347
Angie Nixon could have won Florida. National Democrats failed her (www.salon.com)
submitted 1 day ago by to c/politics@lemmy.world
41 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Since her shock primary win in August, Nixon has complained about Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee recalcitrance to anyone who will listen. In September, she told MS NOW hosts Symone Sanders Townsend and Eugene Daniels that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer was less than thrilled about her race.

“When I did speak with Sen. Schumer on the phone, it was basically a ‘we will see,’” she said. “He’s going to look into it. That’s what was said, that he’s going to look into it.”

Nixon went on to say that Democrats were wary of throwing in behind a Black woman in the South following Kamala Harris’ 2024 loss: “Folks are a little gun-shy because, unfortunately, Vice President Harris lost as a Black woman, and so people are being very hesitant in terms of funding Black women, especially in the South.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 14 points 1 day ago (13 children)

Yes, if they had known there would be a nationwide 13+ point shift, maybe they could have allocated resources a little better.

Or not. Hard to argue they should have done things differently with this result. I mean, yeah, I feel it too. There are races that just needed a little more to get over the line, but I don't think we should have expected those races to be in Mississippi and the Florida Senate (and we're probably winning Mississippi).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] 12 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    Florida used to be purple. Then dems just literally gave up on Florida and so it’s been red since. It doesn’t have to be, and this could’ve easily flipped it but dems would rather a republican than a Dem soc.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 day ago

    Yeah it's still about half & half, (not the government, we are one of the most heavily gerrymandered states so the state legislature does not represent us) and we aren't the only place the establishment Democrats run Republican-Lite.

    But I agree, they ignored Angie Nixon because she was too authentically progressive for them. But nearly everyone I know, she was the person they were most excited to vote for. And she did win the primary.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 day ago* (4 children)

    The polling in Florida was not 13 points. And there was significant evidence that a cash infusion from Bernie had helped to close the gap even further.

    This isn't a "in hindsight" kind of thing. The Democratic party had plenty of opportunities and evidence to show that funding was leading to a winnable race. Even more so than places that they DID fund and ended up losing/winning as well.

    I'm sorry. But you were not paying attention to Florida and Nixon if you think there wasn't a deliberate bias against a black woman and DSA member. They abandoned her because they did not want her to win. They did not want an example of a leftist winning in the South. They want to continue to run establishment figures that are against Medicare for all; like Jon Ossof. Don't fall for their lies.

    They lose either way though. Because she nearly won and didn't get their support. Now we're gonna run her again in two years and by then we hopefully won't need any of their funds.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    I'm sorry. But you were not paying attention to Florida and Nixon if you think there wasn't a deliberate bias against a black woman and DSA member. They abandoned her because they did not want her to win. They did not want an example of a leftist winning in the South.

    FTFY. The bias is entirely against leftists, not black women. The Democratic Party is perfectly happy to support a black woman, iff she's a centrist/liberal.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

    You're engaging in class reductionism. The main reason is of course her socialist identity. But, to ignore that she is a black woman from the south would be like ignoring the attacks on Abdul for being Muslim (from both parties).

    A black socialist woman is significantly more dangerous to the Democratic party as their core voting base in the south is comprised of lifelong democratic black voters that they are trying to distance from DSA. "DSA is all privileged white people" you hear both parties regurgitate. They clearly see her as threat that will push a large part of their base further left.

    It's ok to analyze incentives through intersectionality. The Democratic party establishment is. They are just using it to keep power. Don't ignore it because the main reason they are against her is because of her socialist policies. That doesn't mean there isn't multi things that are a threat from her, because of her identity, that introduce contradictions to their existing narratives.

    Edit: This is not to say that black voters aren't extremely more left than the average American on average, they are. But, a large portion of the base of the democratic party, those that vote in primaries, are more likely to vote for the parties pick than an insurgent DSA candidate. A black woman from DSA contradictions their entire narrative. Ignoring that is ignoring how they are attempting to use identity politics to attack socialism.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 day ago (4 children)

    Thanks for being grounded about this.

    Even Bernie & AOC underfunded the Florida races over Michigan yet they don't want to look at that

    Democrats and aligned donors were shooting blindly towards the end and places like Mississippi got late funding that responded well.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 1 day ago (2 children)

    Some people just want to rail against establishment Dems at all available opportunities. They want to turn people against those Dems more than they want to turn them against Republicans, intentional or otherwise.

    I also have issues with the establishment Dems, but not like that. I'm pretty infuriated by Jefferies declaring that now is the time to play nice.

    But this article saying Chucky Schumer crafted this possibility is interesting. The establishment Dems aren't all bad. They're not the worst allies. They're just more interested in following us than leading us based on real convictions. We can use that.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/11/midterms-democrats-mississippi-senate/689301/

    ❤️ 1
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    So many of the establishment Democrats are neoliberals who care more about collecting campaign money and maintaining the status quo than actually accomplishing anything.

    I will further say that one of the reasons Democrats have done so poorly is because Schumer is an ABSOLUTE FUCKING WASTE OF SPACE, as a leader. He is so ineffectual and milquetoast, that I'm pretty sure his only strategy has been to try and bore the opposition to sleep.

    We have to use this momentum. We need to capitalize on the victory rush.

    Sorry for yelling. I know you aren't supporting Schumer. I just had to rant.

    I also wish Jeffries would choke on that AIPAC and corporate cock he is sucking.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago

    Yeah, I mostly agree. I don't think it's necessarily malicious or selfish. I think they're just used to their job and don't realize how big it's gotten. They don't step back and look at how there are so few people around to fix this shit and it's on THEM to manage it. They needed to step up, and they haven't really.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago*

    Maybe they thought it unlikely that florida would vote blue so allocated their resources to a historical purple state. ?

    I wanted her to win but it was florida.

    I thought it unlikely. But hoped it would be close.

    Even though she lost she did have an impact. She only barely lost.

    It got people more comfortable with the idea of a Dem in seat. Maybe it will be her next time if she runs again.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago*

    To add onto that, the demographics in Florida have been shifting conservative for quite some time, they went from electing Obama in 2012 to having no state elected Democrats in 2023 for the first time since reconstruction, it's actually amazing it was close.

    “Republicans focused on the ultimate goal, they thought things out in 10-year cycles. They built a permanent campaign apparatus. They started recruiting candidates to run for local office and springboarding them into higher office. They registered voters and managed the margins. Florida is now mecca for MAGA, it is the one safe space and lighthouse for Republican MAGA voters across the United States.”

    ~Fernand Amandi, Democratic pollster and strategist from Miami

    For those who think it could have received more support and effort, I say it also could have received less.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent