So, what do these polls numbers mean?

Read the rest at “How The World Votes”. Click here.

During the 2010 U.S. Senate race in Delaware, people questioned the education credentials of Christine O’Donnell. In her Linkedin page, O’Donnell claimed that she attended the University of Oxford. Upon further review, it was found out that O’Donnell did not attend Oxford, and instead attended a class by something called the Phoenix Institute, which rented space at Oxford.

Little did we know that in Florida we have a similar case. That would be the case of Beth Matuga. Matuga worked, according to her LinkedIn page, as Allison Tant’s campaign manager for the Florida Democratic Party chair’s race against Alan Clendenin.

Going back to LinkedIn, Matuga states that she received her education at Yale University. There is only one problem…she didn’t.

According to her resume, Matuga received both her BA in English Literature and her Masters in Applied American Politics and Policy at Florida State University. She then continues to put on her resume that he has an “education” from “Yale University” because she had attended The Women’s Campaign School, which is sponsored by the Yale Law School.

While that does sound nice, the “O’Donnell Effect” comes into place. Unlike traditional educational programs, which usually take years to complete, the 2013 Women’s Campaign School lasts from June 10th to June 14th. If we do the math correctly, that is a four-day program.

But then if we look even further into the program, we find that The Women’s Campaign School is somewhat similar to O’Donnell’s Phoenix Institute. While this program is sponsored by Yale Law School, it is not part of Yale itself. In fact, anyone completing this program does not have a credentialed education from Yale. The website for The Women’s Campaign School clearly states the following in their disclaimer:

“The Women’s Campaign School at Yale is a separate 501(c)(3) organization not affiliated with Yale University beyond the use of facilities at Yale to conduct programming”

In fact, Matuga’s false claim of a Yale education could possibly be seen as a violation of AAPC Code of Ethics, which many in the political science field strive to uphold.

During the 2010 campaign for Senate in Delaware, the media rightfully chastised O’Donnell for her false claims of education. Therefore, it should be applied to any within the political realm to have their credentials looked at, especially when they are making false claims. This in not only unfair to the public, but to the integrity of those working within the field of political science. As professionals, we must present ourselves in a professional, as well as honest, manner. And fudging a resume to state that you attended one of the top three political science institutions in the nation, when in fact you didn’t, is far from honest.

UPDATE:

Since the publication of this article, Beth Matuga has contacted me, stating that this article has not shown the full educational credentials on her LinkedIn page. Therefore, we are inserting the credentials below:

As has already been mentioned in the article, Matuga continues to present this as education provided by “Yale University” when in fact the program has no affiliation whatsoever with Yale University, as the website’s disclaimer clearly states. Therefore, I stand by the original article, which questions the honesty of Matuga and her educational credentials.

Is Christian Ulvert trying to be “Kingmaker” for Florida Democrats?

Before I get into the meat and bones of this article, I am going to do something that people in politics never do. I will admit that I was wrong. A few months ago, I questioned whether Darryl Rouson was the right future leader for the House Democratic Caucus. When I made that argument, I had legitimate reasons to come to this conclusion. Being a former Republican, as well as having some questionable comments in the past, I worried that Rouson might try to convince House Democrats to lean more toward the AIF, Florida Chamber and other right-wing-friendly organizations. But after this legislative session, I must say that I was wrong. Rep. Rouson was a reliable Democrat, and had a better voting record than some who I assumed would have a flawless record.

With that being said, let’s move over to the job that Rep. Rouson has been given, which is leading House Democrats to victory in the 2014 election. So far, there hasn’t been any real movement on this front. No serious Democrats have been recruited for key seats, and the Republicans have already recruited formidable candidates against Carl Zimmerman, Mike Clelland and Mark Danish. Even with this being the case, is Rep. Rouson’s hands tied in the matter?

Not only has there been no movement in recruiting candidates for the Florida House, there has also been no movement by the Florida Democratic Party in general. Last quarter, the FDP had their worst 1st quarter odd-year fundraising in eight years. As far as candidates, the FDP hasn’t recruited anyone for any of the constitutional offices, with self-recruited former State Senator Nan Rich being the only serious candidate for any of the positions. As far as grassroots organization, nothing has happened, though that might not be an indicator of anything since we are not in an election season. Even so, the Florida Democratic Party hasn’t produced anything whatsoever since Allison Tant has assumed the Chair position of the party. Still, Rod Smith didn’t do much either.

