Winner and Loser of the Week in Florida politics — Week of 6.2.24

This past week saw the 80th anniversary of the historic D-Day operation, a pivotal invasion which helped the Allied forces defeat the Nazis and win World War II.

President Joe Biden gave a well-received speech in Normandy, France, the site of the D-Day invasion. The President honored their sacrifice with his speech. And despite Republicans’ best efforts to doctor video to make the President look weak, this was a strong moment for him and the country.

Members of Congress also sought to bring attention to those veterans’ sacrifice, albeit with a bit of flash. A bipartisan group of 10 Congressman, all veterans, jumped from a plane Friday in Normandy to commemorate the operation. Among that group were U.S. Reps. Cory Mills and Mike Waltz, both of Florida.

It really is incredible what the Allied forces here, combined with Soviet sacrifices against the Nazis in the East, were able to accomplish here. The world would no doubt look very different if we failed, and those who navigated the hellish conditions in that war deserve every ounce of praise they get.

It was an important anniversary, as we are nearing the time where those heroes who carried out that operation are no longer with us. Following the recent Memorial Day holiday honoring those soldiers we have lost, it has been a time for Floridians and all Americans to reflect on that sacrifice. We hope you will make some effort this weekend to do just that.

Now, it’s on to our weekly game of winners and losers.

Winners

Honorable mention: Glen Gilzean. Gilzean has got to be one of the luckiest guys in The Process these days.

Last year, he jumped from the Commission on Ethics to serve as the Administrator of the newly created Central Florida Tourism Oversight District (CFTOD), which paid him a cool $400,000 a year.

Gov. Ron DeSantis then reshuffled Gilzean to serve as the Orange County Supervisor of Elections. What qualifications did he have for either of these gigs? Well, he’s on the Governor’s good side. And as per usual, all that GOP anti-swamp talk gets brushed to the side here when it comes to guys on their team.

Still, that move to serve as Supervisor — which pays a mere, paltry $205,000 — could be seen as a downgrade. Losing nearly half of your $400,000 per year salary is no joke.

But have no fear, concerned citizens. Gilzean may be down, but he’s not out. The CFTOD is offering this poor soul a life raft in the form of a good old-fashioned consulting contract for $20,000. Hey, it’s no $400,000, but … I’m sorry, $20,000 per month?!

That means, all told, Gilzean just got a $40,000 pay bump as he continues being rewarded for being buddy-buddy with the Governor. Hey, it’s a good gig if you can get it.

Almost (but not quite) the biggest winner: Marco Rubio. The yearslong transformation of Florida’s senior Senator from a principled, truth-telling leader to another in a long line of Donald Trump worshippers may be paying off.

Rubio is reportedly on an eight-person short list to be Trump’s running mate. Some reports say the process is focused on just four candidates: Rubio, fellow U.S. Sens. Tim Scott and J.D. Vance, and North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum.

Putting aside the cringe factor in watching the transformation these guys have to undergo in order to make nice with their Dear Leader, Rubio is seeing his stature rise here. Serving as Vice President would elevate his profile and potentially enable another future run for President, a move likely on every U.S. Senator’s mind.

Will Trump actually put up with the hassle created by running with a fellow Florida man? That remains to be seen. But Rubio is at least seeing his name floated among the Trumpworld favorites, possibly positioning himself well for 2028 and beyond regardless of whether he lands on this year’s ticket.

One might also note that U.S. Rep. Byron Donalds landed on that larger list of possible VP candidates. And while he could very well land the gig in the end, he had some other issues this week that precluded him from landing in the winner’s column that we’ll get to shortly.

The biggest winner: Florida Democrats. The blue team had a strong week this week, with several big hires and a major poll showing that Florida could be in play this presidential cycle.

Obligatory caveat time: We’re not saying Democrats definitely will make Florida close just one cycle after losing by as much as 20 points statewide. While Republicans are unlikely to repeat that historically strong performance, Democrats are facing an uphill climb even ignoring their history of squandering winnable races in Florida.

But again, this is a weekly column. And this week, the party got some good news.

Florida Politics first reported the news of a new batch of hires, including Cramer Verde as Florida Political Director, Kyle Alexandre as Deputy Political Director, Brittney Geathers as the Coalitions Director for Florida, and more.

Building up the infrastructure it takes to win isn’t sufficient to make the state competitive, but it is necessary. And Florida Democrats seem like they are at least building the operation it takes to battle here.

Add to that a Fox News poll showing Trump with just a 4-point lead over Biden, and it’s not far-fetched to think Florida may be in play. Trump may ultimately win here for a third time. But if the race is close at all, that may prompt the Trump campaign to spend significantly in Florida. And that’s money they won’t be able to use elsewhere.

Does this mean anything definitive for November? Nope. Republicans could still win by 10, for all we know. But these are good signs for Democrats, and more weeks like this will start making the case that Florida could be a problem for Team Trump.

Losers

Dishonorable mention: Donalds. Donalds landed in hot water this week after discussing the strength of the Black family unit during the Jim Crow era.

Now, let’s get this out of the way first. We’re not going to join the pile on of Democrats twisting Donalds’ words to make them sound as outrageous as possible. Case in point: The Biden re-election campaign reposted a piece of Donalds’ comments with the caption: “Trump VP contender Byron Donalds claims life was better for Black Americans ‘during Jim Crow.'”

Donalds was not commenting on the entirety of Black existence in his remarks this week. Rather, he was making a point about Black families remaining together.

“What I said was is that you had more Black families under Jim Crow, and it was the Democrat policies under (the Department of Health, Education and Welfare), under the welfare state, that did help to destroy the Black family. That’s what I said,” he said in comments clarifying the controversy.

That latter point is an interesting topic of debate to be sure, but isn’t necessarily controversial. But was that the focus of Donalds’ remarks which ignited this firestorm in the first place?

Let’s take a look at the relevant portion of a clip he posted online to push back against critics. Donalds discusses his desire to be a strong and present father for his children, an admirable goal. Then he pivots into this:

“During Jim Crow, the Black family was together,” he said. “During Jim Crow, more Black people were not just conservative — Black people have always been conservative-minded — but more Black people voted conservatively. And then H.E.W., Lyndon Johnson — and then you go down that road, and now we are where we are.”

“You go down that road, and now we are where we are”? Did he just yada yada the purported point he was trying to make?

Donalds has battled against those saying he sounded nostalgic for the Jim Crow era. Sure, he doesn’t say Black Americans were better off overall. But he seems to be pining for not just the state of the Black family, but also the idea that Black Americans voted more conservatively.

If the goal was to push back against liberal policies under LBJ, why not just do that? Why explicitly mention Jim Crow at all? Yeah, historians may have read that into his comments and Democrats may have attacked him anyway. But then it would have been them reaching for a reason to hit Donalds, not him handing them one on a silver platter.

He’s the one who brought up Jim Crow willingly, not anyone else.

Almost (but not quite) the biggest loser: Geraldine Thompson, Bruce Antone. State Sen. Thompson and state Rep. Antone are both facing accusations that they don’t live in their respective districts.

We discussed the Antone allegations in late April. That’s when a Fresh Take Florida report detailed how Antone repeatedly submitted paperwork showing him living in House District 40, even though he represents House District 41. State law requires members of the Legislature must live in the district they represent.

Well this week, Democratic Primary challenger Janét Buford-Johnson filed an ethics complaint about Antone’s residency issues.

Also this week, former state Sen. Randolph Bracy made allegations that Thompson is living outside Senate District 15. She represents that district and Bracy is challenging her for the Democratic nomination.

According to Steven Lemongello of the Orlando Sentinel, Thompson says she is indeed living inside SD 15 by staying with her daughter. That’s despite homestead exemptions in 2023 and 2024 listing a home in Senate District 13, owned by Thompson’s husband. Those exemptions are supposed to only be taken on a person’s primary residence.

“I moved in with her and my son-in-law to help care for my newest granddaughters,” Thompson said. “I do not have a lease but pay for utilities and other expenses there.”

With Qualifying Week beginning Monday, it’s hard for all of this to get sorted out in time to matter. Maybe Thompson and Antone will clear things up in time. But with the Primary in just over two months, there are certainly questions that need answering.

The biggest loser: Monique Worrell. Worrell officially lost her bid this week to challenge her suspension by Gov. DeSantis.

The Florida Supreme Court found that the Governor had the ability to suspend Worrell as State Attorney in Florida’s 9th Judicial Circuit.

Justice Jorge Labarga was the only Justice to dissent.

“In this case, I would grant Worrell’s petition for quo warranto relief because the allegations in the executive order are insufficient to provide her with sufficient notice to allow her to mount a meaningful defense,” Labarga wrote.

But other Justices disagreed, finding that DeSantis’ executive order was not vague.

This ruling was expected. Former State Attorney Andrew Warren, who was also suspended by DeSantis, failed to be reinstated via a court challenge as well. Worrell had to challenge the decision. But a Supreme Court full of several DeSantis appointees was unlikely to find in her favor.

So this loss stings. But like Warren, Worrell this year is again running for her position. So while this is a loss this week, voters will have the final say as to whether Worrell occupies that office.