We continue our “Big Ten” series by heading to Florida, viewed by many Americans as the quintessential swing state–and with good reason. The voting population of the Sunshine State continues to grow (Florida gains two new congressional seats from the 2010 census) with all makes and models of voters arriving daily to enjoy the warm weather, affordable retirement communities and burgeoning family entertainment complexes. The state is more diversified socially and politically than many other parts of the south, and has earned a reputation for close, highly scrutinized elections that have added such phrases as “hanging chads” to America’s lexicon.
Ironically, the Supreme Court, which played a pivotal role in the ultimate victory of George W. Bush in 2000, may once again play a role in the 2012 election in Florida where demographics and politics produce a melange of strongly voiced views concerning the government’s role in health care. Retirement communities, already prone to worries over any changes in health care, have seen the value of nest-egg homes decline, and foreclosures remain high. And to stir the primordial political pot even more, let’s include Florida Senator Marco Rubio in the mix for GOP veep.
So, with other polls here showing Barack Obama with a small lead over Mitt Romney, will the first post-health-care-decision poll show any movement?
As in all of the series of states we’re polling by automated means, after qualifying each individual in regards to ability (registered) and intention to vote this fall, we asked the following question (with rotated options as response):
[box] If the election for president were held today, for whom would you vote?[/box]
Here are the weighted results:Poll type:: Automated Date: July 1-2, 2012 - Participants: 1,127 Likely Voters - Margin of Error: ± 2.9%
Since no question was asked concerning health care, concluding that the race is tightening over that issue would be conjecture. We may just be witnessing Florida being Florida, and that means a super-close margin in a state that neither candidate can afford to lose.