Super PACs withdraw ads from Pennsylvania

Although national polls point toward an exceptionally close 2012 presidential race, super…Although national polls point toward an exceptionally close 2012 presidential race, super political action committees in Pennsylvania silenced their televised advertisements after statewide polling indicated a widening lead for President Barack Obama.

On Aug. 28, Americans for Prosperity, a super PAC supporting Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, announced the removal of advertisements funded by the group from Pennsylvania airwaves. Priorities USA Action, their Democratic counterpart, did the same on Sept. 8.

And while less than two months remain until the November presidential elections, experts say the moves made by these super PACs represent day-to-day political realities of the presidential campaign trail.

Professor G. Terry Madonna, director of the Center for Politics and Public Affairs at Franklin & Marshall College in Lancaster, Pa., said that unlike other “battleground states,” where either candidate holds around a 2 to 3 percent polling advantage, Obama, on average, holds an 8.8 percent polling advantage over Romney in Pennsylvania.

But he also said that state Republican leaders won’t publicly concede Pennsylvania to Obama because of other crucial elections for the party across the state.

“You don’t want to send a message that the state’s out of play by having your leaders stay home,” Madonna said.

Madonna also said national and international events could shift Pennsylvania polling numbers in Romney’s favor over the next two months, leading to a new emphasis on the state by the super PACs.

But on Pitt’s campus, presidents of Pitt’s premier political advocacy groups had mixed feelings on the departure of Priorities USA Action and Americans for Prosperity from the Keystone State.

Lara Sullivan, president of Pitt College Democrats, said in an email that she wouldn’t speculate on whether the move indicated that Romney’s campaign conceded Pennsylvania. But, she said, the organizational efforts of Obama’s campaign within the state have significantly increased his chances of winning the state in November.

“The Obama campaign’s strength lies in the hard work of dedicated volunteers across the state who understand what is at stake in this election and are willing to fight for it,” Sullivan said.

Casey Rankin, president of Pitt College Republicans, said in an email that the decision to withdraw advertisements in Pennsylvania by Americans for Prosperity is simply a strategic maneuver by the group and that the Keystone State will most certainly be in play this November.

“Organizations such as [Americans for Prosperity] have finite resources and must make strategic decisions about where they can make the most impact,” Rankin said. “Pennsylvania is still a strong candidate to be in the Republican column, and we aren’t conceding anything here.”

For Obama, a victory in Pennsylvania, a long-time swing state, could prove momentous in an election that’s expected to be historically close. During Obama’s initial presidential run in 2008, he won the state by a margin of 54.7 to 44.3 percent over Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona.

And in spite of a statewide seasonally adjusted unemployment rate of 7.9 percent in July, Madonna said Romney’s campaign has struggled to gain a foothold in Pennsylvania because of his campaign style and a lack of specificity on policy proposals.

But more importantly, he said, Romney hasn’t shaken off the narrative created by both Obama’s campaign and liberal super PACs that he’s “for the one percent and not the 99 percent.”

“Obama successfully, during the summer months, duped Romney with a series of negative ads, including the super PACs, who portrayed him as a rich guy who made his fortune off the middle class,” Madonna said.