FLORIDA 2008 – County by County - Part I
FLORIDA is the fifth in a state-by-state, county-by-county analysis series. All analyses are published at Google Docs:
OHIO - Part I, Part II, Part III , raw data / INDIANA - Part I, Part II and Part III, raw data
VIRGINIA – Part I, Part II, Part III, raw data / NORTH CAROLINA – Part I, Part II, Part III, raw data
FLORIDA – Part I , Part II , Part III , raw data
This makes comparing the states easier.
President Obama, who won the state of FLORIDA with a +2.81% margin, was the first democratic candidate to win this state since 1996 and the second democratic candidate to win since 1976.
First, some important background information on FLORIDA:
Since the GOP first appeared on the national ballot in 1856, there have been 37 election cycles in Florida, of which the democratic party has won 22 cycles (59.46%), the GOP has won 14 cycles (37.84%), and a third party candidate won 1 cycle (2.70%)
Notice also that for the Sunshine State, there have only been 37 instead of 39 cycles. Due to the Civil War, FLORIDA did not participate in the 1864 and 1868 general elections and was therefore not represented in the electoral college for those two cycles.
Aside from the tumult of 1860, in which Southern Democrat John Breckenridge won the state with 62.23%, the first two cycles after the civil war was ended and the south re-entered the electoral college (1872 & 1876) and Herbert Hoover's (R) 1928 landslide, the democratic party absolutely dominated FLORIDA from 1880 through 1924 and again from 1932-1948, a total of 60 years. Similar to Virginia's ideological development, the state made a major shift to the republican party with Eisenhower's (R) large landslides in 1952 and 1956 and has only voted democratic four times since then: 1964, 1976, 1996, and now in 2008.
Florida holds the distinction as the state with the closest win for a presidential candidate in history. George W. Bush, Jr., won the Sunshine State in 2000 with a +0.01% margin, or 537 votes, after numerous recounts, controversies over dimpled chads and butterfly ballots, and finally, a supreme court decision to stop the last recount, 36 days after the election.
Florida has become a major battleground state since 1992. For five election cycles in a row, this state has been won with low single-digit margins, and since Florida is the fourth largest in the electoral college, currently with 27 EV, it has been a prime target for both parties. Furthermore, the GOTV efforts here can be shown statistically. In 2000, 5,963,110 votes were cast; in 2008, 8,410,320 votes were cast. That is a growth rate of 41.04%!
Demographics always play a role in elections, but demographics (especially in the quickly growing hispanic community in Florida), massive voter registration and GOTV efforts on the ground in FLORIDA played the dominant role in turning the state into a democratic pick-up, albeit a narrow one.
-------------------------------------------------------
Here is an utterly fascinating factoid about Florida and 2008. This is an extreme rarity in presidential elections:
Both FLORIDA and PENNSYLVANIA, two of the three so-called „trifecta“ states, in spite of differing winning percents and margins, both produced exactly the same partisan-shift (the difference in margin between 2008 and 2004) of +7.82%:
Obama won Pennsylvania with a +10.32% margin minus Kerry's +2.50% margin from 2004 = +7.82%
Obama won Florida with a +2.81% margin minus Kerry's -5.01% losing margin from 2004 = +7.82%
This means that the political sand in these two states shifted in exactly the same amount and in the same direction, in spite of very different demographics.
Not only that, the third state in the so-called „trifecta“ was closer to this partisan-shift than you think. The partisan shift in OHIO was +6.69% for Obama. Had Obama scored just 0.56% more and McCain just 0.56% less in the Buckeye state (assuming no change in the 3rd party vote), then Ohio would have also had an identical partisan shift to the other two states. The point of this is that the importance of the „trifecta“, with a current combined 68 EV, is not to be underestimated,. However, with the major shift happening in VIRGINIA, the „trifecta“ may be on it's way to becoming a „QUADRIFECTA“ as of 2012.
