7% –29.5% Centre 9,789 8,458 –1,331 39.9% 44.7% 4.8% Chester 32,895 33,082 187 44.8% 55.6% 10.8% Clarion 3,417 1,529 –1,888 66.4% 49.3% –17.1% Clearfield 8,167 3,194 –4,973 68.5% 47.3% –21.2% Clinton 3,622 1,704 –1,918 68.3% 48.6% –19.7% Columbia 5,556 2,504 –3,052 60.3% 40.5% –19.8% Crawford 7,360 3,707 –3,653 62.6% 48.7% –13.9% Cumberland 15,840 12,421 –3,419 52.7% 51.5% –1.1% Dauphin 18,369 18,474 105 41.8% 56.8% 15.1% Delaware 43,028 46,252 3,224 44.4% 59.7% 15.4% Elk 4,159 1,601 –2,558 64.8% 45.5% –19.3% Erie 34,922 20,395 –14,527 63.0% 52.2% –10.8% Fayette 23,095 9,195 –13,900 78.8% 57.7% –21.1% Forest 613 251 –362 68.3% 52.1% –16.3% Franklin 7,891 4,707 –3,184 59.1% 51.7% –7.4% Fulton 962 366 –596 68.0% 48.9% –19.1% Greene 6,282 2,268 –4,014 75.4% 52.5% –22.9% Huntingdon 2,957 1,304 –1,653 62.5% 43.3% –19.3% Indiana 7,901 4,049 –3,852 64.0% 50.3% –13.7% Jefferson 3,177 1,249 –1,928 63.3% 43.9% –19.4% Juniata 1,711 664 –1,047 68.6% 45.6% –23.0% APPENDIX F 79 County 2008 Votes 2016 Votes Votes +/– 2008 Percentage 2016 Percentage Percentage +/– Lackawanna 43,243 23,020 –20,223 73.8% 56.5% –17.3% Lancaster 22,906 19,840 –3,066 45.5% 48.0% 2.6% Lawrence 13,225 5,845 –7,380 74.2% 58.6% –15.6% Lebanon 7,611 4,669 –2,942 56.0% 49.9% –6.1% Lehigh 33,163 20,430 –12,733 60.3% 52.4% –7.9% Luzerne 48,123 20,542 –27,581 75.0% 51.9% –23.1% Lycoming 7,950 3,808 –4,142 58.5% 43.9% –14.6% McKean 2,442 1,053 –1,389 66.2% 46.2% –20.0% Mercer 14,168 6,530 –7,638 69.1% 57.0% –12.1% Mifflin 3,000 1,201 –1,799 69.9% 48.3% –21.6% Monroe 12,487 8,169 –4,318 57.6% 53.3% –4.3% Montgomery 78,318 75,628 –2,690 50.7% 59.0% 8.3% Montour 1,481 846 –635 60.4% 47.9% –12.5% Northampton 31,608 18,104 –13,504 61.3% 51.2% –10.2% Northumberland 8,559 3,582 –4,977 71.7% 48.9% –22.8% Perry 2,684 1,329 –1,355 61.5% 42.6% –18.9% Philadelphia 153,947 218,959 65,012 34.8% 62.6% 27.8% Pike 3,684 2,009 –1,675 59.1% 51.2% –7.9% Potter 1,050 402 –648 64.9% 40.9% –24.0% Schuylkill 15,369 6,534 –8,835 73.6% 51.3% –22.3% Snyder 1,824 1,125 –699 62.5% 50.4% –12.1% Somerset 8,525 3,114 –5,411 72.4% 48.2% –24.2% Sullivan 679 312 –367 68.4% 50.2% –18.2% Susquehanna 3,334 1,680 –1,654 65.3% 50.4% –14.9% Tioga 2,255 1,055 –1,200 61.6% 43.2% –18.4% Union 2,128 1,626 –502 47.9% 50.5% 2.6% Venango 4,437 2,020 –2,417 68.3% 48.1% –20.2% Warren 3,996 1,836 –2,160 66.2% 51.7% –14.5% Washington 31,065 15,872 –15,193 71.3% 57.4% –13.9% Wayne 3,478 1,859 –1,619 62.0% 47.4% –14.6% Westmoreland 51,591 25,009 –26,582 69.2% 54.3% –14.9% Wyoming 2,488 1,156 –1,332 69.0% 48.2% –20.8% York 29,192 18,459 –10,733 55.3% 50.7% –4.6% Totals 1,274,558 935,107 –339,451 55.1% 55.6% 0.5% Source: Pennsylvania Department of State. Data were tabulated by the author. 80 John J. Kennedy NOTES Acknowledgment: Special thanks go to Beau Ryck, a former graduate student in the West Chester University Department of Geography, who did a great job with the maps. 1. For a guide to how Pennsylvania’s counties are categorized, please see Appendix A. These groupings are subjective and reflect those that the author initially developed in his book, Pennsylvania Elections (2004). 2. San Diego, California, businessman Rocky De Le Fuente also appeared on the Democratic ballot in Pennsylvania receiving slightly less than 1% overall. Additionally, three Republican candidates for president who previously dropped out or suspended their campaigns, former Florida governor Jeb Bush, Dr. Ben Carson, and Florida senator Marco Rubio, also remained on the ballot and received a smattering of votes. Though for clarity they are excluded in this text, their final percentages are included in Appendix E. 3. For a complete list of the results in each individual county, please see Appendix D. 4. For a complete list of all results for every Pennsylvania presidential primary since 1912, please see Appendix E. 5. For a complete list of the results in each individual county, please see Appendix F. REFERENCES Brewer, Mark D., and L. Sandy Maisel. 