Let’s be frank about this LEAD Task Force Report — UPDATE/correction

Screen Shot 2015-06-19 at 1.34.41 AMElizabeth Warren famously talks about Larry Summers giving her advice early in her career in the Senate, telling her she could be an insider or an outsider. “Outsiders can say whatever they want. But people on the inside don’t listen to them. Insiders, however, get lots of access and a chance to push their ideas. People—powerful people—listen to what they have to say. But insiders also understand one unbreakable rule. They don’t criticize other insiders.”
___________________________________

The recently released LEAD Task Force report is a curious and disappointing document. It sets high expectations from the first page, when State Party Chair Allison Tant says, “[W]e have to take a hard look at our past electoral performance to determine exactly why we fell short and how we can best rectify these issues going forward.”

Download the full document here –> http://b.3cdn.net/fldems/2f88b66b7c9a546f5e_ilm6bnbhe.pdf

But neither the promised “hard look” at 2014 data, nor concrete suggestions for going forward ever take shape. For example, despite overt noises from leadership about the importance of contributions from the “grass roots” through club and caucus meetings, I don’t see any of the content of those meetings, many of which I attended, reflected anywhere in the report.

Instead what I see is a mystery, wrapped in an enigma, stapled to a cover with the party logo on it. 

Is there some good stuff in there? Sure. I liked the promises to keep abreast of digital strategies, beef up outreach, and provide messaging out to counties in a timely and coherent fashion. The report calls for increasing staff and providing new resources for operations. Good.

But without a meaningful review of what went wrong, we can’t form the argument for how we’ll adapt our strategy going forward. The report can’t be the basis for an action plan because it’s simply too opaque — too insidery — to be useful.

Nestled within six pages of covers, introduction and conclusion, we get contradictory reasons for poor performance in North and Central Florida. In the Field and Turnout section we learn the problem was scant Democratic presence. But then in the Messaging section it’s the message that’s identified as the problem in those areas. Which is it? And why the intense focus on North and exurban Central Florida?

With neither clear data nor specific examples to explain what problems LEAD wants to address, the vague prescriptive suggestions are left completely open to interpretation. Sure, we can “improve messaging,” but what does that mean? What did the old, bad messaging look like? What was the response rate, and by how much would we like to see that improved? How was the old messaging deployed? How should the new messaging be handled more effectively? These are some of the questions I’d expected to see addressed in a report of this nature.

Take the strange, illogical ramblings on page nine under the heading of “Field and Turnout Operations,” where the recommendation is to “Renew Focus on North and Central Florida Voters,” extolling the virtues of Patrick Murphy’s campaign against Allen West as a model for running campaigns in North and exurban Central Florida.

Patrick Murphy was neither a North or Central Florida candidate. His district includes Palm Beach — it’s by no means representative of North or Central Florida. There are no Field or Turnout lessons that can be transplanted from the shores of Palm Beach to the savanna of Paynes Prairie. And yet, for reasons unexplained, he’s held up as an example of North and Central Florida Field and Turnout.

Conflating North and non-urban Central Florida with coastal South Florida to reach the conclusion that Patrick Murphy makes sense as a national candidate suggests that the LEAD report insiders are dangerously self-deluded.

Trying to excavate some meaning from the report’s opaque text, one can’t help doubting even the bits that seemed to make sense — digital strategy, messaging, outreach — and wonder what the hidden agendas are in those areas. Will even these things be crafted as tools of control, as the queer illogic surrounding Murphy seems to be? 

I went to three LEAD Task Force fact-finding events prior to the release of this report, and I learned much more about what our where our party is headed from those than I did from reading this report. At the community meetings LEAD Co-Chair Val Demings framed things like this: “Some inside the party have bought into a message that Democrats are anti-business, anti-economic growth, and anti-religious…Winning is the most important thing, and we have to change to win.”

