This may seem like a column about politics, but it’s not. It’s about the way politics reveals Rhode Island’s nature.

I’ve been thinking about this for weeks since Hillary Clinton won the state by 18 percentage points. I hadn’t expected so big a margin, not after Barack Obama drew 10,000 for a rally here and Clinton only 2,000.

Obviously, she had backers more prone to vote than to drive to a gathering.

But why was her support so widespread? What shaped Rhode Island’s choice, and what does it say about us?

I got a possible answer from a story I recently read on the Politico.com Web site about Pennsylvania, which Clinton is all but assured to win.

It seems Pennsylvania and Rhode Island have things in common I hadn’t thought about before.

The Politico.com story was by Carrie Budoff Brown. Here’s her first reason why Clinton is ahead in Pennsylvania: “Dynasty is not a dirty word.”

At least not there. And not here either.

Many American voters have been cool to Hillary because they want to move on from the Clinton era. And the Bush era, too. In 2008, people have grown tired of dynasties. In endorsing Obama, Gov. Bill Richardson gave this as one of his reasons: “It shouldn’t just be Bush-Clinton, Bush-Clinton.”

But in Rhode Island, people like dynasties.

Counting his time as governor and U.S. senator, the Theodore Francis Green dynasty went almost 30 years until 1961. John Pastore had a dynasty from 1945 until 1976. Claiborne Pell served in the senate over 35 years, and not only did John Chafee serve as governor and senator for nearly 30 years, people liked the Chafee dynasty so much they elected his son Linc to succeed him.

You could argue, on the one hand, that Rhode Island has a strong independent streak. But unlike other states, folks here don’t count longevity against you. People remember Bill Clinton’s presidency as successful and liked Hillary Clinton’s long track record, too. Dynasty is good in Rhode Island.

The Politico.com writer made a related point about Pennsylvania that I think applies here as well: “Expect to run at least one or two times before voters reward you. They like their politicians to feel as familiar as their morning cup of coffee.”

Indeed, John Chafee lost in his first run for the U.S. senate. Bruce Sundlun lost two runs for governor before winning. There are plenty such examples.

In many states, a big part of Barack Obama’s appeal is that he’s new. Rhode Islanders, it turns out, aren’t so caught up in that. My own theory is that unlike states such as California, which are defined by new arrivals, new industries and new neighborhoods, Rhode Island is more about history. It’s that way in our relationships, where it’s common for friendships to go back decades instead of just a few years. It’s that way, symbolically, even in our buildings, where we’re so comforted by sameness that we still refer to the Bank of America building as the old Industrial National Bank Building. And it’s true in our politics.

As Carrie Budoff Brown of Politico.com wrote: “Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton — the political equivalent of Maxwell House after years of appearing with her husband in the state — is benefiting not just from the demographics of Pennsylvania, but from its unique amber-preserved culture. Familiarity does not breed contempt is this state.” You can easily replace “Pennsylvania” in that sentence with “Rhode Island.”

And as a local politician there observed in another comment that applies here: “If you are going to introduce a brand-new product, you don’t come to Pennsylvania. We are much more about heritage than cutting edge here.”

And Rhode Island, too.

Again, I think the explanation is that Rhode Island is more a place of roots than fresh arrivals. Ten years ago, I remember buying a newspaper in Colorado and reading about a subdivision being built there with 25,000 homes. That was routine in the Western boom states — new mini-cities going up almost overnight. And almost everyone I met seemed to be from somewhere else. Unlike here, everything there is about “new.” Obama, by the way, beat Clinton in Colorado by a dramatic 34 percentage points.

Rhode Island has other similarities with Pennsylvania — a lot of seniors, a large white working class and a traditional Democratic base.

But those have been common explanations for Hillary Clinton’s Rhode Island victory.

To me, the fresher, more thought-provoking analysis is about the way familiarity is more important here than change. And about how, unlike many places, political dynasty is seen as a good thing.

Let me get back to pure politics by ending with two predictions.

First, the polls here showed Clinton 10 percent to 15 percent ahead before our primary, and she won by 18 percent, showing a deeper allegiance than surveys indicated. If the two states are as reflective of one another as they appear, I’m guessing she’ll outperform the polls in Pennsylvania, too.

Second, here’s the real question for both Democratic voters and delegates:

Which states are there more of — those that prefer the familiar, or those that prefer the new?

mpatinkin@projo.com