Odd that you’re not citing RealClearPolitics this time, huh? Or are those polls skewed today?
Linky? I’m not so bothered about the first part, but the second…
Charlie Crist leads Rick Scott. Charlie Crist is not a Democrat except in the most technical sense.
That’s just silly. On the issues, Crist falls well inside the spectrum of House and Senate Democrats. Maybe he’s on the conservative side of the Democratic party, but he’s well within the broad scope of the party.
And he’s much closer to the Democratic center than the Republican one anymore.
Will you celebrate when Crist wins, his being actually a Republican in your eyes?
As I recall, when Crist was governor, no one loved or hated him very much, he was just sort of there. But that would still be an improvement over Scott.
You’re a cheap date. Despite having an actual record, Crist says some things and you take those statements to mean he’s a Democrat, and not just a politician trying to run as a Democrat.
The Democrats need him a lot more than he needs the Democrats. Once he’s in office as governor, his use for the Democratic Party is at an end.
Huh? His policy record, even when he was a Republican, falls well within the boundaries of the Democratic party.
I put more faith in record than in campaign statements. It’s true that Crist is too liberal for the GOP now, heck, it could be argued he was when he was governor. But a conservative Democrat? Sure, if we redefine the Democratic Party’s center to include Jon Manchin. Crist as governor was ideologically in the McCain/Graham part of the Republican party, and last I checked Democrats don’t consider those guys to be Democrats.
Of course, you could just go by what he says and assume his promises mean anything to him once he doesn’t need the Democrats anymore.
As for my own opinion, I may vote for Crist. I like Rick Scott, but I also liked Charlie Crist. If Crist doesn’t go out of his way to antagonize his old Republican voting base(like me), then he’ll win a lot of our votes. And frankly, I don’t think he can win a general election without moving hard to the center-right. He’ll say all the right things in the Democratic primary, especially if Rich proves to be a challenge, but after that he’s going to be playing to his core base, which is non-Tea Party Republicans and independents.
You’re just wrong on everything here. His policy record is easy to find. He’s mostly pro-choice (except for late term abortions), he supported gay civil unions quite early (and gay marriage recently), he favors the use of economic stimulus, he’s a lifetime member of the NAACP, favors spending money to reduce school class size, favors spending money for environmental protection, supported a government-run plan to cover all uninsured for health care (and now supports the ACA), supports increasing the minimum wage, and many more. On the issues, this is pretty close (maybe a bit to the right) to Center-Democrat.
Those are statements. What did he DO as governor? What I recall is that he worked extraordinarily chummily with a Republican legislature whose speaker was none other than Marco Rubio.
It’s true that he supported Obama a lot in his last couple of years as governor. His ACA position was always a little weaselly: “I support the good stuff but not the bad stuff.”
AS for being pro-choice, he was pro-life as governor and pro-life as a Republican Senate candidate. He was pro-choice before he ran for governor and pro-choice after he was defeated in the GOP primary. Which tells me that he really doesn’t give a rat’s ass one way or the other.
Here’s what you need to be thinking about, in all seriousness: Is Charlie Crist a fighter who will fight for Democratic values against a likely GOP-dominated legislature? Nothing in his record indicates that he’s that kind of governor. Rather, he’s a gifted technocrat dedicated to enforcing the law fairly and competently. Which means faithfully executing the laws the GOP legislature passes.
They’re not only statements – that’s also a record of what he did. And many Democratic governors have been ‘chummy’ with Republican-led legislatures, and vice versa. This tells us nothing.
Which is well within the mainstream Democratic party these days, and in those days.
In terms of the bills he signed and vetoed, he governed as mostly pro-choice except for late-term abortions.
I don’t live in Florida (though I did in 07-08), so I won’t be voting. If Crist is elected and governs as he did before, then he will be governing close to the Democratic center and way, way better than Rick Scott, even if he’s not “a fighter who will fight for Democratic values”.
When the other party controls the legislature, there’s no “governing in the center of your party”. There’s just governing. Let’s see how many vetoes he casts.
Personally, I think Charlie Crist is who he is but he’ll say he’s someone else to get a job. Thing is, this will likely be his last job so he has no reason to give a damn once he’s won. He’ll be Charlie Crist.
If Democrats want an actual Democrat, they want Nan Rich.
Gibberish.
I’ll agree that sometimes it’s difficult to balance the desire to win vs the desire for a candidate closer to one’s ideological stance. But it can be reasonable to choose either way, depending on the circumstances. If a good Democratic voter thinks Rich can’t win in the GE, then voting for Crist is the wiser move.
True, if you figure the most important thing is to get rid of Rick Scott. And a lot of people I talk to would vote for Jeb Bush over Scott if he was running, that’s how badly they want him gone.
Here you go. Ford denies being a former klansman, for what it’s worth.
Tea party is about to win a bigger battle, hopefully: ending the Export/Import Bank:
A clear faultline between the establishment and the Tea Party here. What I don’t get is why progressive Democrats don’t get on the Tea Party’s side. Is it because it’s an FDR program? Shouldn’t matter. It’s corporate welfare and progressives should have moved beyond that part of FDR’s legacy.
You really don’t get why progressive Democrats don’t get on the side of the group that claims Obama is a Marxist, that the ACA is socialist, that liberals are traitors, that poor people are moochers, etc? Really?
As long as other countries’ governments are going to financially support exports, we need to do it too. Universal disarmament would be great, but not the unilateral kind.
On this particular issue? I think spending money to keep American business competetive in foreign markets is in principle a good thing. Having Teabaggers opposed to it only reinforces my opinion.