David Wassel: Swinging for the fence in Pa.'s swing counties

With Pennsylvania defined as “the Keystone” and 19 electoral votes in the balance, the presidential contest here could determine what happens in the rest of the republic. Critical to the fortunes of Vice President Kamala Harris are her performance in municipalities situated in “persuadable” counties. How might she incorporate such an effort into her overall strategy?

Extrapolating statewide general election results for the years 2016 through 2022 indicates that over 7.2 million (80%) voters will turn out in November (voter turnout increased from 71% to 76% between the 2016 and 2020 elections). Of these, about 3.6 million (50%) votes are projected for Harris, while over 3.4 million (47%) votes are expected to accrue to former President Donald Trump. The remaining 3% are credited to various third-party contestants and write-in votes.

Applying this to the 67 counties in Pennsylvania, Harris is afforded six counties which she can consider to be “safe,” or her base, accounting for 2.8 million (39%) of the total projected statewide votes. Harris can be expected to net over 1.8 million (65%) votes. That’s 22% more votes than over 930,000 (33%) votes that are projected to accrue to Trump. Projected voter turnout in these counties is 78%.

The remaining 52 counties can be considered as “safe” for Trump. He is estimated to receive over 1.7 million (61%), of the 2.8 million (39%) projected statewide votes, 25% more than the 1 million (36%) votes expected to accrue to Harris. This is almost the mirror image of expected voter turnout in the six Harris base counties. The 85% projected voter turnout in these counties is 7% higher than in the six Harris base counties.

This leaves the remaining nine “persuadable” counties, the issue at hand. A persuadable county favors one party or the other between elections. Some of these counties are more likely than others to swing to either Harris or Trump, but none of them can be considered to be definite.

Of these counties, three (Dauphin, Lehigh and Monroe) are likely to fall into the Harris column, or leaning in that direction, and four (Bucks, Centre, Erie and Northampton) are tilting that way. The final two (Berks and Luzerne) are likely to accrue to Trump.

In 2016, Hillary Clinton prevailed in only one of these nine counties, Lehigh, by a mere 51% of the vote. She received 49% pluralities of the vote in four other counties (Bucks, Centre, Dauphin and Monroe) and lost the final four counties, Northampton with 46% of the vote, Berks and Erie, each with 43%, and Luzerne with 39%.

Four years later, then former Vice President Joe Biden added an average of 4% to his vote in each of these counties, winning seven of them. He received 54% of the vote in Dauphin, 53% in Lehigh and Monroe, 52% in Bucks and Centre, and 50% in Erie and Northampton. He lost the last two counties, Berks with 45% of the vote and Luzerne with 42% of the vote, although in both of these he also added to the vote received in 2016.

Of the nearly 1.6 million (80%) votes expected in these counties, 22% of the projected statewide vote, Harris is estimated to receive over 780,000 (49%) votes. Over 770,000 (48%) votes are projected to accrue to Trump, a mere 1% difference behind Harris. Very close, indeed, along with the swing in the votes from 2016 to 2020. This is as clear an illustration as possible as to why these nine counties are considered to be persuadable, and critical to Harris.

Again, Harris is projected to prevail, statewide, by a mere 3%. This, along with the meltdown that was the 2016 presidential election, and with current polls showing an even split in support for each candidate, illustrates the importance of the vote in these nine counties.

What, then, is to be done?

Harris might adopt several criteria to gauge where best, within these counties, to focus her efforts. First, those municipalities in which a university or college is situated, or where the minority population is at least 30%. Next, the municipalities in which Democratic candidates performed well in past elections. Finally, those municipalities in which a substantial number of local elected officials (mayors, council members, commissioners and supervisors) are Democrats.

Applying these criteria, 233 municipalities have been identified as targets for Harris. Accounting for over 1.2 million (80%) of the projected vote in these counties, Harris is estimated to accrue over 670,000 (53%) of the vote, while over 570,000 (45%) votes are expected to go to Trump.

As the point for Harris is to turn out additional votes in these municipalities, a goal of flipping 4% of the projected Trump vote to her column might be set. If achieved, Harris can be expected to accrue over 700,000 (55%) of the nearly 1.3 million votes that are projected to be cast in these municipalities, while Trump is estimated to receive nearly 550,000 (43%) votes. While this may seem to be a trivial number, it is not only a majority of the vote for Harris, but, more significantly, a 6% increase beyond the overall vote that she is projected to receive in these counties. This could well spell the difference in both Pennsylvania and nationwide.

Such a strategy is but one component of an overall plan that includes both Harris and Trump base counties. Nonetheless, with the election possibly decided by any one factor, it may play a significant role in her prevailing in Pennsylvania.

As the title says, in a year when near equal partisan division defines the race, it may just come down to “swinging for the fence.”

David Wassel of McKeesport is an attorney and political consultant.