Florida 2018 Gubernatorial

[smoltchanov]

Progressives "belong" wherever voters see fit to elect them.

Exactly. And how much of them were elected in R+10 (or higher) districts in 2016? Do you think that "progressive" will be a good candidate in MN-07 after Peterson retirement? Everybody can run everywhere, but one must be realistic about his/her chances..

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Progressives "belong" wherever voters see fit to elect them.

Exactly. And how much of them were elected in R+10 (or higher) districts in 2016? Do you think that "progressive" will be a good candidate in MN-07 after Peterson retirement? Everybody can run everywhere, but one must be realistic about his/her chances..

I think running moderates hasn't worked in Florida so it's worth trying something else.  Furthermore, FL is not an R +10 state.

[windjammer]

For the record, I support Gwen Graham because she's a strong campaigner and would do well with old whites, a critical demographic group for a midterm.

[smoltchanov]

Progressives "belong" wherever voters see fit to elect them.

Exactly. And how much of them were elected in R+10 (or higher) districts in 2016? Do you think that "progressive" will be a good candidate in MN-07 after Peterson retirement? Everybody can run everywhere, but one must be realistic about his/her chances..

I think running moderates hasn't worked in Florida so it's worth trying something else.  Furthermore, FL is not an R +10 state.

Nelson? Many years as successful moderate. And  Florida is R+1-2 - a perfect moderate territory, but not promising for "bold progressive" for sure.. If it would be D+7 - no problems with that..

P.S. BTW - how many successfull "bold progressives" were elected statewide in Florida history? A lot of moderates, some - very conservative types (including Democratic conservatives in the past), but - preciously few left liberals. You must go back to Claude Pepper probably, and even he was later defeated by conservative.

[Married Gay Socialist]

Graham is a Democrat In Name Only.
Dems wont be able to retake any majorities if they keep putting out crap centrist Dems like Graham. She wont win. That's not what the people, especially new/young Dems want.

Graham is a centrist Democrat, not real DINO (in fact - there are no single DINO even in whole Florida legislature anymore since about year 2000). She is much to the left of any possible republican candidate like Putnam. And "what new/young Dems want" is NOT what most of Florida citizens want - the state as a whole is much less liberal then that political group.

I'm sorry, but you are completely incorrect about two statements in your post.

1) Centrist democrats are tools of the GOP, making them Democrats in Name Only. You cannot be for both corporatism and labor rights, because they are internally contradictory in terms of their aims & goals.

2) The majority of Floridians, just like the majority of Americans want the same things when it comes to policy issues. The vast majority of Americans want single-payer universal healthcare, they also want debt and tuition free college, legalized medical cannabis, progressive taxes where the rich pay their fair share, and restrictions on corruption in wallstreet. These are all things that when people of any background are polled- they agree overwhelmingly in support for these policies.
Due to personality politics and the lies of both parties- there is a lot of partisanship happening right now, on both sides- but for the same reason. People are fed up with crony capitalism (or as i call its: simply capitalism), they want better jobs and workers rights, they are sick of having their jobs go oversees, they want the right to affordable education and healthcare, and they want everyone (including the financier bankers) to pay their fair share.
On almost every issue, the american people agree. It's time the politicians who represent them do the same. Which is why we must rid ourselves of Corporate Democrats and replace them with a party willing to fight the hard fight for these strong progressive policies. Without doing so, the Democrats will continue to be destroyed in the elections by allowing republicans to cast themselves as the populist- which is what the people want. The only option for democrats to be a viable major party in the near future (as the boomers continue to die out and millennials continue to become the largest voting block in the country's history) is to end their corporatism & greed, and once again fight for strong progressive causes that directly benefit the working class, and not just those at the top. They must reject the Clinton era democratic party reforms, and expel this wing of DINOS before America becomes a one-party dominant nation, as it almost is now.

Graham wont win against a republican if she runs as the "GOP-light". The democrats must give people something to vote and something to fight for. But, they wont. Because they are paid to be weak to benefit the major donors.

