Efforts in Pa. may have hurt Kerry

Sen. John Kerry's vigorously fought-for win in Pennsylvania may easily have caused his defeat in the national arena, according to political pundits.

He emerged triumphant by a slim margin in Pennsylvania, thanks to high levels of voter registration and turnout. About 680,000 more people voted in Pennsylvania than did in the 2000 presidential election.

Prior to Nov. 2, commentators on all sides said that Pennsylvania was a must-win swing state for Kerry, and according to CNN.com, he visited the state 21 times since March 3, twice visiting Philadelphia this fall.

Bush spokesman Mark Pfeifle claimed, however, that Kerry's very success in Pennsylvania may have cost him other battleground states.

"The strong campaign by President Bush and Vice President Cheney forced Kerry to spend an enormous amount of time and energy in the Keystone State instead of states like Ohio, which turned out to be enormously important," he said.

Kerry spokesman Mark Nevins, however, labeled the point "the most pathetic and sad excuse for spin I've ever heard," interpreting it as an implication that the Republicans deliberately sacrificed Pennsylvania.

"They lost Pennsylvania, and they're trying to make it seem like it's the plan all along," Nevins said. "They won the election, but they're trying to spin a victory."

But the argument may not be as implausible as Nevins claims. A loss in Pennsylvania would have lowered Kerry's chances of winning the election to near-zero, while Bush's strong showing in Florida meant he could bear the defeat.

"If Kerry was not going to be president without winning Pennsylvania, Bush showed that he could," Keystone Poll Director Terry Madonna said. "Inherently, I don't think that was the reason Bush came here 44 times. It wasn't a diversion ... but it had the effect of forcing Kerry to spend a lot of time and money here."

High voter turnout was a trend nationwide and was initially expected to act in Kerry's favor. Approximately 120 million people voted Tuesday, up 15 million from four years ago.

While Kerry was able to secure Pennsylvania's 21 electoral votes by winning 51 percent of the popular vote, Bush gained ground in the state compared to the last election, reducing the five-point margin Al Gore achieved in the 2000 election.

"That's a gap that will continue to shrink," Pfeifle said. "Republicans in Pennsylvania go into an election with a registration gap, and ... the president outperformed that registration gap."

Many argue, however, that Kerry's victory owes most to the fact that Democrats simply outnumber Republicans in this state.

"We have more Democrats registered than the Republicans do," Nevins said. "We did a better job than they did of registering voters. We registered closer to 230,000 more Democrats in the 2004 elections than we did in 2000."

The electoral map of this year's election outcome is virtually identical to the one of 2000.

The major Democratic centers of Pennsylvania are located around Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, and Kerry won both these regions by significant margins, though the underlying issues that drove people in these areas to support him differed greatly.

"In the Southeast, it's about cultural moderation. In the Southwest, it's more about economy and jobs," Madonna said, noting that economic issues were less important to voters in as prosperous an area as Philadelphia.

Save clusters of counties around Pennsylvania's two major cities, all others came out strong for the Republican party.

"In the big area in the middle, it's largely driven by cultural issues -- abortion and gay rights," Madonna said. "But I also think the voters in the central region focused more on the war on terror."

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.