|
|
|
Pennsylvania and the Presidency: A Twain That Seldom Meets
| Pennsylvania's dismal record in producing presidents and presidential candidates comprises one of the enduring riddles of American political history. It is all the more surprising given the size of the state's electoral vote, the skills of its political leaders, and the campaign resources it has made available to presidential candidates. Pennsylvania claims but one president as a favorite son: James Buchanan, elected in 1856. Ironically, few presidents have been more prepared to assume the duties of the presidency than the "sage of Wheatland." But the verdict of history has not been kind to Buchanan. Indeed, some observers have suggested that his leadership failure during the sectional crisis means the nation will never again entrust the presidency to a Pennsylvanian. |
1
|
|
That is not to say that Pennsylvanians have not had their chances to take the White House. In 1880, the Democrats nominated Winfield Scott Hancock to be the party's standard bearer against another general, James A. Garfield of Ohio. Known as "Hancock the Superb," he had made his reputation at the Battle of Gettysburg in 1863. Noted for his personal integrity, a rare and welcome public asset in the age of "Grantism" and robber barons, he had been a perennial contender for the nomination. The retirement of Rutherford B. Hayes and the close balance of the parties meant that any northern Democrat would have a good chance at victory. |
2
|
|
Hancock was a viable candidate in part because he had not been tarred by the pervasive corruption of the era and had taken no controversial stands on monetary policy, a constant source of political controversy in the late nineteenth century. Unfortunately for Hancock and the Democrats, their position on the other great issue of the times, the tariff, undercut their strength in the North. |
3
|
|
Running against Garfield and an entrenched Republican machine, Hancock lost the popular vote by about two thousand votes in what was one of the closest popular vote contests in American history. (The Electoral College margin was wider: 214 to 155.) Since Hancock's defeat, no major party nominee for the nation's highest office has called Pennsylvania home. In more recent history, a Pennsylvanian's most serious presidential bid was made in 1964, when Governor William Scranton, a moderate, challenged conservative Barry Goldwater for the Republican nomination. When the efforts of the leading moderate candidates, George W. Romney and Nelson A. Rockefeller, stumbled, Scranton entered the contest. Although Scranton stitched together a ragtag campaign at a time when Goldwater was amassing delegates, he made it exciting for a while. Scranton anticipated, but did not receive, a coveted endorsement from former president Dwight D. Eisenhower, who was then living in Gettysburg. Scranton simply did not have the numbers at the national convention in San Francisco, and Goldwater won the nomination.1 |
4
|
|
Following Scranton's effort, Pennsylvania has been mostly a footnote in presidential nominating campaigns. One of those footnotes was Governor Milton Shapp. When Shapp announced his presidential bid in 1975, he surprised almost everybody. Few leaders in the state Democratic Party wanted him to run; even most of his advisors thought it a mistake. Shapp's candidacy drew little national attention and had even less electoral success. His disastrous showing in the March 12 Florida primary, where he ran behind "no preference," was the final blow to his candidacy. Soon after the primary, Shapp withdrew from the contest. His presidential sojourn was politically costly—the campaign so preoccupied his attention that it affected his scandal-ridden second term in the governor's mansion.2 |
. . . |
There are about 4463 more words in this article.
Please log in (or, if you are not yet an
authorized user, please go to the
User Setup page) to gain full access rights. Or if you're already logged in register your subscription.
|