But this entire characterization is a straw man based in the same Conserva-Dem rhetoric we’ve heard for years. The last few cycles here in Florida, especially in the midterms, we had top-ticket campaigns that ran on Chamber of Commerce messaging the public rejected. In 2014 we ran a lifelong Republican that Democrats had to “hold their nose” to vote for. So, we relied on ballot initiatives to bring out the base, medical marijuana and Florida Forever, because these issues reflect our values as Democrats. Still it wasn’t enough.

If we want to win going forward, let’s give these reports a rest and just use some common sense.

We need to invest in our bench and develop candidates who can be counted on to fight for Democratic values. Let’s stop wasting time and money on neoliberal, Conserva-Dem candidates who turn off voters by standing for nothing. They can’t win. We’ve done it the “insider” way and lost too many times.

THIS is what we have to change in order to win.

 

_______________________________________________

An earlier version referenced the old District 18 boundaries. The new District 18 boundaries actually make my argument stronger by drawing a tighter line around higher-turnout, high-income coastal areas of West Palm and Palm Beach, and excluding the urban areas of Miami.

Screen Shot 2015-06-19 at 10.21.00 AM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In terms of “Field and Turnout,” rural and urban/coastal areas are not equal. Urban/coastal areas are more densely populated making field operations more efficient and cost-effective. Poverty rates are also a major factor associated with rural populations and low voter turnout. In North-Central Florida, for example, Gainesville has a poverty rate of 26.8%, while Palm Beach has a poverty rate of 14.5%.

55 comments

  1. old guy on the bench · · Reply

    Do you care for some cheese and crackers with your whine? You have a series of complaints with the current party leadership. Stand for a leadership office in the party and if you are selected then accept the responsibilities of the office. A suggestion which I expect you and your compatriots will roundly reject out of hand – write your own comprehensive version of the report, a rebuttal report if you will and widely circulate it. At the end of the day do something positive instead of constantly whining. The challenge is to come up with a better idea that people will rally to and want to accept. Be positive. I know you are positive you hate my comment.

    1. Joe Kreps · · Reply

      Here is one suggestion. Support all Democratic candidates, not just wealthy ones. Help them succeed. Every Republican incumbent should be targeted and the battle cry should be time for a change.

      1. response to political scrutiny 101 – what an arrogant response – just whose side are you on? You sound like lotsa my Progressive friends – if they don’t get the candidate they want, they probably won’t vote at all – political parries are like baseball clubs, ya gotta go on the field with the players ya got – period –

      2. Naoya6161 · ·

        I think you posted in the wrong place regarding “politicalscrutiny101”. Although I agree with you wholly.

  2. Naoya6161 · · Reply

    OK I have a lot of issues with what you’re saying here.
    “Meaningful review”? That is what they did in the article. Of course, unless you believe it’s meaningful only if it tells you what you want to hear.
    It’s pretty obvious to me that you have an irrational hatred of Murphy. His district is a swing district – a competitive election will always make people campaign at their very best. Since he outperformed Obama and Crist in a competitive elections, of course they’re going to look at him over everyone else!
    It seems like you’re adamant that the solution is to add more progressive candidates. That’s not how it works – you need to bring forth CANDIDATES WHO CAN WIN. I have yet to see you step forward and give someone who fits that description.
    The guy who posted above me has it right. If you have a beef with the report, you should go and provide your own version if you actually want to stop losing.

  3. Charles · · Reply

    LOL. C’mon. Really. Patrick Murphy is no where near South Beach, and part of the Keys. C’mon! If you want us to take your political analysis seriously, then please get the basics right. My god.

    http://patrickmurphy.house.gov/district/interactivemap.htm

    “Patrick Murphy was neither a North or Central Florida candidate. His district includes Miami, South Beach and parts of the Keys — it’s by no means representative of North or Central Florida. There are no Field or Turnout lessons that can be transplanted from the shores of Miami Beach to the savanna of Paynes Prairie. And yet, for reasons unexplained, he’s held up as an example of North and Central Florida Field and Turnout.”

    1. Lucy V. Pelt · · Reply

      Wait. So, yes, looks like the author references the pre-2012 18th District, but you find that “LOL” as to the point that the 18th is not in “North Florida?”

      Is the 18th, now North Florida, somehow?

