I was active in Florida for over a decade. It is kind of hard to express what a disaster the Party is.
The current State Chair, Stephen Bittel, is kind of your typical Florida Pol. First, the primary reason he has any profile at all is he is rich . So he ran, had money, and with the help of the Party establishment beat back grass roots activists in Florida (who in fairness were splintered). Nothing new in this: I don’t actually remember the grass-roots in Florida ever winning ANYTHING.
Anyway, this rich dufus has been in power for barely a half year and he succeeds in pissing off the Black Senate Caucus.
The embattled chairman of the Florida Democratic Party, Stephen Bittel, is prepared to quit if members of the legislative black caucus want him gone for dismissing them as “childish” amid a dispute at a million-dollar weekend fundraising gala, top Democrats tell POLITICO Florida.
Bittel compounded the controversy Saturday night by initially accusing the African-American lawmakers of “playing the race card” once they took offense, lawmakers say.
In response the House Democrats are thinking of pulling out of the Party Organization. (yes, that is written correctly).
Of course, the pols might want him to stay:
One reason neither lawmaker may ask for Bittel’s resignation: many Democrats think he’s the best chairman for the party. Bittel, an independently wealthy developer and longtime Democratic donor, can still raise money.
Bittel’s first act was to name Sally Boynton Brown as Executive Director. Now Ms. Brown barely knows Florida: she is from Idaho.
This account captures the Party and Ms. Brown perfectly:
There is truly no defeat the Florida Democratic Party will avoid snatching from the hands of victory. Donald Trump has turned the Republican Party radioactive. His polling numbers are plummeting right alongside the GOP as a whole. And the nation is seeing a groundswell of progressive activism at levels not witnessed since the 1960s.
So how does the new, incoming brass running the Florida Democratic Party respond? By telling constituents that “issues” don’t matter and that it’s not the party’s job to focus on policies that will actually help anyone, like single-payer health care.
SO yea. 29 electoral votes.
Good luck with that.
It sounds more like a tragedy to me.
On different levels of power, I will bet that every state Democratic Party organization resembles Florida’s on many important levels, with money being the most important power factor.
Too bad we don’t have more honest people here with statewide political experience.
The tales that they could tell…
AG
Have to agree with AG on this:
Big D states MA has a GOP governor and NY has Cuomo.
But the problem for those that seek goo-gov is larger than the DP. It’s that an economically rapacious faction has captured the DP and almost all DP officials and they in turn have captured all the other institutions on the left side of the aisle: unions, non-profits, education, etc.
You write:
“…an economically rapacious faction has captured the DP and almost all DP officials and they in turn have captured all the other institutions on the left side of the aisle: unions, non-profits, education, etc.”
Precisely the case, for over 50 years.
Thank you…
AG
And IL has GOP gov Rauner (nicknamed “Ruiner”)
I don’t agree that the state of the Democratic Party in Mass or in NY look like Florida. Mass has a GOP governor for the same reason Vermont does: to limit tax increases.
Florida’s problem stems from the cost of running campaigns there. This is turn has hampered candidate recruitment. People don’t run (I very nearly did twice) because they will be at an incredible disadvantage. With at least 5 major media markets, the cost of getting known is extremely high.
So we don’t get good candidates because we done have the money. And we don’t have money because no one thinks we can win. And we don’t win because we don’t get good candidates.
Since 1996 nearly 50 million votes have been cast in Presidential elections, and the total margin is IIRC less than a point.
And yet since 1998 we have won 4 statewide races, and only 1 state level race.
The state of the Party is uniquely terrible.
IOW — anyone to the left of center should just concede because there will always be an electorate with a minimum of 50%+1 that refuses to pay (or cause those with the means to pay) for the governmental revenues needs of a functional society.
Sometimes very liberal states – and Vermont and MA are very liberal – hit their limits. Such states usually have liberal Legislative bodies (both do).
Vermont has the third highest tax burden in the country by some measures: and it isn’t a rich state. For years Mass was at the top of the list.
Sounds like GOP talking points. Did the VT and MA legislatures screw up on taxing and/or spending over some period of time? What’s their corrective proposals, assuming that they screwed up. If not, then they have a mssive PR problem. Why do Democrats keep letting the GOP run on the cheap trick of lowering taxes? Particularly in this era when the facts are in – lower taxes = greater income/wealth inequality.
The tragedy occurred in 1968. What is occurring now is more in the character of farce. Thus, sitcom.
The oft-quoted statement by Karl Marx seems correct in this connection:
Richard Daley, Scoop Jackson, even Abraham Ribicoff, are tragic figures in 1968.
Not so Rahm Emmanuel, Andrew Cuomo, or most of the Democratic establishment today.
Not even a funny sitcom. A sitcom done to consultant and media-savvy boredom. With fake ratings.
The idea that anyone connected with the most recent failure is still taken seriously boggles the mind. I speak here not of Clinton, but of her campaign staff.
Yet they have the money, and hence the control.
As a result state organizations atrophy.
We hear a lot about “privilege” and applying it to the hard-pressed blue collar worker and white collar clerks. But it seems to me that the Eastern neoliberal “right school” bunch at the DNC and the Clinton orbit are the really privileged people because they can look down their noses at the voters and fail again and again but keep their jobs and positions just because they know the “right” people, come from the “right” families and went to the “right schools”.
And this repeats recursively. Here, the people who ran the travesty of campaign on the state level control the state organization.
As a result, the country units atrophy.
What would it mean in practical terms if they pull out? Are they forming a third party? Or just not participating in party affairs?
Also, is this in response to the Black Senate Caucus or the State Chair?
Just trying to understand the situation.