FLORIDA AFTER THE MIDTERMS :: The Democratic Failure, the Donalds Governorship, and the Voters Who Refuse to Go Back

 

 

Read or Download the Illustrated Edition (PDF)

Florida Did Not Reject Change

Florida’s 2026 midterm election exposed two political failures at once: the Republican Party’s continuing dependence on Donald Trump’s political model and the Democratic Party’s continuing dependence on an electoral model that has repeatedly failed to defeat it.

The results deserve far more than another round of party explanations about difficult political terrain, insufficient money, or the impossibility of winning Florida. Those explanations have become so familiar that they now function as excuses for the decisions that helped create the very conditions Democrats claim they cannot overcome.

Florida elected Byron Donalds as its first Black governor.1 David Jolly, a former Republican congressman who publicly broke with his party and eventually became a Democrat, came remarkably close to defeating him. Angie Nixon, a progressive Black woman whose political strength emerged from grassroots organizing and community engagement, mounted a competitive United States Senate campaign against Ashley Moody. That Moody was appointed to the vacant Senate seat is as I like to say, “nuff said”.

Republicans won the statewide contests. But the margins tell a story considerably more complicated than Republican dominance.

According to Florida’s unofficial election-night results available November 6, Donalds received 4,132,334 votes, or 50.02 percent. Jolly received 4,024,639 votes, or 48.71 percent. The difference was 107,695 votes.2

Angie Nixon received approximately 48 percent of the Senate vote, against Moody’s 50.9 percent. Meanwhile, Democrats made substantial gains in legislative races3, demonstrating that Republican control of Florida’s political institutions did not translate into universal voter satisfaction.

This was not an electorate that had categorically rejected the possibility of political change.

It was an electorate in which millions of voters were prepared to challenge the political direction of their state, even as the Republican Party retained sufficient strength to hold its most powerful statewide offices.

The distinction matters.

A political party that treats every defeat as proof that voters are beyond its reach will eventually build an organization incapable of reaching them. And a national party that repeatedly withholds investment because a state appears unwinnable may be helping manufacture the very defeats it later cites as justification for continued abandonment.

The central question is not simply why Donalds won or why Jolly and Nixon lost.

It is whether the Democratic Party has the intellectual honesty to recognize what the Florida electorate was telling it—and whether it possesses the political imagination to act upon that knowledge.

David Jolly: The Political Education I Watched Unfold

Few were more critical of David Jolly during his years in Congress than OUR COMMON GROUND with Janice Graham. We challenged his politics, his positions, and what I regarded as the limitations of his political and social understanding. I had no reason to embrace him simply because he eventually became uncomfortable with the Republican Party he once represented.

At the time, I lived in Massachusetts, but my mother, much of my family, and many of my friends were Floridians. Both my political consulting

and broadcasting careers began in Florida. I served as a political strategist for the Florida Democratic Party and managed two major political campaigns in the state. Florida politics were never distant or abstract to me. I had family members who were catching hell under what I regarded as the political abandonment of the Bush years—twice over, with George W. Bush in Washington and Jeb Bush in Tallahassee. I could see the consequences of those political decisions in the lives of people I knew and loved. I did not have the luxury of treating Republican policies as theoretical disagreements between political parties. For my family, those policies had consequences, and I was paying attention.

But I watched Jolly turn a corner.

I watched his political understanding develop. His expanding presence in political discussions exposed him to people whose experiences, historical knowledge, and political perspectives challenged the assumptions of his former Republican world. I watched him engage in an intellectual environment that included Rachel Maddow, Rev. Al Sharpton, and Ben Jealous, and encounter ideas advanced by scholars and writers such as Ta-Nehisi Coates and Dr. Michael Eric Dyson.

These were not simply different political opinions. They represented different ways of understanding American history, racial power, economic inequality, and the consequences of public policy. I watched those influences begin to break through in Jolly’s developing political awareness. He was listening. More importantly, he appeared to be learning.

Frankly, at times, I was merely stunned.

Here was a man whose politics I had challenged vigorously, beginning to demonstrate a depth of social and political understanding that I had not previously associated with him. He became more attentive to the consequences of public policy, more willing to question assumptions he once accepted, and more deliberate about the people whose knowledge and experience informed his positions. He got smarter. He surrounded himself with well-informed people. And increasingly, he appeared willing to draw a line in the Florida sand.

Still, I remained cautious. Political conversions are not always genuine. Sometimes they are exercises in political survival, repositioning, or the discovery of a more receptive audience. I had watched enough politicians reinvent themselves to know the difference between a change in vocabulary and a change in conviction.

But when Jolly fully denounced the Republican Party and publicly rejected the political direction it had taken, I became convinced that what I had been witnessing was real. He had moved beyond expressing discomfort with Donald Trump. He was willing to separate himself from the political institution that had helped establish his career.

Those decisions sounded what could well have been the political death knell for David Jolly, and I believe he knew it. He understood the political machinery he was walking away from, the relationships he was severing, and the electoral consequences that might follow. Yet he took the dive anyway. He did not simply step away quietly, preserving a comfortable route back into Republican respectability. He publicly challenged the party that had given him his political standing, knowing that the people he was leaving behind might never forgive him and that the people he was moving toward might never fully trust him. That is a considerable political risk. And it was precisely his willingness to take that risk that finally persuaded me his transformation was more than a political performance.

Now, I am not suggesting that David Jolly was ready to join the Mau Mau. Let’s not get carried away. I am saying that his political evolution happened. I watched it. I watched a man whose political assumptions I had once vigorously challenged begin to question those assumptions himself. He did not emerge as a revolutionary, nor did he have to become one for his transformation to matter. What impressed me was not that he arrived at every political conclusion I might have preferred, but that he demonstrated the intellectual honesty to reconsider what he thought he knew. In American politics, where so many politicians would rather defend a failed conviction than admit they have learned something, that is no small thing.

Political growth ought to count for something. We cannot demand that people reconsider their beliefs, confront their mistakes, and change their political commitments, only to insist that their past forever disqualifies them when they do.

My criticisms of Jolly’s earlier politics were real. So was my recognition of his evolution. I did not arrive at that judgment casually, and I did not arrive at it because he became a Democrat. I arrived at it because I had watched the process.

His defeat, therefore, deserves something more serious than the familiar explanation that Florida remains a Republican state. We need to examine whether voters recognized that evolution, whether his campaign successfully communicated it, and whether the Democratic Party understood the opportunity it had in a candidate whose political transformation might have reached people beyond its traditional constituency.

Did Florida voters reject the man Jolly had become, or were they still voting against the Republican he once was?

The First Black Governor Florida Chose—and the First It Rejected

I question the political judgment of Black Floridians who voted for Byron Donalds, believing that his presence in the governor’s mansion necessarily means their most critical concerns will receive serious consideration. What in his public record gives them that confidence? What commitments has he made to protecting their voting rights, their children’s education, their economic opportunities, and the history that Florida has already fought so hard to preserve?

Florida had another opportunity to elect its first Black governor in 2018. Andrew Gillum, then mayor of

Tallahassee, offered a clearly articulated agenda addressing public education, healthcare, economic opportunity, and communities across the state. Florida rejected that candidacy by a remarkably narrow margin.4 Gillum’s subsequent personal difficulties are part of his history, but they do not erase the political choices voters faced at the time.

Eight years later, Florida elects Byron Donalds. Heavens to Murgatroyd!

Where were the racists when you needed them?

That question is deliberately provocative, but it exposes a serious contradiction in the political story Florida tells about itself. The election of a Black Republican governor does not establish that racial prejudice has disappeared. It may instead reveal the extent to which racial acceptance can be conditioned upon political allegiance.

A Black candidate advancing policies that challenge entrenched racial and economic hierarchies may encounter a very different reception from a Black candidate who embraces the political institutions and ideological commitments of those hierarchies.

This is a proposition requiring evidence, not a license to assign racist motives to every voter who opposed Gillum or supported Donalds. Yet the contrast demands examination.

Donalds has long performed a familiar hokey-doke dance with Black people. He knows the steps. He knows the gestures, the language, the cultural signals, and the moments when a little shared familiarity can masquerade as political solidarity. It can be a charming dance, even a disarming one. But Black people have seen this performance before. We know the difference between somebody who knows the music and somebody who has committed himself to the struggle.

There is no doubt that he knows Blackness and the obligations that come with it. In his unwavering support of Donald Trump, he has rejected those obligations—an offense not only to us, but to himself. Byron Donalds did not lose his “Black card.” He willingly surrendered it to the house guards of white supremacy.

His public record includes a comparison involving Black family life during Jim Crow5 and an equally revealing characterization of Trump’s political return as “daddy’s back.” Donalds has offered explanations for both remarks. Those explanations should be accurately represented, but they do not eliminate the historical and political questions raised by his choice of language. Nor should Donalds attempt to explain his devotion to Trumpism as some noble effort to reconcile the racial identities within his multiracial family; that argument would be an insult to our intelligence, so don’t even go there.

Has Byron Donalds looked around at the MAGA loyalists whose political allegiance has brought them extraordinary access to wealth, influence, and opportunity, and wondered where his own rewards are? Perhaps he should ask himself whether his loyalty has earned him a place among those who wield power and accumulate its benefits, or merely the privilege of helping them do so.

The question should never be whether Black Floridians must all vote alike, think alike, or embrace the same political philosophy. We never have. And it is not considered here. The question is what Black political representation means when the person occupying a historic position has embraced policies and political alliances that many Black Floridians regard as threats to their opportunity, family, and communities.