So, let’s go back to the situation that Rep. Rouson finds himself in. As most of us know, mid-term elections are usually not that great for Democrats, as Democratic voter turnout is reduced, especially in Central Florida. Because of this, the Republicans are already given an Election Day advantage over Democrats.

With this being the case, Rep. Rouson has only a few options available to him. First, he can try to retain the pick ups that Democrats had in 2012. This means putting a lot of resources in two seats that the Democrats could likely lose (Zimmerman and Clelland). In the end, this would more than likely result in a net loss for Democrats and they would go into the 2015 legislative session with less seats.

Another option is that Rep. Rouson spends more time in seats Democrats can pick up, leaving seats like Zimmerman’s and Clelland’s  to fend for themselves. This could minimize the loss, but would more than likely result in no real change in seats for the Democrats.

The best, possibly third option is that Rep. Rouson could retain those seats while trying to pick up new ones. But that is more of a dream, not an option.

Unfortunately for Rep. Rouson, it is looking more like there is a fourth option which will have to be exercised. That option is to only concentrate on seats that Democrats can retain, while not being able to recruit candidates. Why is this the option that Rep. Rouson might be dealing with? Because the Florida Democratic Party isn’t pulling its weight, and House Victory might have to do all the work themselves, including massive fundraising. Therefore, Rep. Rouson looks as if he is having an uphill battle.

But is this situation happening because the FDP has been lazy since Allison Tant has become FDP Chair, or is this an intentional move by some of the staff in the Florida Democratic Party to undermine House Victory? Rumors have been swirling around that FDP Political Director Christian Ulvert has suggested that the FDP wishes to fold both House and Senate Victory into the Florida Democratic Party so that the Party has complete control over the process. Of course, these are speculations but from reliable sources.

What does this mean if the FDP takes over the entire process? Well, a number of things which I will list now:

1. Uncommitted staff takes over process: As I mentioned already, the Florida Democratic Party has done nothing in regards to recruiting candidates for offices so far, whether they are constitutional offices, federal offices or even state legislative offices. Therefore, this laziness will become even more noticeable if the Party were to take over House and Senate Victory.

2. Christian Ulvert track record: No matter how you look at it, Christian Ulvert hasn’t been a success as a consultant for House Victory in the past. For example, in the 2012 election cycle, Florida House Democrats didn’t make a huge impact. Yes, a lot of money was poured into the Mike Clelland race that Democrats eventually won, but the Orlando Sentinel had more to do with that race being close compared to House Victory. In addition, Ulvert pouring money into State House seats that Democrats could eventually lose, like Zimmerman and Clelland, took away from other House seats which could have been long term investments for Democrats, such as Mark Danish’s seat. Also, Mr. Ulvert style of “reactionary targeting” doesn’t help Democrats compared to a “making a plan and sticking to it” approach.

3. The “check and balance” is gone:  If the Florida Democratic Party falls flat on its face or makes questionable decisions regarding a campaign, House Victory and Senate Victory is always there interject. This “check and balance” system makes it that the best decisions can be made for every race. Unfortunately, cooperation between to two rarely happens, with one side trying to prove themselves more than the other side.

4. FDP takeover of House races puts one man in control: This is probably the scariest part of the path that the Florida Democratic Party is going down. If the Florida Democratic Party tried to take over House and Senate Victory, then all of the decision making for all of the Democratic campaigns in the State of Florida will solely lie on the shoulders of Christian Ulvert. Yes, he would be in charge of every single race in the state. Along with the “FDP taking over House and Senate Victory” rumors, it is also rumored that Ulvert is the top-dog in the Florida Democratic Party now, with FDP Executive Director Scott Arceneaux’s role within the Party being greatly reduced.