      And you want us to take YOU seriously?

      LOL indeed, Charles.

      1. Charles · ·

        Lucy, I was laughing at the glaring error. It should be basic political knowledge (especially for anyone who is trying to pass off as a political blogger) to place Patrick Murphy’s district boundaries, especially when you’re making fun of the state party for not knowing where it is.

        [I also think the LEAD report is all fluff… and inconsequential without real action.]

        However, the author is oversimplifying her point again. Murphy’s district includes the northern third of palm beach and all of St. Lucie and Martin counties. The voters in his district have more in common with “central Florida” than they do with the “coastal south Florida” – however she’s defining that over-generalization which isn’t clear…

        I think the more important point which the author tries to make, but gets lost while chastising the state party, is that LEAD should have more clearly expressed how to handle urban vs rural parts of Florida.

        It would be nice if FL Squeeze offered a counter report backed by data, case studies, and best practices, rather than emotional shoot-from-the-hip ramblings.

  4. The track record for the FDP “bringing forth candidates that can win” seems to continue to be side stepped. The report is just proof that unless you adhere to the FDP idea of what “is” a good candidate, your money, volunteering and energy is best put toward groups and candidates that represent your political views. If all the efforts to try to convince them, when they asked for opinions failed, then any other attempts will continue to fall on deaf ears. And to be honest, a waste of precious time, as was the LEAD report.

    1. Naoya6161 · · Reply

      Is that so? If you do think there is a problem with the candidates themselves, you do have to put forth a viable alternative. If you can’t… Then you get what you get.

      1. Pretty sure you have made that message loud and clear Naoya6161. The message that Progressives, Hispanics, Blacks all need to start training their candidates. No need to wait for FDP to train any that represent us. Great job getting the message out there Naoya.

      2. Naoya6161 · ·

        Exactly. A candidate can’t walk in and win simply because of their stances on the issues.

      3. If we have to do all the work, put up all the money, take all the blame…Tell me again exactly why we need the FDP?

      4. Naoya6161 · ·

        Define we.

      5. I don’t need to, you did…

      6. Naoya6161 · ·

        Nope.

      7. Naoya6161 · ·

        A candidate does have to prove their worth via winning elections and building connections you know. And often these candidates have to start at the bottom of the ladder and move up.

    2. Keep doing what your doing, just don’t expect different results. Not a doubt in my mind nothing anyone in Florida says will change the way you do things. It will take Florida being a national embarrassment again for you to MAYBE even consider changing things…

      1. Naoya6161 · ·

        So you think I’m an insider correct? Hate to break it to you, but I’m not. I’m a person who wants to see Florida turn blue.
        You can hate me if you’d like, but good luck convincing the rest of the world to listen to you.

    3. I don’t hate anyone, even people I don’t agree with.

    4. What I think you are is not important. Nor is what you think I am. This is not personal.

      1. Naoya6161 · ·

        “Keep doing what your doing, just don’t expect different results. Not a doubt in my mind nothing anyone in Florida says will change the way you do things. It will take Florida being a national embarrassment again for you to MAYBE even consider changing things…”
        Those are your words exactly. It’s apparent to me that you think I am an insider.
        Like I said before, I’m not. However, I acknowledge that turning Florida blue again will be a challenge, and that I have to make do with the cards I’ve been dealt with. I just choose the most logical way for me to proceed.

      2. My response was to your last response about ladders and such…

      3. Naoya6161 · ·

        And i was replying to your claim that I keep doing things the same way… And that you are utterly convinced that nothing anyone in Florida will do anything to change things.
        Change means many things. Sometimes it’s good, sometimes it’s bad. If change is to be made, it must be made acknowledging the problems of the current system, rather than changing them for the sake of change, since that can cause things to go wrong.

      4. Acknowledging the problems of the current system would be a refreshing change. That being said, I have work to do. Until next time.