That is why 2018 is going to be a blood-bath for democrats in the senate.

Its not about what happened in 1994. We are in 2017, and the VOTERS want real change. The 2016 election should have proven this to everyone. And after several more years of Trump, the progressive wing will only grow and get more fed up with these establishment democrats who honestly stand for absolutely nothing. People want bold positions on both sides of the isle. The GOP is giving the republicans that with Trump. It's time Dems do the same, because their current position is a losing won every time.

Its time the Democratic party works to lift up their progressives rather than actively try to tare them down like they have in countless elections past.

[smoltchanov]

I'm sorry, but you are completely incorrect about two statements in your post.

1) Centrist democrats are tools of the GOP, making them Democrats in Name Only. You cannot be for both corporatism and labor rights, because they are internally contradictory in terms of their aims & goals.

I am sorry, but it's an absolute lie. I personally know a lot of Democrats (including my US relatives), who don't want to have anything in common with socialism in ANY form (even European "democratic socialism"), and are quite centrist. They have  very little in common with modern day Republicans .... So, i repeat: to equate centrist Democrats with DINO's is a lie. Intentional or not - another matter. And i don't see 2017 as more "liberal" or "advanced"  year then early 1990th. On many issues early 1990th were much more progressive as people's positions on these issues is considered...

And don't assign ALL Democrats your thoughts about what THEY want and what THEY don't want. It's very serious blunder on part of activists of BOTH parties to think that all think the way they think (even in their "own" party), and that their thinking and their ideological conclusions are the only one existing and the only correct.

P.S. All following is not interesting simply because of a principle of mathematical logic: "you can deduce ANY statement from a false one"... In this case basic "axiom" equating centrist Democrats with DINO's is false, hence - all following makes no sense.

P.S. 2 Looking at your nickname i am temted to call myself "Married Straight Capitalist"))). "Married" is, probably, the only thing we have in common)) And even it - in a different way..

[Married Gay Socialist]

I'm sorry, but you are completely incorrect about two statements in your post.

1) Centrist democrats are tools of the GOP, making them Democrats in Name Only. You cannot be for both corporatism and labor rights, because they are internally contradictory in terms of their aims & goals.

I am sorry, but it's an absolute lie. I personally know a lot of Democrats (including my US relatives), who don't want to have anything in common with socialism in ANY form (even European "democratic socialism"), and are quite centrist. They have  very little in common with modern day Republicans .... So, i repeat: to equate centrist Democrats with DINO's is a lie. Intentional or not - another matter. And i don't see 2017 as more "liberal" or "advanced"  year then early 1990th. On many issues early 1990th were much more progressive as people's positions on these issues is considered...

And don't assign ALL Democrats your thoughts about what THEY want and what THEY don't want. It's very serious blunder on part of activists of BOTH parties to think that all think the way they think (even in their "own" party), and that their thinking and their ideological conclusions are the only one existing and the only correct.

P.S. All following is not interesting simply because of a principle of mathematical logic: "you can deduce ANY statement from a false one"... In this case basic "axiom" equating centrist Democrats with DINO's is false, hence - all following makes no sense.

P.S. 2 Looking at your nickname i am temted to call myself "Married Straight Capitalist"))). "Married" is, probably, the only thing we have in common)) And even it - in a different way..

Facts are facts. The majority of the democratic voters, and the majority of the country want healthcare and higher education as a right, they want stronger social security and medicaid, and they want the billionaires to pay their fair share and the end the corporate corruption in Washington. On each of these issues more than a 51% majority agree. And in the young people, which again I'll let you know is the largest generational voting block in the history of America, is VERY progressive, which was proven with the Bernie Sanders campaign and the 70% percent vote of people 40 and younger. The statistics are on our side. I don't know why you're even mentioning socialism, because these issues don't have anything to do with socialism. They are progressive New Deal solutions to address the serious issue of income inequality developing in the modern capitalist world. The Democrats have lost nearly a thousand seats nationwide since 2008. Centrist democrats and conservative democrats have been replaced by republicans at an alarming rate. These are the seats at greatest risk, because centrist democrats do not stand for anything, and republicans are at least clear in who they are and what they do. Republicans fight hard for an ever increasingly farther right-wing agenda. The only answer, and the only successful resistance to this sliding to the right will be standing firm in our support for the ideas that the majority of the american people, and especially young people want. Thats how you turn out voters. Thats how you make people care enough to vote. Centrist Democrats perpetuate all of these roadblocks to progress through their general support for the status quo. And the status quo isnt working for the majority of Americans any longer. And I have plenty of wealth inequality and poverty number and job statistics that can show you the every widening wage gap between the people to prove it.

So we are going to just have to agree to disagree, but things are changing, and centrists are going to get left behind until we have some real progress for the working class american. Because if democrats don't adapt to the demands of the 21st century electorate, then Republicans will continue to win. Which is exactly what they have done since the New Democrats were created. Have a nice day, but this is my thread. So again, we're just going to have to agree to disagree, even though the statistics do not lie. The democrats are set to lose many seats come 2018, especially the senate centrists/conservatives.

PS: Don't you dare insult my marriage. Even trying to talk like that just shows the lows of your character and inability to accept the fact that things are changing and its 2017.
I don't need a response from you about this.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Don't worry MGS, I don't think smolts was trying to insult your marriage - he speaks English as a second language, so I think there was no harm done.

More to the point, a candidate's actual ideology very rarely matters. In Florida, you could probably get away with a pretty decently leftist set of issues, but it depends how you sell it. The increasingly swingy Cuban demo, for example, would not look too cheerily upon rhetoric that borrows from socialism; but they would happily vote for a sort of Sanders grab-bag of issues. Same with old people - not necessarily a centrist group as centrism often manifests itself in American politics (i.e. Mainstreet/DLC politics), but not necessarily sleeping socialists either.

I think this forum would do well to remind itself that politics is more complicated than "bold ideologues" and "sensible moderates" arranged on a linear scale.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

For the record, I support Gwen Graham because she's a strong campaigner and would do well with old whites, a critical demographic group for a midterm.

On paper. I've found that only translates to 20% of reality. Plus everyone's underestimating the Putnam juggernaut.

[henster]

Morgan has too much baggage, Rs could run ads with drunk driving victims against him and paint him as an alcoholic. He also seems like he could be gaffe prone. And how rich is Chris King, he could be a dark horse.

[Donerail]

Morgan has too much baggage, Rs could run ads with drunk driving victims against him and paint him as an alcoholic. He also seems like he could be gaffe prone. And how rich is Chris King, he could be a dark horse.

There's not really a successful angle to attack Morgan on his DUIs. He had a DUI in '97, he stopped drinking for four years, and he successfully overcame that problem. What more can you ask him to do? "My opponent had a problem and successfully recovered from it" is not a line that gets people to vote for Adam Putnam. He is prone to speaking with little concern for consequences, but lord knows if that's "baggage" anymore.

As for Chris King, nah. He announced his candidacy for Governor on a Thursday night with no press conference, no video, and no social media. He didn't even have a website until a week after. He doesn't really seem to have a campaign operation, he has no name recognition, and while King is rich, if some of the people who are thinking about running actually do run (Greene, Morgan, Levine) he'd be the fourth richest person in the field, which means he wouldn't even have a money advantage—and without that, he's got nothing.

[smoltchanov]

Don't worry MGS, I don't think smolts was trying to insult your marriage - he speaks English as a second language, so I think there was no harm done.

Well, in fact i respect all types of marriage. All that i wanted to say here is that my marriage is as good as his (even if some consider it "out of fashion"), but i don't consider it as a "badge of honor" worthy to put it in my nickname. So - all situation  sounded funny to me. If such humor offends a person - it's a person problem, not my... No harm was really intended.