This is the current situation for Rep. Darryl Rouson. Currently, it seems as if his hands are tied because of an ineffective Florida Democratic Party. If this is because the FDP wants to take over House Victory or because Mr. Ulvert wants to have more say in the process is currently unclear at this time. Still, the current failure of the FDP is starting to bleed into the other arms of Florida Democratic apparatus. 2014 might be a long election year.

Sen. Rich’s JJ snub show not only favoritism, but incompetency.

Back in 2007, when I worked for John Edwards in Reno, I attended the J-J Dinner which was held the day after the presidential debate between the major candidates. At that dinner, all of the Democratic candidate for president were able to speak at the event. Yes, I met the eventual president Barack Obama. I also met the future vice-president Joe Biden. I also met some of the other candidates, including former Alaska governor Mike Gravel. Basically, the entire Democratic field, even candidates who were not invited to attend the debate on the previous evening, were allowed to speak at the Nevada Democratic Party’s J-J Dinner.

In Florida, it seems we have a different case. The only serious candidate to announce that they are running for any constitutional office position, former Senator Nan Rich, had been told by the Florida Democratic Party that she would not be given a speaking spot at the upcoming J-J Dinner. Mind you, Senator Rich isn’t just someone who threw her name into the mix, with it eventually being removed once the filing deadline rolls around. She is a recent Senate minority leader and has already raised more than what most people expected this far into her campaign. So, Senator Rich’s exclusion from the upcoming J-J Dinner is baffling.

This is the second controversy in a row in which the J-J Dinner has been the center of attention because of poor decision making by the Florida Democratic Party. Last year, the Florida Democratic Party ran a commercial during the J-J Dinner in which they featured candidates who had Democratic opponents, showing that they were purely taking sides in what should have been a party-neutral situation. After the commercial was produced, future Rep. Joe Saunders stated at an Orange County DEC meeting that he and the other participants were unaware that the commercial was going to be shot, and that they were only there to talk about their campaigns. While this statement seems to be true (as Rep. Saunder’s statement was further confirmed by other sources), the Florida Democratic Party still took the steps to show who they favored in the upcoming election.

The question then becomes if they are doing the same thing at the upcoming J-J Dinner? With the initial buzz of the “Charlie Crist Switch” now wearing off, the J-J Dinner would be the perfect venue for Crist to start his run for governor. Not only will he have a captive audience and television cameras (with national media possibly in attendance) , but he will have an audience with deep pockets who can write multiple $500 checks in one night. Therefore, the J-J might not just be a high-visibility media event, but also a large Charlie Crist fundraiser.

If this ends up being the case, then the question must be asked…”why even run in a Democratic primary”? In the case of last year’s video and the behind-the-scene support that the Party is giving Charlie Crist (or, on the other hand, then unfavorable treatment of Senator Rich), has the Florida Democratic Party already predetermined their primaries? Granted, some cases might slip through the cracks, like Andrew Morey defeating the FDP-favored Aaron Bosshardt. But in most cases the Florida Democratic Party will usually gets its way.

But this latest controversy surrounding the FDP brings up bigger questions, and that is in regards to the leadership and staff of the Florida Democratic Party. Since taking over the FDP, Chairwoman Allison Tant has not been able to bring in the untold riches that she promised during her campaign. In fact, the FDP had the worst 1st quarter fundraising in an off-year in eight years. In addition, nobody has been recruited by the Florida Democratic Party to run for any of the constitutional offices or key congressional seats. With poor fundraising and lack or candidate recruitment, what exactly is the Party doing?

Yes, this is a question of leadership, but also a question of the people that Mrs. Tant has surrounded herself with. Many of these staffers worked with Rod Smith’s during his time at the Florida Democratic Party. Smith’s time as party chair showed just as much of a lack of effort as the current Tant tenure is showing. Senator Rich’s snub for the J-J Dinner is just another example of things running as usual. Still, the question has to be asked as to why they decided to snub her in the first place? Did they not think of bad press before they made their decision? One criticism that I have had of the Florida Democratic Party throughout the years is that they only think about the first step, but never about the following steps, where the real news and controversies arise. The are just careless with their decision making, and this latest situation shows their weakness.