      5. What I did find interesting is when I flipped every point you have made, ex. That the FDP does not train candidates, that the people needed to find candidates and get them trained, that once they have done all this, the candidates would still have to climb a ladder etc. etc. etc., your argument, and because i typed it got so many dislikes LOL Have a great Day! 🙂

      6. Naoya6161 · ·

        LOL eh? Telling…

    5. Yeah that should tell you right up there ^ your arguments are not very popular, even when I type them LOL 🙂

      1. Naoya6161 · ·

        Actually several things.
        First off… It tells me that you’re not very mature.
        Second… I think I know exactly who I’m talking to now, based on some of our past interactions.
        And so much for being busy if you came back eh?

      2. LOL @ very mature. Came back to Reblog to another blog. 🙂

      3. Naoya6161 · ·

        Not helping your case…

      4. Sorry, I am not trying to help my case. I don’t think my case needs help. I just came back to reblog and post. I don’t need your consent or approval. Try to have a good day. 🙂

      5. Naoya6161 · ·

        Fascinating!

  5. Words matter more than names. · · Reply

    Brook,
    While you make some good points in some of your articles about branding and marketing of the party – when you make a mistake as huge as not having a clue where Murphy’s district is – and totally mischaracterize the makeup of it – it undermines everything else you write. You clearly are in such a rush to go after Murphy that you’ve learned very little about him.

    Additionally – they weren’t referencing his win over Allen West. That was in 2012. They were talking about his (nation leading) over performance of his R+3 district in 2014. (Thought full attribution to the field effort for that performance is questionable.)

    In reality, his district – which includes all of St. Lucie and Martin Counties – is arguably more like Central Florida than South Florida.

    But the best part is that you yourself wrote in a previous article that Murphy CAN win in an election year. Now you’re saying he can’t.

    It is fair game to argue over votes and positions. But when the time came to run for office for the first time – the guy, who voted for Obama in 2008 in his mid 20s – looked at his positions and decided to run as a Democrat.

    Importantly – he didn’t do that because it was a way to win an easy seat. He went up against a well funded nationally known incumbent in Allen West, knowing there would be a primary. There was nothing convenient or opportunistic about the decision to be a Democrat. His positions simply aligned with the party (and still do), far far better than they do as a Republican. He decided to be a Dem in his 1st run for office – not his 8th.

    You’re also forgetting that we want people to evolve to our positions. That’s the point of making the arguments for our positions in the first place. Say what you want about Crist’s campaign or as a candidate – but we should be celebrating anytime a Republican defects to support a pro-equality, pro-medical marijuana, pro-choice, pro-environment agenda. It means we made a difference.

    But Brook, if you want to make a difference yourself, you have to prove you have at even a basic knowledge about Murphy and how he won two elections in the first place.

  6. Mike Coleman · · Reply

    I am very glad this forum exists to allow for venting and conversation concerning the failures that occurred in 2014 as well as our hope and aspirations for 2016.

    There are some issues brought up in the past few Blog posts that are not factual or necessarilly relevant today as the passage of time renders the use of voter turnout data from elections occurring 10 years ago isn’t reliable today and mistakes are mistakes.

    Our Five Statewide Candidates from 2014 have been held out as complete failures and on the whole much of what was said has some basis of complaint that is truthful as well as other commentary that is more “agenda” driven. In the measure of winning and losing the analysis is correct.

    To begin there is a big error in this particular Blog Post author mistook Patrick Murphy’s District. Florida Congressional District 18’s geography.
    District 18 encompasses one of the most Republican areas of Palm Beach County where Republicans have about a 5.000 voter registration advantage, the entirety of Martin County where the Republicans have a 2 to 1 registration lead over Democrats and St Lucie County where there are about 18,000 more Democrats than Republicans.
    Overall District 18 is a nearly equally balanced D versus R registration. The write is correct it isn’t North Florida (sure isn’t Clay County) but it is not Miami-Dade or Broward either and there are lessons to be learned.

    Patrick Murphy provided excellent constituent service and the Citizens of all political persuasions were welcomed without regard to their politics.
    He served the interests of his District and echoed their sentiments especially locally where there are two very hot button topics that rally all citizens in non partisan ways.