----------------------------------------------------
Here the results from the 15 democratic national winning cycles, where the democratic candidate also carried FLORIDA:
Note: In 1888, Grover Cleveland won the national PV but lost the election itself (electoral back-fire), but the margin and partisan-shift still can be counted, since 1888 was still a democratic popular vote win nationally and in FLORIDA.
|
Year |
Candidate |
D % |
R % |
I/O % |
Margin |
Part. Shift. |
|
1856 |
Buchanan |
56.81% |
0.00% |
43.19% |
+13.63% |
--- |
|
1884 |
Cleveland |
52.96% |
46.73% |
0.32% |
+6.23% |
-2.12% |
|
1888 |
Cleveland |
59.84% |
39.89% |
0.62% |
+19.59% |
+13.36% |
|
1892 |
Cleveland |
85.01% |
0.00% |
14.99% |
+71.35% |
+51.76% |
|
1912 |
Wilson |
69.52% |
18.10% |
22.06% |
+60.07% |
+18.64% |
|
1916 |
Wilson |
69.34% |
8.42% |
12.56% |
+51.25% |
-8.82% |
|
1932 |
Roosevelt, F |
74.68% |
25.04% |
0.28% |
+49.64% |
+66.36% |
|
1936 |
Roosevelt, F |
76.10% |
23.90% |
0.00% |
+52.20% |
+2.56% |
|
1940 |
Roosevelt, F |
74.01% |
25.99% |
0.00% |
+48.03% |
-4.17% |
|
1944 |
Roosevelt, F |
70.32% |
29.68% |
0.00% |
+40.65% |
-7.38% |
|
1948 |
Truman |
48.82% |
33.63% |
17.55% |
+15.18% |
-25.47% |
|
1964 |
Johnson |
51.15% |
48.85% |
0.00% |
+2.30% |
+5.33% |
|
1976 |
Carter |
51.93% |
46.64% |
1.43% |
+5.28% |
+49.40% |
|
1996 |
Clinton |
48.02% |
42.32% |
9.66% |
+5.70% |
+7.59% |
|
2008 |
Obama |
50.91% |
48.10% |
0.98% |
+2.81% |
+7.82% |
Here the same table, arranged by winning percent, descending:
|
Year |
Candidate |
D % |
R % |
I/O % |
Margin |
Part. Shift. |
|
1892 |
Cleveland |
85.01% |
0.00% |
14.99% |
+71.35% |
+51.76% |
|
1936 |
Roosevelt, F |
76.10% |
23.90% |
0.00% |
+52.20% |
+2.56% |
|
1932 |
Roosevelt, F |
74.68% |
25.04% |
0.28% |
+49.64% |
+66.36% |
|
1940 |
Roosevelt, F |
74.01% |
25.99% |
0.00% |
+48.03% |
-4.17% |
|
1944 |
Roosevelt, F |
70.32% |
29.68% |
0.00% |
+40.65% |
-7.38% |
|
1912 |
Wilson |
69.52% |
18.10% |
22.06% |
+60.07% |
+18.64% |
|
1916 |
Wilson |
69.34% |
8.42% |
12.56% |
+51.25% |
-8.82% |
|
1888 |
Cleveland |
59.84% |
39.89% |
0.62% |
+19.59% |
+13.36% |
|
1856 |
Buchanan |
56.81% |
0.00% |
43.19% |
+13.63% |
--- |
|
1884 |
Cleveland |
52.96% |
46.73% |
0.32% |
+6.23% |
-2.12% |
|
1976 |
Carter |
51.93% |
46.64% |
1.43% |
+5.28% |
+49.40% |
|
1964 |
Johnson |
51.15% |
48.85% |
0.00% |
+2.30% |
+5.33% |
|
2008 |
Obama |
50.91% |
48.10% |
0.98% |
+2.81% |
+7.82% |
|
1948 |
Truman |
48.82% |
33.63% |
17.55% |
+15.18% |
-25.47% |
|
1996 |
Clinton |
48.02% |
42.32% |
9.66% |
+5.70% |
+7.59% |
From the table above, we see some incredible and punishing percentages as well as margins at the top of the list, i.e. Grover Cleveland's 85.01%. Based on the utterly and sometimes bitterly divided nature of our republic, it is hard to imagine a state like Florida ever producing such winning percents and margins ever again.
And the same table, arranged by winning margin, descending:
|
Year |
Candidate |
D % |
R % |
I/O % |
Margin |
Part. Shift. |
|
1892 |
Cleveland |
85.01% |
0.00% |
14.99% |
+71.35% |
+51.76% |
|
1912 |
Wilson |
69.52% |
18.10% |
22.06% |
+60.07% |
+18.64% |
|
1936 |
Roosevelt, F |
76.10% |
23.90% |
0.00% |
+52.20% |
+2.56% |
|
1916 |
Wilson |
69.34% |
8.42% |
12.56% |
+51.25% |
-8.82% |
|
1932 |
Roosevelt, F |
74.68% |
25.04% |
0.28% |
+49.64% |
+66.36% |
|
1940 |
Roosevelt, F |
74.01% |
25.99% |
0.00% |
+48.03% |
-4.17% |
|
1944 |
Roosevelt, F |
70.32% |
29.68% |
0.00% |
+40.65% |
-7.38% |
|
1888 |
Cleveland |
59.84% |
39.89% |
0.62% |
+19.59% |
+13.36% |
|
1948 |
Truman |
48.82% |
33.63% |
17.55% |
+15.18% |
-25.47% |
|
1856 |
Buchanan |
56.81% |
0.00% |
43.19% |
+13.63% |
--- |
|
1884 |
Cleveland |
52.96% |
46.73% |
0.32% |
+6.23% |
-2.12% |
|
1996 |
Clinton |
48.02% |
42.32% |
9.66% |
+5.70% |
+7.59% |
|
1976 |
Carter |
51.93% |
46.64% |
1.43% |
+5.28% |
+49.40% |
|
2008 |
Obama |
50.91% |
48.10% |
0.98% |
+2.81% |
+7.82% |
|
1964 |
Johnson |
51.15% |
48.85% |
0.00% |
+2.30% |
+5.33% |
Again, the same table, this time arranged by partisan shift, descending:
|
Year |
Candidate |
D % |
R % |
I/O % |
Margin |
Part. Shift. |
|
1932 |
Roosevelt, F |
74.68% |
25.04% |
0.28% |
+49.64% |
+66.36% |
|
1892 |
Cleveland |
85.01% |
0.00% |
14.99% |
+71.35% |
+51.76% |
|
1976 |
Carter |
51.93% |
46.64% |
1.43% |
+5.28% |
+49.40% |
|
1912 |
Wilson |
69.52% |
18.10% |
22.06% |
+60.07% |
+18.64% |
|
1888 |
Cleveland |
59.84% |
39.89% |
0.62% |
+19.59% |
+13.36% |
|
2008 |
Obama |
50.91% |
48.10% |
0.98% |
+2.81% |
+7.82% |
|
1996 |
Clinton |
48.02% |
42.32% |
9.66% |
+5.70% |
+7.59% |
|
1964 |
Johnson |
51.15% |
48.85% |
0.00% |
+2.30% |
+5.33% |
|
1936 |
Roosevelt, F |
76.10% |
23.90% |
0.00% |
+52.20% |
+2.56% |
|
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
|
1884 |
Cleveland |
52.96% |
46.73% |
0.32% |
+6.23% |
-2.12% |
|
1940 |
Roosevelt, F |
74.01% |
25.99% |
0.00% |
+48.03% |
-4.17% |
|
1944 |
Roosevelt, F |
70.32% |
29.68% |
0.00% |
+40.65% |
-7.38% |
|
1916 |
Wilson |
69.34% |
8.42% |
12.56% |
+51.25% |
-8.82% |
|
1948 |
Truman |
48.82% |
33.63% |
17.55% |
+15.18% |
-25.47% |
|
1856 |
Buchanan |
56.81% |
0.00% |
43.19% |
+13.63% |
--- |
And finally, the table to measure the partisan shift for the state over the national partisan shift for that year (this is often called „PARTISAN VALUE“):
|
Year |
Candidate |
Margin |
Part. Shift. |
Natl. Part. Shift |
Part. Value |
|
1892 |
Cleveland |
+71.35% |
+51.76% |
+2.18% |
+49.58% |
|
1932 |
Roosevelt, F |
+49.64% |
+66.36% |
+35.18% |
+31.18% |
|
1976 |
Carter |
+5.28% |
+49.40% |
+25.21% |
+24.19% |
|
1888 |
Cleveland |
+19.59% |
+13.36% |
+0.26% |
+13.10% |
|
1940 |
Roosevelt, F |
+48.03% |
-4.17% |
-14.30% |
+10.13% |
|
1996 |
Clinton |
+5.70% |
+7.59% |
+2.96% |
+4.63% |
|
1916 |
Wilson |
+51.25% |
-8.82% |
-11.32% |
+2.50% |
|
1884 |
Cleveland |
+6.23% |
-2.12% |
+0.67% |
+1.45% |
|
2008 |
Obama |
+2.81% |
+7.82% |
+9.73% |
-1.91% |
|
1936 |
Roosevelt, F |
+52.20% |
+2.56% |
+6.49% |
-3.93% |
|
1912 |
Wilson |
+60.07% |
+18.64% |
+22.97% |
-4.33% |
|
1944 |
Roosevelt, F |
+40.65% |
-7.38% |
-2.46% |
-4.92% |
|
1964 |
Johnson |
+2.30% |
+5.33% |
+22.42% |
-17.09% |
|
1948 |
Truman |
+15.18% |
-25.47% |
-3.01% |
-22.46% |
|
1856 |
Buchanan |
+13.63% |
--- |
-- |
-- |