But i absolutely stand by my arguments and conclusions on subject, and no hystery on anybody's part can change it. I have tons of names and numbers corroborating it and it takes much more then empty words to convince me that "i am wrong".

[Married Gay Socialist]

Democrats have lost almost 1000 state seats. Centrists are being replaced by Republicans. The so called "blue dogs" are almost completely obliterated. Why? Because the GOP is pretending to be populist, and thats what the people want. The people are not fans of the establishment role the Democrats have taken in recent years, which their massive losses in all areas of the nation prove without question.

If you are unwilling to change your false idea that the people do not want progressive policies, then I will give you blatant facts. And if you dont care about facts, then that is our answer about who is living in reality, and who is just trying to hold onto the past. So here we go..

Here are the real facts:

58% of Americans support replacing Obamacare with Single-Payer Healthcare for all
73% of Democrats support replacing Obamacare with Single-payer healthcare for all.
(via Gallup polling)

62% of Americans support debt free college tuition  
(via Bloomberg poll: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-08-01/majority-of-americans-want-college-to-be-free )

68% of voters chose strengthening the economy and creating jobs while just 28 percent want deficit reduction and lowering the national debt.  
+
4 in 5 registered voters want to close corporate loopholes
(via: http://www.nationalmemo.com/big-majorities-favor-progressive-tax-and-spend-policies-polls-show/)

Regulating financial services and products is seen as either "important" or "very important" by more than 90 percent of voters.
(via: https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2013/09/16/poll-shows-americans-want-more-wall-street-regulation-five-years-after-the-financial-crisis)

On other issues like fracking, which centrist/corporate dems support: 51% of Americans are against fracking.
(via: http://www.gallup.com/poll/190355/opposition-fracking-mounts.aspx)


LITERALLY ON EVERY ISSUE THE PEOPLE WANT REAL PROGRESSIVE CHANGE. IM SORRY BUT YOU ARE SIMPLY IGNORANT TO THE FACTS AND TO THE WANTS OF THE MAJORITY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. If you would like more statistics, I can provide them on any specific issue you may want to be educated on. An idiot is someone who says that they have "their own facts" and that they wont change their mind despite new evidence in which they are wrong. That is what they call ignorance.

I'm sorry, but you are simply incorrect in you assertions.

[smoltchanov]

^ Absolutely unwilling. Until you show me a "progressive" winning statewide in Florida after Claude Pepper. And remind me - who is mostly  in majority in Congress, among Governors and in state legislatures after 1994. I believe in facts, not polls...

Sorry, but i remain of the same opinion about you.

[Married Gay Socialist]

^ Absolutely unwilling. Until you show me a "progressive" winning statewide in Florida after Claude Pepper. And remind me - who is mostly  in majority in Congress, among Governors and in state legislatures after 1994. I believe in facts, not polls...

Sorry, but i remain of the same opinion about you.

Jesus Christ, it' as if you're being daft on purpose now. I was giving you FACTS on what the American people want. It is a FACT that voter turnout is at an all-time low due to the fact that there is no alternative to the Republican policies. The Democrats have no message, which is why the average American is more likely to support Republicans. Not because they support massive tax cuts and republican policies, which I just showed you most dont, but because they do not support the crony corporate alternative that is the current democratic party.
Okay, let's break it down some more for you.

1) There is almost never a progressive option in FL. We haven't had a populist progressive to run for state office in FL since I've been alive. So that would by one reason why there arent any, not that they would'nt win if given the chance. We have yet to see a FL state candidate run on the ideas I just listed above.

2) It literally makes no sense to NOT support policies that time and time again, poll after poll, the american people not only NEED, such as universal healthcare, but that they WANT.

3) The Democrats that are LOSING and being replaced in the House arent strong progressives- they are centrists/corpratists/and blue dogs! Just look at their current roster and who was voted out from 2010-2016.