    I have also seen people going all the way back to 2004 re-fighting old battles that took place with a different electorate than we have today.

    For example our Voter file in Palm Beach County shows that 44% of the current voters were not registered for the 2004 election.

    The electorate has changed and much of what happened in 2004 is just part of history even though many of us participated in it, it’s not relevant.

    We need to see 2014’s election for what it was. It was an election that saw a near 550,000 increase in voter participation and the gubernatorial margin moved less than 3,000 votes in favor of the opposition.
    Get your head around that and think.

    Both sides generated a huge turnout over that of 2010 and the result was nearly the same.

    The opposition spent 25-45 million dollars more than the other to eek out another razor thin victory, because it had the money.

    As a result of major lobbying the FDP to address South Florida’s huge Democratic registration margins by placing more Staff in these counties for 2014 FDP responded by placing resources in South Florida.
    The results paid dividends in sheer turnout numbers but, as everyone living paycheck to paycheck the result was robbing Peter to pay Paul as North Florida and the I-4 corridor saw their FDP Staff support diminish.
    It take money to put Staff in place and many times the money for staff comes with campaign marching orders for that staff and that diminishes the effectiveness of coordinating Party efforts. (Old golden rule problem here, the one with the gold sets the rules)

    The results speak for themselves, lots more turnout and still a Governor’s election lost by one percent.

    The other Statewide Offices were severely underfunded and whether we like to acknowledge it or not, without 12-20 million dollars available to campaign in these races the results of everyone of those elections reflected two elements. First was waging campaigns against an incumbents and the second a lack of financial wherewithal.

    We can expect a great disparity of election funding in 2016 and unless we all get our priorities straight and get out into the grassroots doing the work necessary. This work is simple and direct and requires only one form of persuasion talent which is selling each Democrat we can to Vote by Mail.

    When the Democratic Activists in Florida come to realize and understand that every candidate running benefits from a base that is ready to vote from home by mail no matter who the candidate may be we Democratic Activists will have done our job.

    We can support any candidate we want, we can raise money for the candidates of our choice, and we have the freedom to vote for any candidate we choose and however that works out we will have to live with the results these actions we produce win or lose.

    It is far easier to get voter involvement as a Democrat (thing getting a VBM request) than it is to go out and persuade Democrats to vote for “your Democrat”.

    Understand the difference between what Campaigns do (they persuade to “vote for me”) and what Party’s do to activate their base which is to ensure the highest turnout possible for their Party by making Voting easy, simple and a habit.

    Turnout building is every Democratic Activist’s mission. Selling our favorite candidate is a campaign function. Respect the difference between the two and decide whether you are a Party Activist or you are an Activist with specific Candidate & Issue agendas. (Know who you are and you may find peace)

    This next year our recipe for success is converting Democratic Voters into Vote by Mail requestors because they have a turnout rate near 90% (not all use the VBM ballot about 10% of them vote in person but that VBM sits as a reminder and they heed it, especially with a couple of dozen VBM chase contacts)

    Find the Democrats near you who have voted only once in the past two elections and do your best persuasion to sell the VBM request now because that one single act produces the most reliable turnout existing. Pay close attention to the Democrats who are under 55 as these folks are the least likely to use a VBM and they are precisely the people who need them the most as their lives are very busy and voting is not a priority “to do”.
    When we have 25% of Florida’s Democrats as VBM requestors we will have accomplished our mission and all of our candidates up and down the ballot will benefit.

    This is what is good for us as Democrats and this is what’s good for the candidate you support whomever that candidate may be.

    When you don’t have the financial resources of your opponent you have to win by doing the basics better and cheaper than they can.
    We are in that situation.

    The Koch Brothers may have 85 billion dollars but they only have one vote each, That’s probably the only measure of political power that is equal to yours.

    Spend your time getting Vote By Mail requests because everyone you get ensure’s your effort produced about 9/10’s of a vote in 2016.
    There is no better use of your time.

