What Problem?

Politico has a story today entitled "Obama's Florida 2012 Problem," which is kind of silly title. The article is fine, I suppose, but the treatment of the story makes the mistake that folks in Washington always tend toward, assuming the last election is indicative of the next one.

Obama won Florida in 2008, but he won a lot of places. It was a landslide election. To suggest he may not see exactly the same results this November is lazy analysis. Of course he won't. He is in a completely different station, both professionally and in the course of time. An incumbent president will have to run a different campaign than a candidate looking to challenge the party in control, and that means we have a very different race on our hands from top to bottom. Consider a flip on the old proverb, to do things differently and expect the same results could be a second definition of insanity.

Florida was a swing state in 2008, and it will be again in 2012. It was also a swing state in 2004, 2000, 1996 and 1992. This is fourth most populous state in the union, and the only one that will actually be up for grabs this go-round.

All that is to say, Big Deal! Politico thinks the fact Florida is a battleground is a problem for the president? If so, it has been a problem for every president of the past 40 years. With the sole of exception of Ronald Reagan, who was reelected by an historic electoral college margin in 1984, every sitting president since Gerald Ford has found themselves worrying about winning Florida. The last two presidents— Bill Clinton and George W. Bush— both increased voter support in the states substantially during their reelection efforts, so there is some reason to believe this state warms to incumbents more than Washington observers realize. But no matter what, presidential candidates of either party, incumbent or not, have to campaign hard in Florida to win. Obama will be no exception.

A lot of people are fascinated with the prospect of a Marco Rubio vice presidential effect, but the more I think about it, the more laughable the constant conversation seems to me. It may be why Rubio has in past been dismissive of VP talks.

First off, the idea party activists can decide the vice president before they even select a nominee is a misunderstanding of the process. This is a personal decision made by a man running for president, and he doesn't want to succomb to public pressure. Bill Clinton once noted this is a presidential decision the nominee gets to make before they are elected president. If anything, the outcry for Rubio is probably a hindrance on his chances of actually getting the nod.

But let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Rubio does get selected as a running mate. Will it help the Republicans in November? Of course, but it won't take Florida off the table. Rubio, who barely won a majority of votes in the state in 2010 and only got elected after a bizarre series of events unlikely to happen again, does not take Florida off the list of swing states. Recall that Jeb Bush, who was widely popular at the time, could not help his brother win Florida in 2000 without an assist from the Supreme Court.

Rubio is actually better off personally sticking out a full term in the Senate, then running for president in 2016, or even 2020. If he avoids this campaign, he runs less risk of having the loser stink that plagues Sarah Palin and other running mates blamed (probably unfairly) for taking a losing ticket down.

So will Obama have to fight for Florida? Of course. That's why he's at Disney today, more than any other reason. But can he still win? Yes. Can he beat a Romney-Rubio or Gingrich-Rubio ticket? Yes. Is he still in a good position to be re-elected regardless of what happens in Florida? Yes.

So what's the problem?