The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) has a new poll out that looks good for Joe Garcia. He's ahead by much more than the margin of error. The Garcia campaign sent this out:
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee today released a new Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research poll that shows Joe Garcia leading Republican challenger David Rivera by 7 points.
In the initial head-to-head in the race for Florida?s 25th congressional district, Garcia leads Rivera 40 percent to 33 percent. Whig Party candidate Craig Porter and Tea Party Candidate Roly Arrojo each received 2 percent and 7 percent respectively. Conducted September 12-19, the poll surveyed 404 likely voters and has a 4.9 percent margin of error.
Two caveats. Partisan polls tend to lean a bit in favor of the paymaster. And it's notable Garcia's lead is equal to the 7% garnered by the Tea Party candidate. It's possible that some of those voters will come home to the GOP by November. It's also possible that they won't. Or, that as people get unhappier with Rivera, that 7% for the Tea Party might even grow…
Minor note: is it smart for the campaign to refer to Rivera as his “Republican challenger”? Does sounding like an incumbent help this year?
It’s hardly surprising that, in some races, “tea party’ candidates are helping the Democrats. There have been a fair number of false flag ‘tea party’ efforts run by the Democratic party, for just that purpose, and Roly is suspected of being one of them.
I’d be delighted to learn that the Democrats are as devious as the GOP operatives running fake Democrats (S. Carolina) and put-up Green Party candidates (all over)…but I’m just not that hopeful. (If only the GOP governed half as well as it campaigned…).
Oh, there’s not a lot of doubt that the Democrats are running false flag “tea party” efforts. That on in Michigan was particularly blatant. “Nazi” demonstrators at tea party demonstrations have also been followed back to Democratic campaign headquarters.
False flag operations by the Democratic party have a long history, actually. The ones I’m personally most familiar with are the fake “pro-gun” organizations the DNC creates, like “Americans for Gun Safety”, or the “American Hunters and Shooters Association”, which are created to endorse anti-gun candidates and bills.
Deceptive, yes, but “devious” implies that the efforts would be clever, too, and how clever is it to have the DNC’s PR firm register the domain name for your false flag operation, or to put a board member of Handgun Control Inc on the board of your new “pro-gun” organization? But perhaps I’m being unfair, and the DNC just figures there’s no point in putting a lot of work into a false flag that’s only going to “fly” for a couple years at most. For all I know they put a lot more work into false flag ops they intend to run long term…