So a live blog.
Talked to Susan Smith, head of the Florida Progressive Caucus.
A former big supporter of Grayson, but cannot support him. At this moment:
Grayson is running 4th in Miami Dade, and Third in Hillshorough.
Hillsborough 12%
Broward 10%
Dade 10%
Because in the end Grayson is a jerk.
Three seats to watch:
DWS in Florida 23: EV from Miami Dade has DWS up 65-35 – low vote total and the district splits with Broward.
Broward DWS 57
Canova 43
DWS has a 6 k lead. not looking good
EV is about 30% of all votes in general elections.
Florida Senate
District 38
District 40
Progressives endorsed Bullard, who is up 20 in EV
Also CD-9. the progressive Randolph is going down to Soto.
Question about CD-9. Isn’t it odd that Grayson’s former aide and his current wife would both be running? Splitting the progressive vote? Real smart on someone’s part.
The progressives endorsed his aid.
God were the Grayson’s toxic.
His collapse is stunning.
An incumbent is going down in FL-5 – and she deserves to, by the way.
But not by as much as one would suspect considering her indictment for fraud. Any chance the D primary winner is an improvement?
The new wifey candidacy now looks like a too-clever by half insurance ploy by Grayson should he have lost today. Then in two years he could challenge either a GOP or crap D incumbent as he successfully did before. Methinks he’s done, but that won’t stop him from trying again.
In FL-5 – I think so.
While it’s been called for DWS, Canova is doing better than I expected in a district weighted in DWS’s favor and for a multi-term incumbent. Hope DWS had to spend all of her $3+ million to win the primary.
Check out the campaign funding in these races. Murphy was very well funded. As was Rubio. Grayson has earned some bragging rights in that his cost/vote was less than half what Rubio’s opponent spent and a couple dollars less/vote than what Murphy spent. Marco came in with the least cost/vote. (Am assuming that they all spent it all.)
I think Grayson had enough to be competitive. Murphy is from South Florida which is a significant advantage in its own right.
What was amazing was the turnout in Broward: not even 11%. Terrible. The DWS race didn’t generate much interest.
Canova did great. Definitely not his last run.
How much is enough? Political candidates that are photogenic and have some charisma have an inherent advantage against those that have neither. Dynamism and a good record can beat a nice looking empty suit, but Grayson was short on that as well. Being outspent by more than 2:1 was probably the least of Grayson’s problems, but it didn’t help.
OTOH, not looking good for Murphy in the general election. Rubio’s sugar daddy will make sure that he has more than enough to spend.
The low turnout in CD-23 might reflect that the outcome was a foregone conclusion. Difficult to evaluate since DWS has never had a primary challenger in the past.
Grayson did not have that bad a legislative record –seems he was pretty adroit at getting amendments attached. (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/07/florida_democrat_alan_grayson_is_th
e_most_effective_member_of_the_house.html)
Whereas Murphy….http://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/patrick-murphy-named-one-of-americas-least-effective-congressmen-b
ased-on-bills-passed-in-his-first-term-7814175
Any wonder DNC wound up the Wurlitzer for Grayson?
Politico piece also linked a mention that the ex-wife called the cops on her daughter for domestic violence. What a sad mess. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/alan-grayson-wife-florida-226090
Yes, what I implied in one of my other comments. Fascinating that so many leftish Democrats, including our host here, that espouse “pragmatism” (getting whatever can be gotten in the moment) and being cool tweaks over substantive real progressive change, preferred nothing over something in this instance. OTOH, they’re also banking on HRC being a covert liberal and Murphy being a reliable vote for her. Not too reality based IMHO.
Not a plausible scenario for general election results pushing her to the left as long as she wins by a single vote.
I’m not banking on either Clinton being a covert liberal or Murphy being a reliable vote for her.
On foreign policy, Clinton is anything but a liberal. And Murphy is an opportunist who will do whatever seems profitable in the moment (financially or politically).
They were/are running against morally unfit opponents, however, so it’s really not a hard choice.
Oh, everybody sets aside the “morally unfit” component when it serves their partisan preference and elevates it to the deciding factor whenever convenient. It’s not that it isn’t a relevant factor, only that it should be secondary when all other factors, including professional ethics, between two candidates are reasonably equal.
There’s a big fuzzy line between morals and ethics, and people get a big kick out of talking about the former and give short shrift to the latter. Morally, JFK and LBJ were miserable failures and Nixon was a devoted husband and father. So what? Ethically fit is far more important and that’s what is in extremely short supply among political candidates. Good for you that you have no illusions about HRC’s political inclinations and record, but you’ve been as willing to overlook and/or dismiss her ethical (possibly illegal) lapses as liberalish reporters/pundits did for Nixon in 1972.
