Is there a GOP path without Florida?

[The Mikado]

I know that if 2016 had happened with Clinton winning Florida, Trump would've still narrowly won with 277 EVs, but it is such a narrow path. MI or WI (or AZ) alone falling off would put Trump underwater if he didn't have Florida.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

Yeah. If Dems do better with hispanics in Florida and Arizona but worse with wealthier socially liberal whites, they could lose Minnesota and New Hampshire. New Hampshire would make it a tie with the house of representatives picking the winner whereas just Minnesota would be enough for the republican nominee to win.

That said, I would still expect Florida to vote to the right of the nation for the time being.

[TML]

I'd say it's not impossible but much more difficult.

Remember that what swung Florida to Trump was primarily the suburban/exurban counties immediately north of the core I-4 corridor. This area has many people who formerly resided in the Rust Belt. Thus, if the next Democratic nominee can flip FL, in all likelihood he or she is also able to flip at least one of the three decisive Rust Belt states (WI, MI, and/or PA). If FL flips to D, only one of those three Rust Belt states would be necessary for a Democratic victory; without FL, all three would be necessary.

[TPIG]

R - 277 EVs
D - 261 EVs

Yes, Trump would still have won in 2016 without Florida. With increased support for the GOP in the upper Midwest/Rust Belt states, Florida becomes less of a necessity for a Republican victory.

[Inmate Trump]

If Trump loses Florida in 2020, I don't see any viable path to victory for him ONLY because I don't see any viable path to him winning Michigan again--and he'll need at least one of those, plus PA and/or WI to win.  I also don't see any way he picks up any Clinton states in 2020.

[TheSaint250]

There IS a path, but it is very unlikely. Losing FL for the GOP usually = losing the election

[President Johnson]

Maybe this? With or without Maine at large.

273 - 265

[RINO Tom]

Yeah. If Dems do better with hispanics in Florida and Arizona but worse with wealthier socially liberal whites, they could lose Minnesota and New Hampshire. New Hampshire would make it a tie with the house of representatives picking the winner whereas just Minnesota would be enough for the republican nominee to win.

That said, I would still expect Florida to vote to the right of the nation for the time being.

The GOP did not lose New Hampshire because they didn't do well enough with wealthy Whites, what on Earth are you smoking?

$30k-$49.9k: 47% DEM, 45% GOP
$50k-$99.9k: 50% DEM, 46% GOP
$100k-$199.9k: 48% GOP, 47% DEM

In Minnesota, Trump's epic collapse among traditionally GOP voters in wealthier areas probably cost him the state (his "gains" with lower income voters and rural voters were so modest that they didn't even kind of make up for it), but you're completely off with New Hampshire.

[Santander]

Yeah. If Dems do better with hispanics in Florida and Arizona but worse with wealthier socially liberal whites, they could lose Minnesota and New Hampshire. New Hampshire would make it a tie with the house of representatives picking the winner whereas just Minnesota would be enough for the republican nominee to win.

That said, I would still expect Florida to vote to the right of the nation for the time being.

The GOP did not lose New Hampshire because they didn't do well enough with wealthy Whites, what on Earth are you smoking?

$30k-$49.9k: 47% DEM, 45% GOP
$50k-$99.9k: 50% DEM, 46% GOP
$100k-$199.9k: 48% GOP, 47% DEM

In Minnesota, Trump's epic collapse among traditionally GOP voters in wealthier areas probably cost him the state (his "gains" with lower income voters and rural voters were so modest that they didn't even kind of make up for it), but you're completely off with New Hampshire.

Those are middle-income brackets...

And no, Florida does not exist in a vacuum, so losing Florida would almost certainly close other paths to victory, barring a 3-way race or some other scenario that changes the game in the rest of the country.

[RINO Tom]

Yeah. If Dems do better with hispanics in Florida and Arizona but worse with wealthier socially liberal whites, they could lose Minnesota and New Hampshire. New Hampshire would make it a tie with the house of representatives picking the winner whereas just Minnesota would be enough for the republican nominee to win.

That said, I would still expect Florida to vote to the right of the nation for the time being.

The GOP did not lose New Hampshire because they didn't do well enough with wealthy Whites, what on Earth are you smoking?

$30k-$49.9k: 47% DEM, 45% GOP
$50k-$99.9k: 50% DEM, 46% GOP
$100k-$199.9k: 48% GOP, 47% DEM

In Minnesota, Trump's epic collapse among traditionally GOP voters in wealthier areas probably cost him the state (his "gains" with lower income voters and rural voters were so modest that they didn't even kind of make up for it), but you're completely off with New Hampshire.

Those are middle-income brackets...

Not enough data for the higher ones, run along now!

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

Maybe this? With or without Maine at large.

273 - 265

If we are talking about republicans in general, there is never a path with Maine. Trump is the only Republican who can win the state.

[RINO Tom]

Maybe this? With or without Maine at large.

273 - 265

If we are talking about republicans in general, there is never a path with Maine. Trump is the only Republican who can win the state.

That's insane.

[pbrower2a]

It would be extremely difficult. I can imagine Trump winning Florida but not Ohio (the two states usually vote in tandem)... but any one of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin with Florida doom a Trump candidacy.

271 - 265

But this is stretching things. Nevada and New Hampshire, both Trump losses, show no sign of going to Trump. Polls of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin show Trump losing. 

205 - 265

[MillennialModerate]

2016 was a perfect storm.

It'll take a major change in voting patterns for a REP to lose Florida and still Win.

[Rookie Yinzer]

2016 was a perfect storm.

It'll take a major change in voting patterns for a REP to lose Florida and still Win.

[Xing]

I doubt a Republican would hold Trump’s gains in the Rust Belt while losing Florida, so probably not.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Yeah. If Dems do better with hispanics in Florida and Arizona but worse with wealthier socially liberal whites, they could lose Minnesota and New Hampshire. New Hampshire would make it a tie with the house of representatives picking the winner whereas just Minnesota would be enough for the republican nominee to win.

That said, I would still expect Florida to vote to the right of the nation for the time being.

The GOP did not lose New Hampshire because they didn't do well enough with wealthy Whites, what on Earth are you smoking?

$30k-$49.9k: 47% DEM, 45% GOP
$50k-$99.9k: 50% DEM, 46% GOP
$100k-$199.9k: 48% GOP, 47% DEM

In Minnesota, Trump's epic collapse among traditionally GOP voters in wealthier areas probably cost him the state (his "gains" with lower income voters and rural voters were so modest that they didn't even kind of make up for it), but you're completely off with New Hampshire.

Dude, trump gained 5 points on Obama in MN. It is preposterous to imply that his rural gains "didn't even kind of make up for" his suburban and urban losses(btw suburban/urban voters is not the same as "wealthy" voters) considering that they objectively more then made up for it.

Also, The differences among income in NH were tiny, it was like 5 points between the most conservative and most liberal bracket.

[Medal506]

Historically going to 1996 the winner of Florida is usually the winner of presidential election and going back to 1964 the winner of Ohio is usually the winner of the presidential election.

[Lechasseur]

I'd say it's not impossible but much more difficult.

Remember that what swung Florida to Trump was primarily the suburban/exurban counties immediately north of the core I-4 corridor. This area has many people who formerly resided in the Rust Belt. Thus, if the next Democratic nominee can flip FL, in all likelihood he or she is also able to flip at least one of the three decisive Rust Belt states (WI, MI, and/or PA). If FL flips to D, only one of those three Rust Belt states would be necessary for a Democratic victory; without FL, all three would be necessary.

[tomhguy]

[MT Treasurer]

Yes.

278 - 260, give or take ME-AL.

[libertpaulian]

Yes.

278 - 260, give or take ME-AL.

If MN is voting GOP, then so is NH.

[twenty42]

2012 Romney map + CA + NY

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

2012 Romney map + CA + NY

lol wat

[Orser67]

He needs to hold all of the non-gray Trump states and then win 39+ electoral votes from the gray states above (all of which had a margin of less than 3 percent). I really don't see any other Clinton state (e.g. VA or CO) being the tipping point state in 2020, and if any other Republican states go Democratic, Trump probably loses.

Based on the above map it's possible to win without Florida, but I think it's far more likely that he wins perennial swing states FL + PA + WI than that he wins via some other combination. I guess a lot of it depends on how you view Michigan: was it a fluke that Trump won it, or is Michigan a key swing state from now on? The no Michigan, no Florida path seems even more unlikely.