With this snub, it can pretty much be assumed that Charlie Crist is going to announce that he is running for governor on June 15th. Isn’t it odd that, only two weeks away, and we have no idea who the J-J speaker is going to be? If the FDP just wants to throw their support behind Charlie Crist, it would be nice if they would just man-up and say so, instead of playing these little games. If their goal was to give less attention to Nan Rich, they weren’t successful. If their goal was to not turn a mountain out of a molehill, they were also unsuccessful. Not only have they helped the Rich campaign, they have also further damage an already fragile Florida Democratic Party.

Correction: I have been out of the loop for a while and didn’t realize that they already had a speaker line up. My bad.

1. Poll conducted of “voters”, not “likely voters”  - In midterm elections, Democratic voter turn out, as well as liberal voter turnout, usually suffers. Therefore, those who are likely to vote in the 2014 election will more than likely be more conservative than the electorate in general, who will be more liberal.

2. Liberals over-sampled - In a typical mid-term election, only about 19% of the electorate identifies themselves as being liberal. This number is consistent in exit polls in the 2002, 2006 and 2010 elections. In this sample, 30% of those who responded identified themselves as either “very liberal” or “somewhat liberal”. While this might be a correct calculation of “voters” in Florida, it is, historically, 11% more than exit polls indicate, which could indicate the discrepancy between “voters” and “likely voters”

3. Older voters under-sampled  – In 2010, voters over the age of 65 were 35% of the total electorate. In 2006, those 60 and older were 34% of the electorate. In the PPP poll, only 26% of those sampled were over the age of 65. This 9% drop  takes away from Rick Scott. In a hypothetical match up between Scott and Crist among those 65 and older, Crist only wins by 2%, well within the +/-4.4 margin of error of the sample. Therefore, historically, the 65+ numbers should be much higher.

4. Democrats over-sampled – Historically, Republicans usually are tied or ahead of Democrats in midterms elections as far as the composition of voters that turn out. In a “Democratic wave year”, Republicans were 40% of the electorate while Democrats were 36%. Oddly, in a “Republican wave year”, both Democrats and Republicans were at 36% each of the total electorate. In this sample, Democrats have a 5% advantage over Republicans.

So, these are just some of the small “hiccups” that I noticed in the poll. While the poll itself could be an accurate reflection of the state overall, it does not seem to be an accurate reflection of “likely voters”. So, let’s move to the big questions:

1. Rich and Iorio hated by liberals  – Yes, doesn’t it seem odd? Here we have two Democrats, with Senator Nan Rich being one of the most liberal Democrats in the Florida Senate, and people who identify themselves as “very liberal” hate her? In the PPP poll, of those who identify themselves as “very liberal” only 6% approve of Nan Rich, while 33% disapprove of Senator Rich. For Pam Iorio, it isn’t much better. With the same group, 20% approved of her while 41% disapprove. Again, seems extremely incorrect.

2. Rich and Iorio hated by Democrats  – Much like the liberal flaw, Democrats seem to dislike these two as well, which, again, seems odd. Of Democrats, 10% approve of Nan Rich while 20% disapprove of her. As for Pam Iorio, 16% of Democrats approve of her while 27% disapprove. What is even more odd is that Republicans approve of Pam Iorio more than Democrats. In addition to that, Pam Iorio has a higher approval rating among Republicans (21%), than disapproval rating (20%), even though it is in the margin of error. And while the poll does identify that a large number of those surveyed were “not sure” about either candidate, both the ideology and party totals are very much out of line.

These two highly questionable result should have led the PPP to reexamine their survey and data, but they decided to run with it. So, where did the error happen? If we are to look at the question order as well as the question wording, the PPP made a possible error. Here is the question order of the first five questions:

Q1 Do you approve or disapprove of Governor Rick Scott’s job performance?

Approve …………….. .33%
Disapprove…………. .57%
Not sure …………….. .10%

Q2 Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Charlie Crist?

Favorable……………………………………………….. 46%
Unfavorable ……………………………………………. 43%
Not sure …………………………………………………. 11%

Q3 Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Pam Iorio?

Favorable……………………………………………….. 19%
Unfavorable ……………………………………………. 23%
Not sure …………………………………………………. 58%

Q4 Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Nan Rich?

Favorable……………………………………………….. 8%
Unfavorable ……………………………………………. 18%
Not sure …………………………………………………. 74%

Q5 Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Alex Sink?

Favorable……………………………………………….. 31%
Unfavorable ……………………………………………. 30%
Not sure …………………………………………………. 39%

In the case of Rick Scott, Alex Sink and Charlie Crist, most voters that were surveyed probably know their party identification. In the case of Pam Iorio and Nan Rich, this might not be the case. Because the Nan Rich and Pam Iorio questions were followed up by the current Republican governor and a former Republican governor, those being surveyed might have thought that both Iorio and Rich were Republicans as well. This would explain why the Democrat/Republican as well as the Liberal/Conservative numbers appear inaccurate. If the wording of the question included the party identification of all the candidates, then this poll might have come to conclusions that more accurately indicate the voters’ true feelings.

The next question that needs to be asked is if the ordering of the approval rating questions, with lack of party identification, led to a socially desirable answer on the follow match up polls against Rick Scott. After a liberal or Democratic voter said that they “disapproved” of Iorio and Rich, which at the same time they “approved” Crist, could this lead to more “not sure” responses in the match up polls? While only 8% are unsure in a Crist/Scott match up, 19% were unsure in an Iorio/Scott match up and 21% unsure in a Rich/Scott match up. Therefore, a respondent who might feel embarrassed that they didn’t know that Rich or Iorio were Democrats might say “not sure” in the match up poll as a socially desirable answer to their ignorance of party identification of these two candidates.

These highly questionable results are better news for Iorio, Rich and, possibly, Sink. As of right now, 90% of those polled had an opinion of Charlie Crist. Therefore, these numbers might represent the highest that Crist will go in an election. Polls coming out in the next few months should indicate what kind of movement there might be once the spotlight is taken off of Crist.

On the flip side, 58% of voters don’t know who Pam Iorio is and 74% don’t know who Nan Rich is. And, if we include the possible error of question order and party identification when looking at approval ratings which is mentioned above, the amount of voters that do not know these candidates could be even higher. This means that in both Iorio and Rich could see higher numbers as time passes if they are able to get their names out there. While more people know who Alex Sink is, 39% of the people basically had no opinion of her. Therefore, her numbers can go up as well.

What does this poll mean?  Of course, we can’t take anything away from early polls. Even six days before the 2010 Republican primary for governor, Rick Scott only had a 30% approval rating while losing to Bill McCollum in the same Quinnipiac poll 44% to 35%. And, as we know, Rick Scott won by 3%. So, in a nutshell, match up polls as this point are irrelevant.

But if there were an overall takeaway message from this poll, it is that both Pam Iorio and Nan Rich need to work on name identification. While a large majority of people still not knowing who they are, as well as possibly mixing them up with Republicans, name ID should be their main goal over the next few months.

As for the Scott vs. Crist match up, right now Crist is in the lead, but that can change. With both candidates having well under a 50% approval rating in the polls, the match up between the two men seems to be more of a battle of “the lesser of two evils” than people voting in support of either candidate. When this is the case, usually Democratic voter turnout suffers, such as the case of Dukakis vs. Bush in 1988 or Kerry vs. Bush in 2004. Again, these are just early numbers. As soon as Crist announces that he is running for governor and the primary campaign starts to go in full swing, then we might see some more solid numbers.

Basically, even with the obvious errors by PPP, the election in Florida is still very fluid. Even with this being said, this poll isn’t representative of what the likely voter turnout will be in the 2014 election. Exit poll numbers from previous elections show that liberals and Democrats are over-sampled in this poll while those who are over the age of 65 are under-sampled. So, while this poll might be somewhat accurate of the feeling of the state in general, it will more than likely be quite different in showing the opinions of those who will actually show up to the polls.

For exit poll numbers referred to in this article, click here for 2006 and click here for 2010.

Today I am announcing that I am no longer going to be involved with writing opinion pieces about Florida or American politics.

Many of you may think that I have come to this conclusion because I am tired of the state of politics in Florida and the United States. And while I do think the state is pretty dismal, it is not the reason why I am not writing about it anymore.

As many of you know, my future goal is to be involved in domestic and international “elections”, but not necessary the “art of politics”. The idea is to provide unbiased detailed research on electoral data as well as offer scholarly writings regarding voter behavior and psychology in both the United States and throughout the world, particularly in Europe. In addition, I plan on being highly involved with election monitoring abroad, which might happen as soon as this summer.

The ability to be impartial (or non-partisan) when examining and monitoring international elections (or, in fact, domestic elections) is crucial in being successful in the field of international and comparative politics, as well as political analysis. Taking sides in partisan discussions does not help, and can actually hurt, one’s prospects in these fields. In the case of election monitoring, being impartial is extremely important, as well as being considered professional etiquette.

Therefore, I will no longer be writing opinion pieces about partisan domestic, or international, politics because it will not be appropriate while working in the field of international and comparative politics, as well as political analysis.

Even with that being said, The Political Hurricane will still continue, but in a non-partisan manner. The articles that I will be writing will either be examining election data or talking about the historical aspect of Florida or Florida politics. When doing my examination of elections, I will talk about partisan issues, but will not be giving any opinion or commentary on those issues. I will only use the issues in the context of the research discussion.

For those of you who have supported The Political Hurricane over the years, I want to thank you for your continued support. While we are changing our format, I hope that you will still visit this site. If you are still looking for in-depth political opinion pieces about Florida politics, I highly recommend Kartik’s new website The Florida Squeeze.

If I ever do wish to write about something in a partisan manner, I will more than likely do it anonymously with a submission at The Florida Squeeze. The only partisan thing that I will be doing (or write about under my own byline, but on another website) is my support for gubernatorial candidate Nan Rich, who I am endorsing today. From time to time, I might ask Kartik if I could write on the Florida Squeeze about why I support Senator Rich, but even that will be in a non-partisan manner, explaining why Senator Rich’s politics are good for Florida (by taking out the Crist or D vs. R debate).

Again, I want to thank all of you who have been coming to this website over the years, and I hope that you find the historical and analytic content interesting. Yes, we will lose a lot of people who aren’t into this stuff…but it is a sacrifice that needs to be made.

Cheers,

Dave Trotter

Mr. Weatherford, THIS is the reason people move from Illinois to Florida. Trust me, I know!

Yesterday, Florida House Speaker Will Weatherford tried to explain to a group of people that “conservative governance”, such as in Florida, will prevail over “liberal governance”, as in Illinois, and people will leave Illinois to go to Florida precisely for this reason. The more Weatherford tried to explain his “governance theory”, the more misinformation he gave to his audience.

As many of you know, I live in Illinois, yet I right about Florida politics. Why is this?

As far as why I write about Florida politics, it is because it is something I know. Some of the people who read this blog weren’t even born when I started in Florida politics. And while I am not a “hands on approach” type of person when it comes to politics, I have intensely studied voting trends and done extensive research over the last 20 years.

But why do I live in Illinois? It is by my choice. I am very proud to be an Illinoisan and a Chicagoan. But even with this, I will more than likely move to another state in the near future so that I can complete my PhD. And one of those states will not be Florida. I will more than likely never move back to Florida. And the main reason why this is the case is that people like Speaker Weatherford, Jeb Bush, Rick Scott and others have turned Florida into a national laughing stock. If Florida were to change, I would consider moving back, but not with this leadership.

Being from a family that moved from Chicago to Orlando in 1987, I can tell Mr. Weatherford first hand why people migrate from Illinois to Florida. It has nothing to do with taxes (unless you are mega rich) or any of the other things that he mentions. It has to do with the fact that the high in Chicago today is 33 degrees and currently in Orlando it is 72 degrees. This is why people move from the north to Florida, yet Mr. Weatherford fails to grasp this simple concept.

Another thing that Mr. Weatherford fails to mention when talking about taxes is the actual tax rates. In Illinois, the state income tax is at 3%, which is the lowest income tax rate in the nation. This means that in every “conservative governance” state that has an income tax, taxes at a higher rate than Illinois. So, Mr. Weatherford, you might want to do a little bit more research on “taxes” before you start blasting the State of Illinois.

But what about sales tax. Oh, I will admit, Florida does beat Illinois in that one…. by .25%. The sales tax in Florida is 6%, while in Illinois it is 6.25%. Mr. Weatherford, I highly doubt that people are migrating from Illinois to Florida just to save .25% every time they buy a Snickers bar.

Still, Mr. Weatherford might talk about property taxes, which are higher in Illinois. But even this doesn’t really matter. Why? First, home values in Illinois are much higher than they are in Florida. Second, more people in Illinois own their homes, unlike Florida, which is increasingly becoming a “renter society”. Still, if we were to compare the average property taxes of both states, Illinois is $1,734 higher than Florida. But the median household income in Illinois is $8,935 more than it is in Florida. So, even with all of this “liberal governance”, the citizens of Illinois still come out ahead.

So with this said, let’s continue to look at this “liberal governance”. What does one get with this type of governance? Basically everything. If we look at education, Florida continues to be a laughing stock when in comes to K-12. If we look at higher education, and the flagship universities in both states, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign is highly respected around the world and considered one of the best public universities in the United States. While the University of Florida is well respected, it isn’t at the same level as UIUC.

As far as transportation, Florida again is a laughing stock. Only recently did Orlando get a commuter rail system. On the other hand, the “L” in Chicago has been running since 1892. The rest of Florida’s mass transit is also a joke, with regional transit authorities looking under couch cushions for funding. Only Florida Governor Rick Scott would turn away free money, which would have built a profitable, high speed transit system. Instead, California gets that honor.

Law enforcement is also a joke in Florida. With limited funding for law enforcement as well the Republican legislature looking to slash benefits for the law enforcement community, Florida ranks 4th in the nation in violent crime. Illinois, on the other hand, which generously helps their officers, ranks 13th in the nation, even with gun violence in Chicago at an all-time high. Florida Republicans constantly shafting law enforcement makes Florida a more dangerous place to live.

And as far as health care, Florida constantly ranks lower than Illinois in overall quality of health care provided.

So, Mr. Weatherford, let’s recap…. people in Illinois make more money, they take home more money after taxes, we have a better education system, better health care system, better transportation system and a lower crime rate. Basically, everything that state government should provide for is better in Illinois than it is in Florida. Enough said.

Still, why is this the case? Mainly because the conservatives that have run the government the last 20 years have run the state into the ground. And, yes, Mr. Weatherford is part of that system. Republicans have done such a good job at destroying Florida that they are now ready to sell its future to the highest bidder (such as the parent trigger bill). In addition, Florida is the only state that I know of that has actually tried to lower a minimum wage for servers, thus taking more money out of the pockets of hard-working Floridians. All of this happened because of conservatives (both the current Republicans and the conservative Democrats before them).

With all this being said, maybe Mr. Weatherford should do a little research before he start talking about other states. It seems clear that his worldly view doesn’t pass the Florida-Georgia border. He talks about other states as if he has a clue to how they operate, but in fact he doesn’t have a clue. I don’t expect a man who probably doesn’t know the difference between a Lou Malnati’s and a Gino’s East to know about Illinois in the first place.

Oh, and Mr. Weatherford, most retirees from Illinois move to Arizona, not Florida. Hence the reason why the Chicago White Sox moved their spring training facilities from Sarasota to Tuscon. Again, a little research goes a long way, Mr. Speaker.

While many in Florida politics today are fixated on Jacksonville today with the growing Allied and FOP scandal, it is important to discuss the Governor’s race.The continued obsession with Charlie Crist has continued among Democrats in recent months growing to a fever pitch. Speculation about Crist’s plans and his presence in the Democratic Party fuels passion on all sides of the debate. But Crist himself will have to make a critical decision. For a man who has seemed to depend on likability and amicable relationships throughout his career with a Republican led Legislature he may very well just go along to get along. With many Democrats  desperate for any kind of success on the state level  ready to accept Crist with open arms they may not ask the questions that need to be asked of him. But progressives who form the backbone of the Obama coalition in this state must be given sufficient cover by the former Governor himself.  Crist’s positions on gun issues and his consistent partisan attacks in the 1990s on Governor Lawton Chiles will need to be addressed if he is to become a Democratic standard bearer.

Continue Reading