Here’s your “not a hard choice” guy:
A silver-spoon Republican until shortly before he ran for office in 2012.
Grayson (and admittedly I place some value on making one’s own way in the world and having smarts)
Not that it would have been easy for me to vote for Grayson, but I do make a point of never supporting Dan Quayle type politicians regardless of political party affiliation.
Sorry but Grayson’s problems and Trump’s problems are both moral and ethical and completely transcend policy.
And you might guess that I don’t care at all about their infidelity since neither of them are Bible Thumpers, although I do penalize Trump for trying.
Concede that I’m being unduly harsh on you, but not without a good reason for being so. The side benefit of being much older and having seen more often how things play out in government and the minds of voters. On substance — skill, education, experience — for the job, there’s no equivalence between Trump and Grayson. Plus, they have been running for different offices and against different opponents; so, it’s rather silly to put them in the same bucket to make your case.
If HRC and Kasich were the nominees, what arguments would you make? Similarly, if it were Grayson and Rubio in the FL Senate general election, would you be supporting Rubio? Not that any of this matters at this point — Trump was always destined to lose but not by as much if Bernie had been the nominee and Rubio is likely to win in FL but not by as much if Grayson had been the nominee because voters favor the superficial package over the substance unless the more wanting package is dynamic and charismatic.
Democrats do have a preference for polite over sassy which is why we have a couple of generations of milquetoast center-right Democrats in office that lack the right stuff to win at the presidential level except when the GOP fumbles badly. The milquetoasts also can’t properly respond to elected rightwing crazies, and a few of them are always in office. Polite is ineffective against those like Michele Bachmann and Ted Cruz and the GOP quit policing its own ranks over two decades ago, if not sooner.
I would definitely not vote for Grayson in a contest against Rubio.
It’s doubtful that would vote for Rubio either, but if I had to choose between them, I would consider Rubio slightly better.
The only reason I’m not willing to say that with more conviction is that I think there’s always more to learn about Rubio, and I could certainly be convinced by new evidence that he’s the more monstrous of the two.
I think it’s becoming clear, maybe to you also, that you and I differ substantially in how much weight we put on integrity, honesty, and rectitude.
You seem mystified much of the time at my deep admiration for our president, but it’s rooted heavily in my respect and admiration of him as a man. The example he sets and the leadership he provides on the moral plain is what distinguishes him so much from his predecessors.
It’s important to me, very important, that my son sees Barack Obama in the White House and not John Edwards, and that type of consideration is something I take extremely seriously in political leaders.
When you add to it Obama’s method of reasoning and his manner of explaining things, he is basically my ideal president.
So, when I take the measure of a man or woman, as I did with Grayson before he was ever elected, and find him to be a transparent charlatan and a publicity hound will put his constituents near the bottom of his priorities, then I am going to reject that person even if they happen to vote the way I want most of the time.
That’s how I roll.
This election has presented me with depressingly horrible choices and I would not choose to make any of the candidates the next president if I had my way, not even Sanders.
None of the combine all the traits that are needed to set an excellent example, to govern effectively, or to lead this country or even half of this country.
This is why my choice would be four more years for Obama, or even eight, until someone capable emerges who can do this job.
Of course, none of it mattered because we never really had a choice on the left. What he had was the illusion of a choice. And I chose not to fall for that illusion, especially because it wasn’t a good enough illusion. Sanders could not unify his party let alone lead this country. He is not a natural leader and I think he’d be a tremendous failure as a president.
So, please don’t interpret my predictions as endorsements or even my vote as an endorsement. I think we’re fucked, and the only question is whether we’ll survive the experience of this country falling to its knees politically.
On a positive note, should Clinton follow through and win, we’ll at least have a semblance of unity on the left in this country, at least until she embroils us in war. And the Supreme Court will be left-leaning for the first time since 1971, which will do probably more good than most people realize.
Doubt that we differ on how much weight to put on integrity, honesty, and rectitude. We just evaluate those measures differently. We’ve always agreed that personally Obama is a decent man as is Biden (and Gore as well); so, on this measure, Obama isn’t as exceptional as you seem to think he is. That, however, doesn’t blind me to the fact that Obama lies quite a bit and leans in favor of elites, corporations and military options. It doesn’t repulse you the way it does me to see him hobnobbing with Kissinger or being number one (by a huge margin) in deporting undocumented immigrants (when such immigration has been lower), drone strikes killing/maiming innocent people, and prosecutions under the espionage act without going after a single big fish. Similarly, the absence of Wall St. prosecutions when the numbers of S&L prosecutions were high and that was a much less widespread and costly (for the USG and individuals) scandal. While it’s good finally to see some crackdown in the proprietary colleges (high cost, most tax dollars, low quality), this administration has also pushed elementary and secondary charter schools and the TPP, and after dropping the fiction of clean coal, has, to be charitable, ignored global climate change. And income/wealth inequality have risen to record levels over the past seven years. Those would seem to me to be very important to anyone concerned about the future of one’s child.