Im sorry, but you dont have an argument. You dont have a rebuttle, youre simply putting your head in the sand and acting like that is somehow an argument or something to fight for.

The Democrats will not rally voters until they develop a very powerful and progressive message that will make voters willing to turn out, since Corporate Dems like Hillary have been unable to do so in the vital areas such as the rust belt. A humiliating loss to Trump was fueled by a lack of message. That is the Dems main problem. Over 15 million people, especially the young and first time voters, turned ot to vote for Sanders. The Democrats would be STUPID to not pursue this wing of the party. The wing with the enthusiasm. The wing that is the key to victory. This idea that the people want more corporatism and more establishment democrats is a JOKE and is proven by the massive 1000 seats of losses since the New Democrats came about. If you stand for nothing, you will fall for anything. It's time the Democrats stand for something, and if you dont like it and you want more corporatism, then its time you move over to the Republican party, because progressives are taking over some serious power in the Democratic party, whether you or they like it or not.

[Married Gay Socialist]

^ Absolutely unwilling. Until you show me a "progressive" winning statewide in Florida after Claude Pepper. And remind me - who is mostly  in majority in Congress, among Governors and in state legislatures after 1994. I believe in facts, not polls...

Sorry, but i remain of the same opinion about you.

If you have nothing intelligent to add or to say, then get off my thread.

[Donerail]

^ Absolutely unwilling. Until you show me a "progressive" winning statewide in Florida after Claude Pepper.

Can you show me a "moderate" not named Bill Nelson winning statewide in Florida after 1994? The Florida Democratic Party has done what you wanted us to do. We've nominated moderates for statewide office in virtually every election—maybe the only candidate who doesn't fit that mold is Gelber for Attorney General in 2010. The rest of the time we've nominated a lot of moderates for every office in every cycle, and we've have failed to win anything. Why should we keep nominating moderate candidates when twenty years of doing so has won us nothing? Maybe there's not an example of a progressive candidate winning statewide, but if you want to talk facts, the evidence shows that moderates lose every time.

[Virginiá]

Actually, comparing the the 2012 and 2014 exit polls, the groups that defected most from Democrats were 18-40 year old voters, eg Millennials, who are the most receptive and arguably most "demanding" of a progressive message. When you compare their support for Obama vs their support for Crist, there is a decently large difference. It's not like they liked Scott so much more - he only got 6% more among 18-29 year olds than Romney did, but it's that they defected en masse to a third party candidate and Crist only pulled 51 - 38 among 18-29 year olds. That is pretty bad for a Democrat in Florida. Millennials are crucial to a Democrat winning here. Among 65+ year olds, Crist got about what Obama got. They don't care if you're moderate or not. They treat all Democrats about the same.

So yes I think there is an argument that maybe a progressive candidate is needed to rally young people. So far it seems that old people in Florida give a moderate about as much support as they'd give a liberal, so it's not really going to hurt Democrats to put up someone like that. Their goals would have to be to get Obama-level numbers of young people, give or take 5% I suppose, and hold the line among baby boomers. But, none of this is to say there aren't limits, either. This is Florida after all, not Vermont.

http://edition.cnn.com/election/2014/results/state/FL/governor/
http://edition.cnn.com/election/2012/results/state/FL/president/

[smoltchanov]

^ Absolutely unwilling. Until you show me a "progressive" winning statewide in Florida after Claude Pepper. And remind me - who is mostly  in majority in Congress, among Governors and in state legislatures after 1994. I believe in facts, not polls...

Sorry, but i remain of the same opinion about you.

If you have nothing intelligent to add or to say, then get off my thread.

It's my right to post here and everywhere until i don't write anything bannable. And about intelligent - i consider my posts to be more intelligent then yours. May be YOU will stop to write nonsense?

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Smolt just shut up.

[smoltchanov]

^ Absolutely unwilling. Until you show me a "progressive" winning statewide in Florida after Claude Pepper.