    1. I agree. We also have to spend time finding people who represent our voice.

    2. I can not support Patrick Murphy, he does not support my views. Other than that I agree with you.

    3. True believer · · Reply

      Mike,

      I read your email and harkened back to the Warren quote concerning ‘insiders’ and their influence on decision making. It’s this type of party insider speak that has allowed inaccurate assumptions to take on assumed truth. Much of your argument fails because of one significant error.

      ” This next year our recipe for success is converting Democratic Voters into Vote by Mail requestors…”

      While VBM is an important tool, the benifit is financial not turnout. It cost the party and candidates less of our very limited resources (yes I implied it, FDP fundraising pitiful, it is smoke mirrors and lies)

      Our success is dependent on registering new voters! Florida is a growth state and it is growing in a way that will benefit our party IF we redirect resources and priorities to take advantage of it. To date, voter registration has been anemic or dead!

    4. Absolutely agree –> Vote-By-Mail has the highest return on investment of all field tactics. One C3 group working in Central Florida this cycle was able to show that VBM sign-ups yielded a voting rate of 58%, and they were 14% more likely to vote than those who received a simple GOTV message without the VBM sign-up.

  7. Patrick Murphy’s district has nothing to do with miami or South Beach. It’s a hundred miles north of Miami., thus more like Central Florida than stated here. Before reapportionment District 18 was like this, but he defeated Alan West, not Iliana Ros-Lehtinin, who still holds a congressional district based on Miami. And Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s District 23 includes all of Miami Beach currently.

    1. R. Sidney. · · Reply

      Wait, though. Murphy won in a hyper-conservative pocket that once elected Allen West.

      So the LEAD report is completely off its rocker using him as a template for Central or even North Florida. Orlando elects people like Alan Grayson; Murphy’s district elects rightwing extremists like Allen West. There simply is no parallel there.

      I don’t see any way to look at it other than a stretch to rationalize the theoretical viability an overly conservative candidate. It doesn’t matter if he’s in Palm Beach or South Beach; Murphy has succeeded among extreme conservatives that don’t exist in the most densely populated areas of the sstate.

      1. Even after the Allen West years, D-18 has a Cook Political Partisan Voter Index of R+3, putting it barely in the “moderately-R” category. In terms of Dems considered to be in “unfriendly” territory, Patrick Murphy ranks near the bottom of the list — number 9.

      2. Words matter more than names. · ·

        Not true. Allen West never won that district. He moved and ran into that district after redistricting made what is now Lois Wexler’s seat more democratic. He won in the 2010 Tea Party wave against Ron Klein – who never truly informed the public about how crazy West was. Most of the craziest stuff came after.

        Previously – Murphy’s existing seat was the domain of Rooney, Mahoney, and Foley.

  8. Robert F. · · Reply

    “a mystery, wrapped in an enigma, stapled to a cover with the party logo on it.”

    Perfect.

    Yes, that LEAD Report is flat-out weird. Acres of intro and conclusion, some tiny graphs trumpeting some one-point increase in mail-in ballots or something, and lots of bizarrely opaque language.

    What, for example, is this supposed to mean:

    “Changes must be made that empower Democrats to be more engaged with the local parties and the state party, including creating new opportunities to serve in leadership positions. Barriers should be removed to ensured the Party’s governance is more open, transparent and inclusive.”

    Yikes. Behold a call to be more “transparent” that conveys zero information in an entire paragraph theoretically written in English.

    First off, who is writing this? For Pete’s sake, if we’re going to make something publicly available, it can’t be this passive on top of passive gobbledygook. This is literally a string of words that says nothing at all. And it’s not just one paragraph; it’s the whole thing. Check it out:

    http://b.3cdn.net/fldems/2f88b66b7c9a546f5e_ilm6bnbhe.pdf

    Is this just the world’s worst writing, or is someone clumsily trying to hide the ball here?

    If there are rules changes proposed, what are they?

    If there are “barriers” to “governance,” what are we talking about, and what is planned to be done to put who in charge of what now?

    What did this task force do this entire time? Did they not actually make any findings or formulate any plans, or did they make findings and formulate plans they don’t want anyone to know about?

