Politics Is Local . . . Except When It Isn't: the Campaign for the 3Rd Congressional District in Pennsylvania

All Politics is Local . Except When It Isn’t: The Campaign for the 3rd Congressional District in Pennsylvania Daniel M. Shea and Stephen K. Medvic In an era when the vast majority of officeholders who seek reelection win (and typically do so by large margins), the rare defeat of an incumbent is a critically important phenomena. In the Third Congressional District of Pennsylvania, a political neophyte—Kathy Dahlrymple (D)—knocked off Phil English (R), a smart, aggressive, 14-year incumbent. Part of the story is the national tide of change, sparked by the presidential campaign of Barack Obama. As a result, the Republican incumbent had no choice but to play defense. But another piece of the tale is the experience of the challenger, which provided her with a non-traditional, but crucially important source of support. Still another layer is the strategies and tactics of both candidates. No two campaigns are ever the same, and the story of the 2008 contest in Pennsylvania’s Third Congressional District was certainly unique. The Context The District Pennsylvania’s Third Congressional District sits in the northwest corner of the state. The district extends from Lake Erie south to Butler and Armstrong Counties and at its southernmost point is roughly 20 miles north of Pittsburgh (see Figure 1). Though 42 percent of the district is rural, there is also a significant industrial influence, particularly in the district’s major city, Erie, which is Pennsylvania’s fourth most populous city. The result is a district that is more blue-collar (30.7 percent) than the rest of the state (25.2 percent) and one with a median income ($35,884) of roughly $4,200 less than the state as a whole (Barone and Cohen 2007, 1393; 1374). Politically, the district leans Republican. In 2000, 51 percent of the voters in the Third District supported George W. Bush as did 53 percent in 2004. In both cases, Mr. Bush’s vote totals were five percentage points higher in the Third District than were his statewide totals. Though Erie and ______________ DANIEL M. SHEA is a professor of political science at Allegheny College. STEPHEN K. MEDVIC is an associate professor of government at Franklin and Marshall College. The American Review of Politics, Vol. 30, Summer, 2009: 173-187 ©2009 The American Review of Politics 174 | Daniel M. Shea and Stephen K. Medvic Medvic K. Stephen and M. Shea |Daniel 174 Figure 1. The Pennsylvania 3rd Congressional District Campaign for the 3rd Congressional District in Pennsylvania | 175 Mercer Counties are predominantly Democratic, the Democrats in this district are relatively conservative. The combination of conservative, blue- collar voters with rural voters explains the Republican tilt to the district, but also suggests an opportunity for Democratic candidates in the mold of Senator Robert Casey, Jr.; that is, those who are economically progressive and socially conservative. The Candidates The Incumbent: Phil English Republican incumbent Phil English was first elected to the House of Representatives in 1994 by a narrow victory in which he garnered just under 50 percent of the vote (the Democrat netted 47 percent and an Independent candidate pulled in three percent). It was widely reported that during the 1994 campaign English had pledged to serve only six terms in Congress, though he denied making such a pledge. In his first reelection contest, English survived another close race, edging out Democrat Ron DiNicola 51 percent to 49 percent. Beginning in 1998, however, he won four consecutive races with at least 60 percent of the vote. In the midterm election of 2006—a difficult year for the GOP in which fellow western Pennsylvania Republicans Melissa Hart (Fourth Congres- sional District) and Rick Santorum (Senate) lost reelection bids—English’s vote share dropped to 54 percent against a challenger who was vastly out- spent. After several years of comfortable victories, English appeared to be on relatively thin electoral ice. Through 2006, it could reasonably be said that Phil English’s voting record was reliably conservative. His ratings from the American Conserva- tive Union (ACU) for 2005 and 2006 were 88 (100 being most conservative) and 80, respectively; the liberal Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) gave him scores of 5 (100 being most liberal) and 15 in those same years. His party unity scores (calculated by CQ Weekly) were 93 percent and 90 percent in 2005 and 2006. Finally, he supported President Bush’s position on legislation 85 percent and 95 percent of the time in those two years. Perhaps in response to a reelection contest in 2006 that was closer than it should have been, English’s voting record became noticeably more moderate in the 110th Congress. His ACU scores dropped (that is, became less conservative) to 64 and 52 in 2007 and 2008 and his ADA scores rose (or became more liberal) to 40 and 65. His party unity scores also fell to 78 percent and 82 percent in 2007 and 2008 and he supported President Bush only 50 percent and 44 percent of the time in those years respectively (see Table 1 for a summary of these trends). 