It’s true that political analysts and pundits spend a lot of time talking about home states when thinking about the strength and weaknesses of presidential candidates and their potential running mates, despite the fact that such considerations have never proven decisive. And if these considerations have never proven decisive, then maybe we all put to much emphasis on them. The problem I have with this analysis is twofold.
First, region is more important than state. In nominating Jimmy Carter in 1976, the Democrats helped themselves throughout the South, not just in Georgia. The same was true when JFK tapped LBJ as his running mate. Region is less important than it used to be, but it can still be a tough sell for the Democrats to get a Massachusetts politician elected president or, say, the Republicans to succeed with a Louisiana governor. In 2016, I don’t think the GOP can afford to reinforce their image as a Southern party, although Florida’s unique demographics and national image present a special case.
The second problem with the analysis is that Florida is so vital to the Republicans’ chances of winning the Electoral College that any advantage they can get is probably worth pursuing.
Florida is a good example of the difficulty of a home-state advantage swinging an election. Despite its massive 29 electoral votes — by far the biggest swing state — just six of 40 elections since 1856 have been decided by a margin of that size or smaller. Divide that by two, since swinging Florida would only matter if the home-state candidate was trailing, and there’s a 7 percent chance a Florida-sized swing will matter.
Put together the chance of a home-state swing and the likelihood of it being decisive, and there’s a 5 percent chance a Florida home-state advantage for Bush/Rubio would swing the presidency in 2016. That dips to 4 percent for Ohio and 2 percent for Wisconsin.
The five percent chance that picking Bush or Rubio could win the election simply because of the boost it would give the party in Florida may seem small, but find me any other single factor that can change the odds by a similar percentage.
And these aren’t the only percentages worth considering. If Mitt Romney had won Florida in 2012, he still would have lost the Electoral College by a 303-235 margin, meaning that the 2016 candidate must not only win Florida but find an additional 35 votes in order to become the next president. To see how daunting that is, flipping Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico and Virginia would only yield 33 votes. Throw in New Hampshire and the GOP prevails, but what happens if the GOP doesn’t win Florida?
In that case, even winning the above states (including New Hampshire) plus Ohio would only get the Republican to a 261-277 defeat. Winning Wisconsin and Ohio, but not New Hampshire would get them a 267-271 defeat.
Now, I’m throwing New Mexico into the mix here as a potential swing state, but I’m not sure it really will be in play. Obama won it by 15 points in 2008 and 10 points in 2012. Perhaps Iowa and its six Electoral Votes are a better option for the Republicans.
Any way you slice it, however, the Republicans don’t have very many realistic scenarios where they can win the presidency without winning Florida. So, boosting their chances of winning the Sunshine State by five percentage points is something they absolutely should consider doing.
It’s not the only consideration, obviously. Picking Ohio Governor John Kasich would boost the GOP’s chances there by 4% and have regional appeal throughout the critical Midwest.
Ultimately, the most important thing is the candidate, not the state that the candidate comes from. But the Republicans desperately need to win Florida. Without it, the last presidential election they would have won occurred in 1988.
