If the Earth spun clockwise, would Florida have still satisfied the requirements for the US launch center in the 1960's?

In a comment under the question If the Earth spun clockwise, how would that affect Space Exploration? I wrote:

Kennedy Space Center would be a lot closer to JPL; not sure what all happens with the Moon, if it doesn't also go the other way I don't think it would be where it is now.

to which was replied

KSC would still be in Florida, but on its west (Gulf of Mexico) coast.

I wrote KSP rather than Cape Canaveral because I was more confident that I wouldn't mipsell it, I probably should have written the latter. (See excellent answers to What is the difference between Cape Canaveral and Kennedy Space Center?).

Question: At the time of the build up of Cape Canaveral Space Force Station in the 1960's for the US space program, if the Earth rotated the opposite direction would the west coast of Florida have matched all of the constraints in terms of downrange safety for all inclinations the planners envisioned access to and provided ground tracks that allowed for tracking stations in friendly locations for the early crewed orbital missions, or would California have provided a location more suitable to their perceived needs for a space launch center at the time?

Cape Canaveral Space Force Station (with launch pads annotated including of course some built long after the 1960's). From NASA's PIA01918:

The John F. Kennedy Space Center, America's spaceport, is located along Florida's eastern shore on Cape Canaveral. Established as NASA's Launch Operations Center on July 1, 1962, the center has been the site of launching all U.S. human space flight missions, from the early days of Project Mercury to the space shuttle and the next generation of vehicles.

• How deep down this speculative rabbit hole do we need to go? What if JFK had been an astronaut instead of president? – Organic Marble Apr 30 at 1:11
• @OrganicMarble Please do not speculate deeply! I think this constrains you to fact-based answers only: "...would the west coast of Florida have matched all of the constraints in terms of downrange safety for all inclinations the planners envisioned access to and provided ground tracks that allowed for tracking stations in friendly locations for the early crewed orbital missions..." – uhoh Apr 30 at 1:16
• There were political as well as geographic considerations for choosing NASA sites. – Organic Marble Apr 30 at 1:28
• space.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1541/6944 – Organic Marble Apr 30 at 1:34
• Keep in mind that it was the Air Force, not NASA, making the original decision for the launch site. No doubt that the qualifications for such a site was highly classified, as it would have revealed U.S. missile capabilities. Such information might not be declassified even today. – DrSheldon Apr 30 at 2:06

Like Cape Canaveral, it is on an island on the Florida coast, close enough to be reached by bridges. Its latitude is 2 degrees south of Canaveral (26°26′23″N versus 28°29′20″N), so actually slightly better. It's bigger in area than Canaveral (86 km$$^2$$ versus 5 km$$^2$$); plenty of room for the military, NASA, plus a nature preserve.