Florida's midterm harbinger: Democrats' losing hand
What bodes ill for Democrats in November's midterm elections — a Republican victory in last week's special election in Florida's 13th Congressional District — bodes well for Americans eager to shed the big-government burdens imposed by President Obama, his party and his supporters.
The race “offered both parties the chance to test-drive their political messages ahead of the midterm elections,” as The Washington Times put it. Unofficial results showed GOP lobbyist David Jolly defeating Democrat Alex Sink, a former Florida chief financial officer and unsuccessful 2010 gubernatorial candidate, 48.4 percent to 46.6 percent (Libertarian Lucas Overby got 4.8 percent of the vote).
Ms. Sink's campaign enlisted former President Bill Clinton and Vice President Joe Biden, according to The Wall Street Journal. But not even they could push her to victory over a Republican who emphasized the need to repeal ObamaCare while she favored keeping and modifying that odious law.
Long home to retirees and represented for almost 43 years by Republican C.W. Bill Young, whose October death necessitated Tuesday's vote, the district has gotten younger and become a swing district, which Mr. Obama narrowly carried in 2012. That voters there rejected Sink — labeled “one of Nancy Pelosi's most prized candidates” by the National Republican Congressional Committee's chairman — is a promising sign that Americans are poised to deal Obama's Democrats a stinging rebuke this fall.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- State of Corruption: The McCord scandal
- Catholic Education Week: School choice & more
- Saturday essay: A new (& blue) feeder
- Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances
- Host a Super Bowl?: False prophets/profits
- Greensburg Laurels & Lances
- State of surveillanc: The DEA database
- Public pension ‘ka-boom’
- Undercover Peduto: A promise broken
- U.N. Watch: Climate games
- Alle-Kiski Laurels & Lances