Florida in 2016

[Oregreen]

If Hillary Clinton runs and wins the nomination, will Florida be in her bag (assuming Jeb Bush is not the Republican candidate)? Possible reasons are:
- Her appeal among elderly voters who rejected Obama in 2012.
- She will probably get more white voters than Obama.
- Retirees from New York.
- Her appeal among Hispanics and the disastrous trends for Republicans in Miami-Dade and
   Broward County.
- Demographic trends in general.


Is there ANY way Republicans can win in Florida in 2016 without Jeb Bush on the ticket (and even then it probably will be close)? Assuming they lose Florida, the only way I can see them "winning" is a tie:

Clinton - 269
Republican nominee - 269

I know that Hillary Clinton losing Pennsylvania may be a really far-fetched scenario, but for the sake of argument, let's just assume she does lose the state.

It really shows you just how difficult it will be for Republicans to win in 2016. In my opinion, it is going to be almost impossible, even if they run a good campaign.  

[Suburbia]

Republicans can win without Florida.  They can run the table depending on the political environment.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Hilary/Castro ticket

and Cuba embargo lift is popular with public

[Mehmentum]

While Clinton seems to have an advantage in Florida, but I definitely wouldn't call it in the bag.  The election is too far away for us to say that with certainty.

Regardless, Republicans should be worried about Florida.  There are very few paths to victory for the Republicans without Florida and they are all pretty implausible.

[pbrower2a]

Ask me again when someone other than Susquehanna Polling gives us a report on Pennsylvania. At the least there will be a hot Senate race.

Scott Walker will consult the Koch syndicate on whether to have a fair vote and count in Wisconsin.

[IceSpear]

Republicans can win without Florida.  They can run the table depending on the political environment.

Republicans "can" win without Florida in the same way Democrats "can" win without California.

Anyway, it's not in the bag, but against a candidate other than Jeb she begins there with a huge advantage.

[ElectionsGuy]

It'll be a battleground like it always is. And of course, Republicans need to win it, especially after 2020 (when it will likely have 31 or 32 EV's) because there's little to no way around it.

Republicans can win without Florida.  They can run the table depending on the political environment.

Republicans "can" win without Florida in the same way Democrats "can" win without California Pennsylvania.

Much better

[IceSpear]

It'll be a battleground like it always is. And of course, Republicans need to win it, especially after 2020 (when it will likely have 31 or 32 EV's) because there's little to no way around it.

Republicans can win without Florida.  They can run the table depending on the political environment.

Republicans "can" win without Florida in the same way Democrats "can" win without California Pennsylvania.

Much better

You're probably right, that's a better comparison. Either way, it's extremely implausible.

[Ljube]

Republicans need Florida in 2016.

The only thing I can think of that can possibly put Pennsylvania in play is escalation of the War on Coal.

[IceSpear]

Republicans need Florida in 2016.

The only thing I can think of that can possibly put Pennsylvania in play is escalation of the War on Coal.

That would've been a good strategy when the map looked like this:



Not so much when it's like this:

[Flake]

Florida will be a swing state, just like always.

[HillaryLandslide2016]

Florida is gone for the GOP. Probably forever. Democratic voters in the Southeast are quite "inelastic", they would vote for ANY Democrat and even more so for Hillary. She will probably win white women there like Bill did in 96.

[DS0816]

If Hillary Clinton runs and wins the nomination, will Florida be in her bag (assuming Jeb Bush is not the Republican candidate)? Possible reasons are:
- Her appeal among elderly voters who rejected Obama in 2012.
- She will probably get more white voters than Obama.
- Retirees from New York.
- Her appeal among Hispanics and the disastrous trends for Republicans in Miami-Dade and
   Broward County.
- Demographic trends in general.


Is there ANY way Republicans can win in Florida in 2016 without Jeb Bush on the ticket (and even then it probably will be close)? Assuming they lose Florida, the only way I can see them "winning" is a tie:

Clinton - 269
Republican nominee - 269

I know that Hillary Clinton losing Pennsylvania may be a really far-fetched scenario, but for the sake of argument, let's just assume she does lose the state.

It really shows you just how difficult it will be for Republicans to win in 2016. In my opinion, it is going to be almost impossible, even if they run a good campaign.  

Florida shades about a couple points redder [Republican] than the national number. No Republican has won the presidency without carriage of Florida since the full-term election of Calvin Coolidge in 1924. And Coolidge was the last winning Republican to not carry any of the eleven states of the Old Confederacy.

With that map you presented … if Florida carries Democratic, none of the "blue firewall" states you presented, as potential Republican in your scenario of that party winning the White House without Florida, are realistic.

[Devils30]

There are a lot of parallels between Jeb in Florida 2016 and Gore in Tennessee 2000. Both hadn't had a statewide election in over 10 years and both states have generational change hindering their party. Jeb will have to deal with a younger generation of Hispanics (including Cubans) who are much more liberal than the voters who elected him. Gore had the issue of the oldest southerners (who while conservative identified as Dems) being replaced by more Republican partisans.

[pbrower2a]

With Corbett defeated, Pennsylvania will give only honest opportunities for Republicans to win anything.

[HillaryLandslide2016]

With Corbett defeated, Pennsylvania will give only honest opportunities for Republicans to win anything.

Well, Pennsylvania was never even in play in the last two decades. Clinton realigned that state (and the whole country) dramatically.

[pbrower2a]

With Corbett defeated, Pennsylvania will give only honest opportunities for Republicans to win anything.

Well, Pennsylvania was never even in play in the last two decades. Clinton realigned that state (and the whole country) dramatically.

He never even won a majority... geez I like the man but most of the gains he made feel apart under Gore/Kerry/Obama...

