At this time, in February 2013, it seems very likely that Texas and Florida, the second and fourth largest states in population and electoral votes, will decide which party will win the White House in 2016.
The Democrats have a good chance to win Texas, as it is starting to turn “Blue”, with the growing Hispanic and Latino vote in that state with 38 electoral votes. Hillary Clinton, in particular, would have an excellent chance to win the Lone Star State if she ends up as the Democratic Presidential nominee, but even other Democrats would have a chance to win .
At the same time, with Florida (29 electoral votes) having gone to Barack Obama twice, the Democrats would have a good opportunity to win it next time as well, particularly with Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden as their nominee.
With the other large populated states in the hands of the Democrats for sure (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan), it is these two states that will decide the election, although if the Democrats can win everything they won under Obama, they do not need Texas. But if they also win Texas, then they would have a literal landslide in the Electoral College, with 370 electoral votes!
So that is why Marco Rubio or Jeb Bush are the best nominees the GOP can run, with a good shot at winning the Sunshine State, and keeping control of Texas, with its Hispanic-Latino vote and the Bush family connection with the Lone Star State.
But again, IF the Democrats just win all the 26 states they won in 2012, or even if they lose some, they will still win the White House. But these two large states are where much of the action will likely be in 2016!
Florida is the better state to measure electoral success. Since 1928, the Sunshine State has been in the column of all presidential winners except John Kennedy (1960) and the first election of Bill Clinton (1992). It voted for the losing Republicans in 1920 and 1924 even though the GOP won all three cycles from that decade. The third consecutive victory for the party, with Herbert Hoover, resulted in a Republican pickup of Fla. And that’s where the pattern became established. Texas also yielded the same outcomes in that decade.
Here’s the difference: Texas was a roll. For a while. From 1928 to 1988, to be exact, the state backed the presidential winners in all elections except for Richard Nixon’s first election in 1968. So, it went 15 for 16 election cycles. Then it became more red. Fla. kept up the “swing state†status. That’s because the state that has, since going back not too far to 1996, carried within five percentage points of the popular-vote outcome.
Florida is a lot like Ohio. Ohio has performed in carrying for the winners of all presidential elections since 1896 but with exceptions of Franklin Roosevelt’s last election (1944) and John Kennedy (1960). That 1960 was banner year, with the first elected Catholic to the presidency, and it was the last one on record in which we elected a president who saw his losing opponent be the one to carry both Fla. and Ohio.
Both states are a hodgepodge, where no major party has a strong advantage. If we are truly in a realigning presidential election period, beginning with 2008, and that the advantage is with the Democrats (which I believe it to be), those states will carry becuase they are key to the national tide. Ohio, not unlike Fla., has carried within five percentage points in spread from the national margin in every presidential election since 1964. When George W. Bush carried Ohio, with re-election in 2004, by about 2.1 percentage points, he underperformed about 0.35% with statewide vs. national. That meant, for those who thought John McCain had a shot of holding in his and the Republican Party’s 2008 column the state of Ohio … they weren’t mindful of the numbers. There was a national shift of about 9.75 percentage points (red to blue). No way was Ohio not going to be part of that. Florida, too.
Speaking of numbers, Texas has been performing around 20 points more Republican relative the national outcome. Bush carried his home state, with re-election in 2004, by over 22 points. McCain won the Lone Star State by about 12 points. Romney carried the state by more than 15 points.
Conspicous counties in 2008 Texas were Dallas (Dallas) and Harris (Houston). When President Obama won them in 2008, they colored blue first time since 1964. (This was also true with a lot of other states’ counties.) Obama won Dallas County by over 15 points and Harris County by just over 2 points. Dallas County was 27 points bluer and Harris County 14 points bluer than the statewide outcome for 2008. With re-election in 2012, Obama carried Dallas County again by 14.5 points and Harris County by just 0.1%. Dallas County was about 30 points bluer and Harris Country was 15.8 points bluer than the statewide outcome.
The Democrats have a good amount of work to do with Harris County. They need to see a bluer trend in that county, because Romney nearly won it back. Tarrant County (Fort Worth) is the latest bellwether county in terms of carriage of the state of Texas. It votes just about on target with the statewide result. If a Democrat is to win the presidency, and with it the state of Texas, they’re going to have to nab about 58 percent of the U.S. Popular Vote and, at the same time, send those margins further north in Harris County and flip Tarrant County.
Had Hillary Clinton been the 2008 Democratic presidential nominee, I think she would have outperformed President Obama’s numbers nationally. And that would have had an impact on numerous states. In Texas, Obama received 48% from female voters. I think Hillary would have shot that number past the 50 percent mark to win over the female vote. But the men, for Obama, were at 39%. Had Clinton been the Democratic presidential nominee, she would have been elected. 2008 was a year in which no Republican could have held the White House. George W. Bush’s job-approval percentage was the lowest for an incumbent president since Harry Truman in 1952. Truman opted not to seek re-election. Bush was term-limited in 2008. Both saw their incumbent party lose the White House as the voting electorate officially made the switches. So, all that was ever debatable in the 2008 Democratic presidential caucuses and primaries, concerning electability, was which of these two—Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama—would have won by a better national margin and electoral-vote score. I think Hillary would have done better. Obama garnered nationally 56% of females and 49% of males. I could guess that Clinton would have performed at 59% females and 51% males. That would have affected the map, yes, and it would have also delivered her Ohio and Florida. (As well as plenty of other Democratic pickups which did vote for Obama. This includes newly established bellwethers Colorado and Virginia.) But Texas still would not have ended up in her column. And she probably would have also seen that state vote a good 20 points more Republican compared to the national margin.
The Democrats have a lot of work they need to be doing—like buiding up the party statewide—in order to be able to officially win over carriage of the state of Texas.
Thanks very much, D, for an insightful discussion of the issues involving “swing’ states. I really appreciate it, and so do my readers!