Proposition: Florida has a pro-incumbent bias for presidential elections.
What do people think?
I wouldn't buy it.
Here's my best effort at an objective rundown.
2000: Obama wins Florida narrowly, narrower than national margin. Factors: McCain a good candidate for older voters.
2004: Bush wins Florida easily, wider than national margin. Factors: general Republican swing; lack of Democratic effort compared to 2000; Bush administration sprays cash at Florida like a firehose in wake of hurricanes.
2000: Gore wins Florida narrowly, equivalent to national margin. Factors: Democrats perform stronger than expected across the board; Lieberman excites south Florida Dem turnout through the roof.
1996: Clinton wins Florida easily, slightly narrower than national margin. Factors: if McCain was good for older voters, how about Dole?
1992: Bush wins Florida narrowly. 'nuf said.
1988: Bush wins Florida by a huge margin. 'nuf said.
1984: Reagan wins Florida by an enormous margin. 'nuf said. At this point we're running into the "Florida was just good for Republicans in the 80s" hypothesis. But why would that be so?
1980: Reagan wins Florida by a huge margin despite Carter being from a neighboring state. No incumbent bias here. But is this too far back, and before significant change, to be relevant?