2016. Parties and Elections in America. Washing- ton, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press. CNN.com. Atlanta, 2016. Available at http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/ results/epolls/#PADEM; http://www.cnn.com/election/primaries/states/pa/Dem. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 1980–1996. The Pennsylvania Manual, Selected Vol- umes. Harrisburg: Department of General Services. Couloumbis, Angela. 2016a. “Campaign 2016 Really Rolls into Pennsylvania.” Philadel- phia Inquirer, April 20. ———. 2016b. “Cruz Urges Pa. Republicans to Unite behind Him.” Philadelphia Inquirer, April 21. “Delegate Vote Totals.” 2016. Green Paper, April 28. Available at http:greenpaper.com. “Election Results.” 1912. Editorial, New York Times, June 16. Flanigan, William H., and Nancy H. Zingale. 2014. Political Behavior in the American Electorate. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press. Gans, Curtis, ed. 2010. Voter Turnout in the US, 1788–2009. Washington, DC: Congres- sional Quarterly Press. Horvath, Jeff. 2016. “Bernie’s Message Resonates with Young Crowd.” Times-Tribune, April 22. Kalb, Deborah, ed. 2016. CQ Guide to US Elections. 7th ed. Washington, DC: Congres- sional Quarterly Press. Kennedy, John J. 2005. Pennsylvania Elections. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. Kraus, Scott. 2016. “Bernie Sanders Mines Pennsylvania for Momentum.” Morning Call, April 21. Martell, Matt. 2016. “Bernie Sanders Policies, Personality Draw Support at Penn State.” Centre Daily Times, April 19. McCrystal, Laura, and Claudia Vargas. 2016. “Clinton Speaks about Women’s Issues, Philadelphia Issues.” Philadelphia Inquirer, April 22. Mizenko, Melanie. 2016. “Ted Cruz Rallies a Packed House in Scranton.” Times Leader, April 22. Sometimes It Does Matter 81 Olson, Laura, and Steve Esack. 2016. “Donald Trump Rallies in Harrisburg Draws Thou- sands.” Morning Call, April 21. Pennsylvania Democratic Party. 2016. Delegate Selection Process. Available at http: padems.com. Pennsylvania Department of State. 2016. Harrisburg, PA. “Sanders, Clinton in Pittsburgh Area; Kasich Town Hall Tonight.” 2016. WPXI- NBC Pittsburgh, April 25. Seelye, Katherine. 2008. “In Pennsylvania, New Suburban Democrats.” New York Times, April 15. Seidman, Andrew, and Patricia Madej. 2016. “Coming to the Region—Clintons, Sanders, Kasich, and Trump.” Philadelphia Inquirer, April 22. Smith, Allan. 2016. “One Quote Sums Up the Odd Nature of Pennsylvania’s Primary Sys- tem.” Business Insider, April 24. USElectionProject.com. 2012–2016. Presidential Primary Vote Turnout. Available at uselectionproject.com. “The Wright Controversy.” Editorial. 2008. New York Times, March 12. WTAE-A BC Pittsburgh. 2016. “Cruz Visits Monroeville.” Times- Tribune, April 22. John J. Kennedy, PhD, is an associate professor of political science at West Chester Uni- versity. His latest book, Pennsylvania Government and Politics, will be released this fall. He is also the author of Pennsylvania Elections, originally published in 2005 and revised in 2015, and The Contemporary Pennsylvania Legislature (1999). In 2005, he was selected as a featured speaker for the Centennial Celebration of the Pennsylvania State Capital. He earned his doctorate from Temple University. Structure Bookmarks Campaigning The Vote The Delegate Battle Voter Turnout Historical Perspective Turnout Revisited The Contrasting Results of 2008 and 2012