Can you show me a "moderate" not named Bill Nelson winning statewide in Florida after 1994? The Florida Democratic Party has done what you wanted us to do. We've nominated moderates for statewide office in virtually every election—maybe the only candidate who doesn't fit that mold is Gelber for Attorney General in 2010. The rest of the time we've nominated a lot of moderates for every office in every cycle, and we've have failed to win anything. Why should we keep nominating moderate candidates when twenty years of doing so has won us nothing? Maybe there's not an example of a progressive candidate winning statewide, but if you want to talk facts, the evidence shows that moderates lose every time.

Moderates won at least with Nelson, and "almost won" with other candidates. "Bold progressives" - never, and, as you noted, couldn't even win primaries. Why must i believe that they will win tough general election when there is nothing confirming this "idea"?

[smoltchanov]

Smolt just shut up.

Show me the way and do it yourself, pls... That's your "democracy" Lol...

[smoltchanov]

Actually, comparing the the 2012 and 2014 exit polls, the groups that defected most from Democrats were 18-40 year old voters, eg Millennials, who are the most receptive and arguably most "demanding" of a progressive message. When you compare their support for Obama vs their support for Crist, there is a decently large difference. It's not like they liked Scott so much more - he only got 6% more among 18-29 year olds than Romney did, but it's that they defected en masse to a third party candidate and Crist only pulled 51 - 38 among 18-29 year olds. That is pretty bad for a Democrat in Florida. Millennials are crucial to a Democrat winning here. Among 65+ year olds, Crist got about what Obama got. They don't care if you're moderate or not. They treat all Democrats about the same.

So yes I think there is an argument that maybe a progressive candidate is needed to rally young people. So far it seems that old people in Florida give a moderate about as much support as they'd give a liberal, so it's not really going to hurt Democrats to put up someone like that. Their goals would have to be to get Obama-level numbers of young people, give or take 5% I suppose, and hold the line among baby boomers. But, none of this is to say there aren't limits, either. This is Florida after all, not Vermont.

http://edition.cnn.com/election/2014/results/state/FL/governor/
http://edition.cnn.com/election/2012/results/state/FL/president/

Are you sure that 6% that went to Scott over Romney were progressives? It's a strange way for progressive to go for ultraconservative (much more so then Romney) candidate like Scott...

[Virginiá]

Are you sure that 6% that went to Scott over Romney were progressives? It's a strange way for progressive to go for ultraconservative (much more so then Romney) candidate like Scott...

Nope, I was just saying that based on the % Crist got among 18-40 year olds, and his margin among 65+ year olds, there is most likely a decent case to be made that a more liberal candidate could have better success in Florida and not really suffer with older voters, as older voters pretty much vote the same way regardless. Of course, "more liberal" is pretty broad - I think more economically liberal or populist even might be better, while not going going overboard on social issues.

I'm not a fan of the perpetual "what we need is a MORE liberal candidate!" line of thinking (even though I would like a liberal ), but Democrats have a lot of room to improve among younger FL voters for sure, and what seems like little room left to fall among the older electorate.

[smoltchanov]

Are you sure that 6% that went to Scott over Romney were progressives? It's a strange way for progressive to go for ultraconservative (much more so then Romney) candidate like Scott...

Nope, I was just saying that based on the % Crist got among 18-40 year olds, and his margin among 65+ year olds, there is most likely a decent case to be made that a more liberal candidate could have better success in Florida and not really suffer with older voters, as older voters pretty much vote the same way regardless. Of course, "more liberal" is pretty broad - I think more economically liberal or populist even might be better, while not going going overboard on social issues.

I'm not a fan of the perpetual "what we need is a MORE liberal candidate!" line of thinking (even though I would like a liberal ), but Democrats have a lot of room to improve among younger FL voters for sure, and what seems like little room left to fall among the older electorate.

Well, i, obviously, have nothing against testing such plausible hypothesis, though i have doubts about final success of this approach. Especially if progressives can't even win Democratic primary for years, as some people here state. We shall see..