What does John Edwards have to do with me? I didn’t fall for his schtick for a second from the moment he first appeared on the national stage in ’02. Was disgusted with Kerry for choosing him as his running mate. So, if you’re going to take a cheap shot at me, at least make sure it’s accurate and therefore, deserved.
wrt to the hypothetical Rubio v. Grayson, I would incorporate a projection into my analysis. Here’s what I would see. If elected, Grayson would either clean up his personal and professional act and become an effective Senator or he’d be out after one term. By your standards, Teddy Kennedy would have been out after his first term (Chappaquidick) or two or three terms as his philandering and alcoholism continued unabated. Long before he became an effective Senator. (I could name a few more that could easily have been tossed out as well, but on public policies were an asset to us all.)
Rubio, OTOH, is and will always be a lightweight with little regard for the public good because of who “owns” him. If re-elected, there’s enough money behind him to keep him in a Senate seat for a long time. Little chance to replace him with a centrist Dem and no chance to replace him with a progressive because there’s never that much money on the left. Okay, there are plenty like that in the Senate — can’t get them out and doing harm and little, if any, good for the public. One difference, those hacks and their funders are content to occupy a Senate seat. That won’t be so for Rubio and his funders and if they play their cards right (which they haven’t so far, but part of their impatience was circumstantial as they eyed an open POTUS after a two-term Democratic administration which is historically the best opportunity for the opposing party), he’ll be groomed for another run. ’20 is too soon. ’24, ’28, ’32 and even ’36 and he’ll still be younger than HRC is today and have far more time in office under his belt than most candidates. He won’t be any more suitable for office that the recent GOP winners and losers, but much more of the same from Democrats could make him “inevitable” and your son would have to accept that.
Where you and I differ is in evaluating and weighting policy and personnel decisions, including what those decisions mean in the near and long term.
The Intercept – Obama Appoints Social Security Critic to Fix Puerto Rico’s Budget
Decisions like this one (and higher profile ones such as the attempt at the Grand Bargain) don’t seem to get integrated by you in your Obama scoring. How does staffing his administration with WJC and GWB retreads make him so far superior to those presidents? It’s biz as usual except Obama gives better speech, doesn’t diddle interns, and takes less time off from the job.
Puerto Rico will wish it was Haiti when the vultures are through with it.
Indeed, personnel told you everything about Obama’s governing principles in 2008. Just like it has with HC’s transition team. The Washington Consensus continues…under significantly less charismatic leadership.
No. At least not in the near-term (30 years). It begins with a much higher level of economic development and infrastructure than Haiti and is a US territory and the residents are citizens of the US, albeit without voting rights.
wrt personnel, I cannot fathom why a political analyst doesn’t put a huge amount of weight on this. It’s at this level where things get done. And as head of the party, it was his decision to install DWS and tell Howard Dean (who does have some talent and skill if not half as much as could have been hoped for) to take a hike.
The Hedgies are gonna go Argentina on it.
I know. And it’s going to be really hard on the residents and no bright spots for the future. But outside the playgrounds for the elites (including tourists), Haiti is a disaster on every measure. It would take a long time to reduce Puerto Rico to a similar level of abject poverty.
Marie, Susan Smith, quoted at the top, was a big Grayson believer. She wanted the Florida Caucus to endorse him.
But they didn’t, and she didn’t vote for him.
At some point you can’t make excuses.
And Grayson was way past that line.
Hell, I wonder if even Matt Stoller (who worked for Grayson) abandoned ship in the end.
No, I’m not making excuses for Grayson. Didn’t much care for him back when progressives were high on him. He’s also awful on at least a couple issues that I consider important. Liberals have a tendency to lavish too much praise on the rare Democrat that speaks out as more should and too soon without fully evaluating the whole person. As a Rep Grayson has been a more able legislator than many others, but that early praise was unmeasured and gave him too many passes. That all went to his head and allowed him to delude himself that he had the right stuff to move up to the Senate.
A politician’s minuses are weighted less heavily than his/her pluses as a Rep than they are as a Senator. Thus, as a Rep he might have had a net +1 but that dropped to less than zero for a Senate seat. So, a zero beat him.
A side note — and I say this as an early supporter of Elizabeth Warren — I was aghast that liberals began championing her for the presidency immediately after her Senate win. Looking for an inexperienced hero/savior, not tainted by a record in public office, doesn’t make for goo-goo. Meanwhile, elected public officials with a good record and some shortcoming, often minor in the big picture, don’t get much encouragement and/or attention. If liberals/lefties want to get out from under the yoke of the party elites, we have to do far more early and often vetting and at the local, state, and federal level and get them on the radar screen for those outside of whatever jurisdiction in which they live and have managed to achieve something.