Dubya succeeded in getting enough of what had been Perot voters to win in 2000.

[DS0816]

With Corbett defeated, Pennsylvania will give only honest opportunities for Republicans to win anything.

Well, Pennsylvania was never even in play in the last two decades. Clinton realigned that state (and the whole country) dramatically.

He never even won a majority... geez I like the man but most of the gains he made feel apart under Gore/Kerry/Obama...

Bill Clinton won the presidency, in the 1990s, with three-person races in which the third person nabbed more than five percent both times. When that happens, it's more unlikely than the likely that the presidential winner (and winner of the U.S. Popular Vote) will reach 50.00 percent of the U.S. Popular Vote. So, what you said about "[Clinton] never even won a majority" doesn't have credibility.

[DS0816]

With Corbett defeated, Pennsylvania will give only honest opportunities for Republicans to win anything.

Well, Pennsylvania was never even in play in the last two decades. Clinton realigned that state (and the whole country) dramatically.

He never even won a majority... geez I like the man but most of the gains he made feel apart under Gore/Kerry/Obama...

Bill Clinton won the presidency, in the 1990s, with three-person races in which the third person nabbed more than five percent both times. When that happens, it's more unlikely than the likely that the presidential winner (and winner of the U.S. Popular Vote) will reach 50.00 percent of the U.S. Popular Vote. So, what you said about "[Clinton] never even won a majority" doesn't have credibility.

No what I'm saying is, he didn't cause a real "realignment" because the states that he won haven't really stayed blue. His coalition feel apart rather quickly. It's not just about the majority.

Which states?

[Oregreen]

With Corbett defeated, Pennsylvania will give only honest opportunities for Republicans to win anything.

Well, Pennsylvania was never even in play in the last two decades. Clinton realigned that state (and the whole country) dramatically.

He never even won a majority... geez I like the man but most of the gains he made feel apart under Gore/Kerry/Obama...

Bill Clinton won the presidency, in the 1990s, with three-person races in which the third person nabbed more than five percent both times. When that happens, it's more unlikely than the likely that the presidential winner (and winner of the U.S. Popular Vote) will reach 50.00 percent of the U.S. Popular Vote. So, what you said about "[Clinton] never even won a majority" doesn't have credibility.

No what I'm saying is, he didn't cause a real "realignment" because the states that he won haven't really stayed blue. His coalition feel apart rather quickly. It's not just about the majority.

Which states?

States he won that Democrats never won again:
1. Louisiana
2. Arkansas
3. Georgia
4. Montana
5. Kentucky
6. West Virginia
7. Tennessee
8. Missouri

States he won that Democrats can only win in a great year:
1. Indiana
2. North Carolina

Clinton did not realign Presidential politics in 1992. 1988 was more a realignment year, with Dukakis bringing back liberal Northern states into the Democratic fold. The only state Clinton realigned was Vermont and MAYBE Pennsylvania, but even those had been moving Democratic for decades.

Using Clinton's victories in 1992 and 1996 as a basis for future election isn't really a strong argument.

I agree with your analysis. I also think Dukakis'  showing in Vermont in 1988 was much more impressive than Clinton's win there (Perot probably took many votes away from Bush, too). However, Clinton never carried Indiana or North Carolina. He really WANTED to win them, but he failed both times. Same goes for Texas and Virginia. I doubt that Clinton would have won ANY southern state in 1992 if Perot had not been on the ballot.

[pbrower2a]

Virginia, which had not gone for a Democratic nominee for President since 1948 except in the LBJ landslide and never went for Bill Clinton, would go twice for Obama and on that account alone has become big trouble for Republicans.

[pbrower2a]

Virginia, which had not gone for a Democratic nominee for President since 1948 except in the LBJ landslide and never went for Bill Clinton, would go twice for Obama and on that account alone has become big trouble for Republicans.

Clinton was basically a moderate Republican. Hell on that note so is Obama.

Interesting view. The definitive moderate Republican may have been Dwight Eisenhower, and I have heard plenty of Democrats praise the Eisenhower Presidency. He went along with Supreme Court rulings that outlawed segregationist practices, stayed clear of the McCarthy bandwagon, and let McCarthy implode.

 
gray -- did not vote in 1952 or 1956
white -- Eisenhower twice, Obama twice
deep blue -- Republican all four elections
light blue -- Republican all but 2012 (I assume that greater Omaha went for Ike twice)
light green -- Eisenhower once, Stevenson once, Obama never
dark green -- Stevenson twice, Obama never
pink -- Stevenson twice, Obama once

No state voted Democratic all four times, so no state is in deep red.

I doubt that Stevenson was a racist; race was not a big issue in either Missouri or West Virginia at the time. It was a big issue in the states in deep green, though. It's amazing that Eisenhower won Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Rhode island twice  -- and no Republican has won all three states in any Presidential election. 
 

[Maxwell]

Don't worry guys, Jeb's hispanic wife and his suave Spanish speaking ways will switch it for the Republicans. Other Republicans lose it 60-40 though, obviously.

[IceSpear]

Don't worry guys, Jeb's hispanic wife and his suave Spanish speaking ways will switch it for the Republicans. Other Republicans lose it 60-40 though, obviously.

It probably has more to do with the fact that he was governor. His fluency in Spanish and Hispanic wife is what will win him California and New Mexico though.

[HillaryLandslide2016]

Don't worry guys, Jeb's hispanic wife and his suave Spanish speaking ways will switch it for the Republicans. Other Republicans lose it 60-40 though, obviously.

It probably has more to do with the fact that he was governor. His fluency in Spanish and Hispanic wife is what will win him California and New Mexico though.

Are you guys crazy? If he runs against Hillary, he will be glad to win Utah and Wyoming!