187
No it didn't. They are already planning on how to keep these uppity new Democrats in their place.
Democratic party: "Shit, how do we deal with this constant winning?"
It remains to be seen how attractive Nixon will be to Florida’s wider electorate in November. As Jewett notes, Florida is heavily populated by Hispanic communities, and Moody is certain to try to affix the “socialist” label to Nixon’s campaign that has long proven toxic at the ballot box for such voter groups.
. . . Pollsters already appear to have concluded that Nixon’s primary victory has limited Democrats’ chances of taking the seat. Within hours of her fiery victory speech on Tuesday night, Sabato’s Crystal Ball, the respected analytical wing of the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics, moved the Florida Senate race from “likely Republican” to “safe Republican”.
. . . Her supporters are certain that will be possible. Among a flood of tributes to her on Tuesday night and through Wednesday were calls for unity, including from Vindman himself, who said: “I will be standing by her side in the fight against Ashley Moody. I hope you’ll join me.”
People are finally realizing the current establishment Democrats and who they want to push, are part of the problem, not just Republicans.
They see clear unadulterated fascism implemented by the Trump administration and the Dems do nothing.
Don’t get too excited. A primary win is only worth the ticket to the election. If they get beaten in the election; something the RNC obviously thinks will happen - then it means little.
Let’s see some election support for a Democrat. Here. Now.
Yeah. That’s what I figured.
Not true, they actively support genocide against the semetic people of Palestine.
So, letting a Socialist run in the primary, and congratulating her win is 'nothing.'
If by letting her run you mean required by law to allow qualifying candidates to run, then yeah they "let" her run.
The party helped raise and funnel over 16x as much campaign money to another candidate.
Nixon, a tenacious leftwing fighter and former union organizer who has represented Jacksonville in the Florida house since 2020, raised ** $975,000 in her campaign** , as against Vindman’s $16.3m.
A candidate with no Congressional experience, largely because of national name recognition only because they testified against Trump at his impeachment, not because they are the best candidate to represent Floridians.
“The reason that we all collectively thought that he was the favorite was because he had that national name recognition, and especially because he was able to raise so much money,” said Aubrey Jewett, professor of political science at the University of Central Florida.
They put the weight of the party behind a candidate that was appointed to the National Security Council by Trump in 2018. Yeah, Vindman testified at Trump's impeachment about glaringly obvious treasonous actions that any sane person not blinded by media propaganda has an issue with, but he was still the Trump administration's pick for the NSC position. And if there's anything we know about the individuals they tend to pick, it's because they prioritize loyalty. They're not always totally right, but that has clearly been their first priority when looking at candidates over any other qualifications.
You seem really intent on losing the elections this year.
But yes, maybe we'll get a perfect line up in 2028, or 2030...
this post was submitted on 20 Aug 2026
187 points (100.0% liked)
politics
30854 readers
2051 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS