Alan Grayson files for U.S. Senate run in 2024 against Rick Scott
Source: Florida Politics
Former U.S. Rep. Alan Grayson appears poised to make another run for U.S. Senate.
The Orlando Democrat filed to challenge U.S. Sen. Rick Scott, a Naples Republican running for a second term.
There remains no mention of a new candidacy on Grayson’s social media pages. His last posts date back to a run for U.S. House last year, when he lost the Democratic Primary in Florida’s 10th Congressional District to now-U.S. Rep. Maxwell Alejandro Frost.
Grayson has run for Senate before. He vacated his U.S. House seat in 2016 to run against U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio. But he didn’t have support at the time from party leadership. Then-Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid lambasted Grayson as having “no moral compass” and said he wanted the Orlando Democrat to lose the Democratic Primary. That wish came true in August 2016, when Grayson lost the nomination to then-U.S. Rep. Patrick Murphy. Murphy went on to lose to Rubio.
Read more: https://floridapolitics.com/archives/620006-alan-grayson-files-for-u-s-senate-run-in-2024-against-rick-scott/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Alan Grayson just needs to go the fuck away.
If another Democrat wins instead ... well that's how the cookie crumbles.
Maybe that practically the entire liberal Democratic Party apparatus needed him out of elective office provides a clue that he's not functionally all that liberal? They normally scrabble to protect all the liberals voters will elect.
There are IL-liberal people on the left, too, and they pretty reliably cause problems that the Democratic Party has to deal with, so the illiberal left is another possibility. Evaluate by behavior, not rhetoric or label.
and set about gathering support from powers in the party. As some in CA already have and others will.
We agree about Grayson himself. However, like tRump's early supporters while by far most were considering him unelectable, some DO believe Grayson has the ability to win a statewide race (if the corrupt establishment doesn't "rig" the election of course) and that he would be a superior senator. Speaking of thread reading. 
Anti-establishment populism embraces characteristics that establishment protectors consider disqualifying.
quote that "We already have death panels. They're called INSURANCE COMPANIES." RWNJ's were saying Obamacare would create death panels.. 
frequent lack of coverage for preexisting conditions and such?
The ACA we were fighting to get passed at that very time required all insurance policies to provide mandatory coverage for preexisting conditions, lifetime coverage for conditions, and a number of other important coverages to close previous exposure holes.
It was impolitic in that situation not just because it offended Republicans we still hoped to get few votes from, but because we'd worked hard to get most of the insurance industry on board to help create the ACA.
Despite previous coverage problems, in the past those who died for lack of care were overwhelmingly uninsured. People who had insurance often subordinated job changes, moves, etc, to stay in place to protect their workplace insurance; even with coverage holes, it was that valuable.
Doubt he lost us anything at that time, though. It was Senator Lieberman who in the end threatened to kill national healthcare entirely if we didn't remove the public option. 
A huge example of why we need to be very careful who we elect to the senate is very ideologically trustworthy and stable.
gotten it passed, though? There's no reason to think we would have; there was real opposition to some of the ACA's changes among some Democrats, not just Lieberman.
Btw, Obama and the senate leader, Harry Reid?, became so afraid that we wouldn't be able to pass the comprehensive form of the ACA that the house had passed and sent to the senate (their counts were not good) that they wanted house speaker Nancy Pelosi to agree to remove major portions so they could bring a smaller bill they could pass. Nancy, who strongly believed they could pass the comprehensive bill she'd worked hard for years to create, stood there Obama's office and told them they were holding the only version that would come out of the house and it would be that or nothing. Of course, she was right. I've read that some insiders referred to it privately as Pelosicare, no insult to President Obama's role, just acknowledgement.
Of course, there was one more holdup, and that was renegade Lieberman's final threat to kill the whole thing to eliminate the single payer option. There was no way to save it.
I was going to sign up for single payer as soon as it was available, btw, and was sure that over time most Americans would move to that. Still am. But thanks to Republican swiftboating, there was a lot more public suspicion and rejection than support for it. Offering it as an additional option was a way of slipping it in.
Forgive me, but nonsense to "we will never have"?
Agree in retrospect Lieberman was a very poor (!) choice for Gore -- and the Democratic voters he betrayed. He ended up at war with Democrats both in congress and his own state, who might have finally succeeded in kicking him out for good the year after killing the single payer option etcetera, etcetera, if he hadn't decided to retire.
The fight goes on.
liberal ideals leading to what I see as sensible and necessary, often inevitable, changes are not shared by enough people to cause significant delays and setbacks. Heck, a lot of them will dig in and get their hair on fire over change in itself, just because it's change.
But civilization is advancing anyway. Looked at closer, though, the "arc of justice" has been about as smooth as tRump's signature.
But we keep trying right? 
authoritarian answers to their problems nearly a century ago now. Other democracies and governments worth saving have fallen all through the decades after while we prospered. Now the entire planet is threatened by the same wave we are of extremism and authoritarianism and the prospect of citizens voting to destroy their own democracies. Including rises in most European nations.
I've read that a large study measured the U.S. population as currently significantly higher in authoritarianism than other advanced liberal democracies like us in the study, though. Extremist views, once marginalized, have become dangerously normalized into the mainstream.
NOT the Democratic Party, though. 
Groups that evaluate political parties around the planet rate the Democratic Party as remaining ideologically stable and committed to democracy all through the century. (Blasting all the lies of us going more conservative, socialist, corrupted by business, etc, as the pernicious deceits they are.) The GOP otoh has degraded severely, rated similar to nations becoming autocracies, roughly equivalent to Hungary under Viktor Orban.
Scary times, but hopeful too. Those still capable of valuing and protecting what we inherited increasingly outnumber those who're becoming threats, though. Even in 2016, with the nation deep-buried under blizzards of lies swirling from all directions, and a female candidate, millions more people voted Democratic for HRC than for the alternatives. They weren't fooled. And the whole nation's been getting more and more wakeup jolts from the authoritarian right ever since.
He hasn't emailed asking me for money yet! 
Seriously, I'd like to see Val Demmings run again for the seat.
for the Democratic Party. We already know the ads they'll run against him.