    It feels like the purpose of the “report” was to avoid actually saying anything at all. It’s like a book report turned in by a kid who didn’t read the material, but has thinks no one will notice if he uses words like “governance.” Or, maybe more likely, it’s an inartful attempt to talk around something, or actually several somethings.

    I don’t know — maybe this kind of non-report report is what is expected? Insiders, speak up, please and explain what the point of publishing a piece of bound material in the shape of a report, with the title of a report, that actually reports nothing at all?

  9. Naoya6161 · · Reply

    Even after updating… I fail to see how the new district strengthens your argument. In fact it actually weakens your argument.

  10. Ron Baldwin · · Reply

    As to the concept of the Lead Task Force, a racehorse designed by a committee ends up as a donkey.

  11. ok – you want a good example of missing a good candidate ? How about most Democrats bied loser – eing almost forced fed by the FDP that Charlie Crist was a better candidate than Nan – anyone with a reasonable amount of experience campaigning KNEW that Nan would have been an easier “…sale…” that grinnin’ Charlie was – Republican Charlie was sorta preordained by the powers that be in Tallahassee, and as so many of their choices just a preordained loser – most of these so-called leaders who think of themselves to be outstanding politicians – how about you l outstanding guys FIND us viable and WINNABLE candidates – C’mon, if these incompetents had any shame, they’d of resigned so that the rank-and-file coulda voted eith a vote of confidence or sent in new clowns – Larry Babitts

  12. Correction to my earlier message: – ok, you want an example of missing a good candidate? How about we Democrats being almost force-fed by the FDP that Charlie Crist was a better candidate than Nan – anyone with a minimum of campaign experience KNEW that Nan was an easier “…sale…” than Griinnin’ Charlie was – Republican Charlie was sorta preordained by the powers that be in Tallahassee. and just like so many of their other preordained candidates – he was just a preordained loser – most of our so-called leaders think of themselves sort of as old-fashioned power-brokers who have outstanding political skills – So, how about you outstanding politicians FIND US viable and WINNABLE candidates? C’mon, if these incompetents had any shame they would have resigned so that the Democrat rank-and-file could’ve either put them back into their office with a vote of confidence – or the rank-and-file coulda sent in a whole buncha “new clowns” – Larry Babitts

  13. A Response to an earlier blogger who wrote that he can’t support PAT MURPHY because Murphy doesn’t agree with his n policies, ideas or some such verbal garbage -does this imply that the blogger would rather have a Republican Senator? C’mon guys we gotta support the Democrat nominee -Just about any Democrat is preferable to a right wingnut – Larry Babitts

    1. Naoya6161 · · Reply

      Agreed.

    2. What it implies is that, as a Democrat I will not work to advance Patrick Murphy’s chances of winning. As a life long Democrat, I have always voted for who wins the Primary. I have always done so when I felt the party was was giving the voters a voice via Primary. And the old line of would you rather have a Republican will not work on me, because the lines have been smudged, I could vote for a Democrat and get a Republican. Some Democrats vote right along with Republicans. So…now we have to look at a candidates history. Seems to me many of the ex- Republicans sure get up that ladder faster than some life long Democrats have lately….We have to have a CHOICE before it is the “Democratic” nominee.

    3. Furthermore, when the party starts coming out in support of Candidates before there is even a primary. And obviously making moves that reduces the chances of there even being a Primary, and not allowing debates pre-primary, it brings negative attention to exactly what is going on with in the party.

    4. If Patrick Murphy is your guy, you fund him and work for him. You don’t need me, if he has the support he will make it, if he don’t he won’t!

      1. Naoya6161 · ·

        K.

  14. When I lived in Pennsylvania, Senator Specter whom I knew quite well, asked me why I wouldn’t vote for him (for those who don’t remember him, Specter was a former Democrat turned Republican but voted mostly his exceptionally moderate beliefs) and I told him that I didn’t want to give his party the Senate Majority Leadership – and I believed then (and still do) that we’re better off with a conservative Democrat than with a Conservative or even a Moderate Republican as the Senate Majority Leader – absolutely!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: