Free milk and a cow: why strong candidates do not win

[John N Morgan]

I got an education this week in Democratic politics. Not from the Party, but from the organizations that you would normally think are the base supporters. (No names mentioned, I still like their goals)

Republican organizations reward candidates for lock-step coherence to the party line. Democratic organizations view strong candidates as a known commodity. As soon as a candidate states his/her unqualified "strong support" for x,y or z issues, organizations that represent those issues take the attitude that you're a free-be. They do not need to waste time and effort on you.

I don't need to mention names, just look at the amount of attention that is heaped on weak, tepid vs strong representatives. Almost with the one exception of Alan Grayson, strong candidates that toe the party line starve for attention and funding.

I am going to start incorporating phrases like, "I'm open to the conversation, but I don't think it has support.", or "I could be convinced." Literally, Lieberman is a mentor, a master politician to be studied; the supreme manipulator of the weak Democrat; but he wins elections and gets funding. (:sarcasm:This is a joke, the depth of my hypocrisy is rather shallow.)

Consider how much time is spent here on DU discussing (in fact, advertising) those that work against us in the process, but in the end "capitulate" because of public demand; name recognition increases and the funding rolls in.

When it comes to state elections, know that those backwoods legislators produce laws that affect you severely. And that's where you'll find the state level push back on abortion, minority rights, GLBT. So, seek out and throw your local loyal Democrat a few kind words and maybe a couple of bucks; the stronger they support every plank of the Democratic Party, the less you'll hear about them.

John Morgan, Democratic Candidate for Florida House of Representatives, District 82