So, based on these tables, here are the cold, hard facts about Obama's win in FLORIDA in 2008:
|
Year |
DEM |
GOP |
IND |
DEM % |
GOP % |
IND % |
Margin |
Margin % |
|
2008 |
4,282,074 |
4,045,624 |
82,622 |
50.91% |
48.10% |
0.98% |
+236,450 |
+2.81% |
|
2004 |
3,583,544 |
3,964,522 |
61,744 |
47.09% |
52.20% |
0.81% |
+380,978 |
+5.01% |
|
Diff: |
+698,530 |
+81,102 |
+20,878 |
+3.82% |
-3.99% |
+0.17% |
+617,428 |
+7.82% |
1.) Obama set a new FLORIDA raw vote record for a candidate of any party: 4,282,074 votes, 317,552 votes more than Bush's record-breaking raw vote from 2004. This is also the second largest increase in votes for one party from one cycle the the next in FL history; the democratic party added 698,530 votes to it's total over 2004. However, the republican party added 1,051,732 votes to it's 2004 total over the year 2000.
2.) Obama won with the 13th largest winning margin, the 14th largest winning percent, but the 6th largest partisan shift and the 9th largest partisan value in FLORIDA's democratic electoral history. That is the largest partisan shift for a democrat since 1976 and the second largest since 1932. All in all, this places his win somewhere in the lower third of the rankings.
And now, county for county...
I took the county-wide data for the entire state for both 2008 and 2004 and plugged it into an excel document, which you can link to here. Subsidiary data for all 67 counties can be found here. Of those 67, Obama won 15, or 22.39% (20 DEM retentions, 13 pick-ups), McCain won the other 52 (52 GOP retentions, 0 GOP pick-ups.).
|
Party – FL 08 |
retentions |
% of |
pickups |
% of 67 |
Total no. |
% of 67 |
|
Democratic |
11 |
16.42% |
4 |
5.97% |
15 |
22.39% |
|
Republican |
52 |
77.61% |
0 |
0.00% |
52 |
77.61% |
|
Total |
63 |
94.03% |
4 |
5.97% |
57 |
100.00% |
Comparison to VIRGINIA, INDIANA and OHIO, plus a total of the ffive states:
|
State |
DEM counties |
DEM % |
GOP counties |
GOP % |
DEM % diff: |
|
Florida |
15 of 67 |
22.39% |
52 of 67 |
77.61% |
-- |
|
North Carolina |
33 of 100 |
33.00% |
67 of 100 |
67.00% |
-10.61% |
|
Virginia |
49 of 134 |
36.57% |
85 of 134 |
63.43% |
-3.57% |
|
Ohio |
22 of 88 |
25.00% |
66 of 88 |
75.00% |
+8.00% |
|
Indiana |
15 of 92 |
16.30% |
77 of 92 |
83.70% |
+13.70% |
|
Total: |
134 of 481 |
27.86% |
347 of 481 |
72.14% |
-- |
In the excel document, everything is color-coded: red= GOP, blue = DEM, green= OTH. In the case of DEM pick-ups, those counties are also shaded in light-blue. The 2 GOP pick-ups are shaded in light red.
Here is a table of the number of counties, by party, where there was a percentage loss or gain, a numeric (raw vote) loss or gain and a margin loss or gain (not applicable to the „other“ vote“):
|
Party |
% loss |
% gain |
Num. loss |
Num. Gain |
Margin loss |
Margin gain |
|
GOP |
44 |
23 |
11 |
56 |
42 |
25 |
|
DEM |
25 |
42 |
12 |
55 |
25 |
42 |
|
OTHER |
7 |
60 |
6 |
61 |
-- |
-- |
The margin loss or gain is also known as TREND. In, the case of Florida, this means that 25 states trended more Republican than in 2004, while 42 states trended more Democratic.
.
The GOP lost ground in 44,11 or 42 counties. Since the margin (TREND) is most used for comparative purposes, the number 42 is the most appropriate statistic for the GOP for this state.
All of the counties listed by number above are listed by name in the appendix to this analysis.