It’s a slow and tough slog for those politicians building a political resume one step on the ladder at a time, but those that do are less likely to be the empty suits that skip most of those steps because they have attract wealthy patrons. We keep missing out on more of the former and have ended up with far too many of the latter.
Ted Lieu belongs on that list. One reason why is Here. Yet if Democrats/liberals scored him right now, he’d have a black mark because he opposed Obama’s Iran deal. However, what the real worth of blindly follows the leader compared to someone that fully informs him/herself and thinks deeply about the question or proposal? Even if the conclusion of that person differs from mine?
That’s what so infuriated me about Congressional Democrats that voted for the Iraq war. They didn’t do their homework and didn’t think deeply on the question, and some that did some of that, like Kerry, then opted for what looked like best position for their political aspirations.
I’d much rather have Xavier Becerra as the successor to Boxer’s seat (better six years earlier) than Kamala Harris. And Feinstein should have been gone long ago or never been elected to the Senate in the first place.
Hehe. Sanders hired him as Senior Policy Advisor and Budget Analyst at Senate Budget Committee.
Well that is a mistake.
Stoller went nuts in 2012.
How so?
Last 3 statewide candidates in the highest profile race you can find.
I am not making this up.
Alex Cink, 2010
Competent, impressive. Before CFO her big item on the resume:
President, Bank of America Florida
That is right, the DEMOCRATIC candidate for governor at a time when i in 5 homes were in foreclosure was the past president of BOA of Florida.
Charlie Crist, 2014
A turncoat, with ethical problems of his own.
I think he was the one candidate who could lose to Rick Scott.
Both terrible candidates.
And yet the inside the beltway types WANTED these candidates. Thought the could win.
And now Murphy, with very real issues on his resume (well, lies really), and who gave money to Mitt Romney in 2008.
And yet he really needs to win. Because the FDL moral is lower than crap.
Now Debbie did have a hand in recruiting Sink, no?
I am really not sure in the end we had anybody else. And that is what is sad.
Obama wanted both Sink and Crist. He wanted Murphy too.
Have to admit that it’s been an excellent experiment in the notion that Dems can win if they’re just like Republicans but without (or without too many obvious) racist dog whistles and without trashing “lady parts.” But Dem PTB just know that the strategy will work better the next time.
Moral or morale? Or both?
I’ve seen that lielet–ineffectual; cannot work with others– used on several leftists: Bernie and Grayson most recently.
Clinton beat Sanders in FL-23 by 68-31.
Canova is losing about 57-43.
So a good size shift.
good news
Would like to get excited by this, but Canova only pulled in 1,500 more votes than Sanders did. Sort of thought that could have increased considering that FL held its POTUS primary midway through the cycle. The percentage difference is due to 17,000 HRC voters that didn’t show up for DWS.
Turnout was horrid. It always is – this is a dumb ass time to have a primary.
But in Broward it was 16%. Part of the Sanders theory was expanding turnout – it is the theory I am most suspicious of. Turnout is a hard thing to change.
By itself the House race didn’t bring Democrats out. Canova may have been hurt by the collapse of Grayson, but I have seen this before. In 2002 Janet Reno lost to McBride because she did not get the turnout she needed in Palm, Broward and Dade to offset McBride’s strength in the western part I-4 corridor.
DWS had very real assets from her time as head of the DNC.
Still. depressing.
16% – wow!
And no earthquakes in the west:
Arizona primary election: Joe Arpaio, John McCain declared winners in GOP primary races
A sizable number of Repubs voted in the primary when compared to the Dems. Repub turnout was over 300,000 more votes for the U.S. Senate race. For the Presidential Florida primary in March, the Repubs had more than 650,000 voters turn out when compared to the Dems.
Yea – that isn’t a good sign given there was no real competition for the Senate seat on their side.
Funny – everything always looks bad in Florida. And then you get to the last week and you find out we might actually win.
Rollingstone took note of your election….http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/as-floridas-dumb-politics-go-so-go-the-nations-w437012
What a choice!
An insufferable jerkwad that would vote Yea on the occasional slightly progressive tiny step or the empty suit ready to bolt to the GOP if they will ever have him. Now it’s down to a choice between two bowls of mush and suspect that money will be the deciding factor. As the Hagan-Tillis race cost $111 million, this one could bust through $200 million.
This applies to some of “Smart people” in blogsphere too:
Murphy is the latest avatar of the Florida Democratic Party’s strategy for winning elections: outside of abortion, Obamacare, the Everglades and offshore drilling, people apparently really want the chance to vote for Republican Unleaded over Republicans
Michael Tracy
GG responds: