Florida in 2016

[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.

[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?

[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?

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 didn't win that Democrats have won since:
1. Indiana
2. North Carolina
3. Virginia

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.

Count the number of presidential elections, from when the Republican Party first competed in 1856, with a comparison of the two parties' base states and tell us which was more an advantage: the party with their base of states in the Old Confederacy — or — the party with their base of states outside the "south" and among the Rust Belt (etc.).

Also: What actually happened, as you're mentioning, with Republican-vs.-Democratic party base states on the electoral map, was realignments [Republicans winning over the Old Confederacy where Democrats used to have their base] and counter-realignments [Democrats winning over states outside the Old Confederacy, where Republicans used to have their base, including the majority of the Rust Belt].

I'll leave you with this: While there were numerous presidential elections won by a candidate who carried zero of the eleven states of the Old Confederacy, never has a presidential election been won by a candidate who carried zero of the nine states which comprise the Rust Belt.

  

[DS0816]

What states do you define as the Rust Belt?

It's easy to define the former Confederate States as the triangle that includes Virginia in the northeast,  Florida in the southeast, and Texas in the west. However relevant the Confederacy is in the overall heritage of the United States, a political party that casts off 160 electoral votes will have a difficult time winning. Sure, Coolidge won in 1924 without winning a single former-secessionist state, and big -- losing only those and Wisconsin to a third-party nominee. (The former Confederate states had only 136 electoral votes in 1924).

OK, the South is no longer a political monolith. Texas and Virginia straddle regions. Florida has become a microcosm of America.  

Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York. It's not 100 percent of all those states. But those states are counted. (Some definitions have included Missouri; much of it is, as Wikipedia.org points out, the "East North Central" states; it's mainly the "Industrial Heartland.")

Point is this: Historical fact is, for presidential elections where zero of the Old Confederacy states were carried while nearly all (or, in fact, all) of the Rust Belt were in the column for the presidential winner … it's the Rust Belt that won every time in picking the president. You look to the late-1800s and through the 1920s, there were several Republicans (when their base was at where the Democrats' base is now) who won the presidency with zero of the Old Confederacy states. But, during that same period of the second half of the 1800s and through Jimmy Carter's victory in 1976, there weren't any prevailing Democrats elected to the presidency with zero of the Rust Belt states. Nowadays, we have two Top-10 populous states from both areas: Ohio, in the Rust Belt, and Florida, in the Old Confederacy. From one presidential election, they routinely carry. (Ohio has carried in every election, with exceptions of 1944 and 1960, since 1896. Florida has also carried in every election, with exceptions of 1960 and 1992, since 1928.) And they produce percentage margins within five points from national outcomes. So, it's likely we Atlas forum members won't be seeing, at any point during the rest of our lives, a presidential winner end up with carriage of zero of the Old Confederacy states or zero of the Rust Belt states.