176 | Daniel M. Shea and Stephen K. Medvic Table 1. Representative English’s Vote Scores, 2005-2008 2005 2006 2007 2008 ACU Score 88 80 64 52 ADA Score 5 15 40 65 Party Unity Score 93 90 78 82 Presidential Support Score 85 95 50 44 Source: The 2005 and 2006 ACU and ADA scores are from Barone and Cohen (2007, 1392); 2007 and 2008 scores are from the ACU and ADA websites. Party unity and presidential support scores are found in the various “vote studies” conducted by CQ Weekly and published in late December or early January each year. With a seat on the powerful Ways and Means Committee, English could claim a significant amount of clout in the House for his constituents. He certainly worked hard to protect their interests, even if that meant occa- sionally disagreeing with his party. For instance, he supported an increase in the minimum wage and home heating subsidies for low-income families. Though he voted for the Central America Free Trade Agreement, he did so only after certain concessions were in place and he generally con- sidered himself a supporter of “fair trade.” As such, he was willing to support tariffs on imports from China and Vietnam, a popular position in North- west Pennsylvania. As chair of the Steel Caucus in the House, he was also a staunch defender of the steel industry. This was manifested by his support for import quotas for steel and his efforts to stop Korea from “dumping” (or using predatory pricing for) steel pipe and tubing (Barone and Cohen 2007, 1394). Following the 2006 midterm elections, English hoped to enter the ranks of Republican leadership in the House. To do so, he made a bid to become chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC). Though that bid was unsuccessful, English was tapped to chair an NRCC task force devoted to erasing the campaign committee’s $14.4 million debt.1 Outsider observers, such as a few local political scientists and several of the beltway handicappers such as Charlie Cook, seemed reluctant to tag English as vulnerable at the outset of the 2008 campaign. He was smart, aggressive, well-positioned on key committees, well-financed, and a moderate in a moderate district. The Cook Political Report, for example, sug- gested the Third District was “solidly Republican” even after Dahlkemper swamped her primary election opponents. This was likely because traditional wisdom says that incumbents lose due to overt deficiencies and glaring missteps (to be fair, Cook’s assessment slowly changed as the campaign progressed.) As noted by a prominent campaign strategist some time Campaign for the 3rd Congressional District in Pennsylvania | 177 ago, “Deadly sins of incumbents include excessive absences, numerous junkets, and bloated office budgets, misuse of public funds, cronyism, and voting for taxes” (Brookover, as quoted in Shea and Brooks 1995, 21). This was not Phil English; his problems did not seem obvious or significant. The Challenger: Kathy Dahlkemper Kathy Dahlkemper was the first woman from Northwestern Pennsyl- vania ever elected to Congress in her own right (i.e., not filling a spot held by a deceased husband). She was able to beat three good candidates in a heated primary—all by double digits—and to knock-off an attentive 14-year incumbent in the general election. One would assume that her background was a key factor in her victory, and it was, but not in the conventional sense. Indeed, it is difficult to pin Kathy Dahlkemper’s background into cate- gories common among successful challengers. For one, she had never held public office prior to running for Congress. She never expressed any interest in public life prior to 2007. In fact, she had never spoken up in any public forum (letter to the editor, open city council meetings, etc.) about a public policy question, nor had she been a robust supporter of any other candidate or public figure. No one in her immediate or extended family could be called “political” and she was not the sponsored candidate of any prominent public official. Along similar lines, Dahlkemper was not an active member in local party politics. The Erie County Democratic Committee is a viable organiza- tion, boasting several dozen active members and undertaking numerous functions throughout the year. Dahlkemper never attended party meetings and rarely took part in these events. There was no issue or set of ideological concerns that propelled her candidacy, as is often the case with challengers.

Load more