A first is not necessarily progress. Representation is not necessarily liberation. And the racial complexion of the person exercising power tells us very little about whose interests that power will serve.

Florida now has its own smiling boogeyman.

The smile may be familiar. The politics are already on the record.

Byron Donalds and the Rules of Political Subjugation

My argument is this: Byron Donalds operates within a political system shaped by white supremacy, where Black political advancement does not necessarily mean liberation from subjugation. I give him no room: he knows or should know. Damn’ he went to an HBCU. This goes far beyond his unwavering loyalty to Donald Trump. I contend that Donalds either misunderstands or deliberately ignores the racial hierarchy within the political movement to which he has committed himself. He appears to mistake proximity to power for possession of it, and the rewards of obedience for the recognition of equality.

Donalds appears either not to understand or to have decided to ignore what generations of Black Americans have learned about the rules of white supremacy. Those rules do not disappear because a Black man becomes useful to the people who have historically benefited from them.

Donalds may believe that loyalty will purchase equality. I forcefully question that assumption.

There is a difference between being welcomed into a political organization and being accepted as an equal within its hierarchy of power. There is a difference between being rewarded for obedience and being respected for independent judgment. And there is an enormous difference between occupying a powerful office and having the freedom to exercise its authority against the wishes of those who helped put you there.

The irony is difficult to ignore. A political movement that has made opposition to diversity, equity, and inclusion a defining cause now celebrates the election of Florida’s first Black governor. Donalds become a convenient answer to accusations of racial exclusion. His presence can be displayed as evidence of opportunity and inclusion without requiring the movement to reconsider the policies and racial attitudes its critics have challenged.

He is, in that sense, a useful symbol. Whether he will be permitted to become an independent political force is another question entirely.

I suspect Donalds understands the rewards of remaining in step with Trump and the MAGA establishment. What remains uncertain is whether he understands the potential consequences of stepping out of line. Political loyalty can be a valuable currency, but it offers no permanent protection when powerful allies decide that someone has become inconvenient.

Donald Trump has his political teeth firmly embedded in Byron Donalds, and the influence of Ron DeSantis and the Republican power structure Donalds has embraced cannot be dismissed. Donalds has built his political career within a movement that prizes loyalty, rewards obedience, and has repeatedly demonstrated its willingness to punish dissent. Jim Jordan and others within that movement represent the political machinery with which Donalds has aligned himself.

But there is a question Donalds may not yet fully appreciate: What is his actual standing within that machinery?

Winning the governorship of Florida is no small achievement. It carries enormous executive authority, access to political influence, and the ability to shape the lives of millions of Floridians. Yet holding that office does not necessarily mean that Donalds will be permitted to exercise its power without interference from the political interests that helped put him there.

I question whether the MAGA Republican establishment regards Donalds as an equal partner in its distribution of political influence and opportunity. Will he enjoy the same independence, protection, and access to the centers of wealth and power that other Republican governors have enjoyed? Or will his political value remain conditional upon his willingness to advance the agenda of those who helped elevate him?

And that brings me back to the fundamental question: Does Byron Donalds possess the power to say no to the people who helped put him in the governor’s mansion—and survive politically and financially when he does?

Donalds may discover that the price of admission is not the same as the price of belonging.

He has attached his political fortunes to men whose loyalty is often conditional and whose political alliances can become liabilities when circumstances change. That leaves him vulnerable to pressures that may have little to do with the interests of Florida’s citizens.

If Donalds ever challenges the interests that helped elevate him, we may discover just how conditional their support really is. His past controversies could become liabilities in a political confrontation, although there is no basis yet to assert that anyone is holding them over him as a threat.

The test will not be how enthusiastically Republican leaders celebrate his historic election. It will be how they respond if he exercises independent judgment, rejects their demands, or places Florida’s interests ahead of their political ambitions.

And if his political alliances eventually collapse, I will not confuse the consequences of his own choices with an injustice merely because he is Black. Political accountability applies to Byron Donalds as surely as it applies to every other governor.

The tragedy would be for Florida’s citizens to pay the price for those choices long before Donalds himself does.

The governor’s mansion may be his official residence. Whether the power inside it is truly his remains to be seen.

What the Donalds Administration May Bring

Florida must evaluate Byron Donalds through the actual instruments of government rather than the symbolism of his election.

His published political priorities include affordability, insurance, education, immigration enforcement, deregulation, law enforcement, and government spending.6 Those promises must be compared with the laws he signs, the budgets he proposes, the appointments he makes, and the interests that benefit from his decisions.

Education will be an early test. Will the Donalds’ administration continue the restrictions on how public institutions address race, history, and inequality? Will expanded school choice come with meaningful accountability for the use of public money? Will district public schools receive the resources necessary to serve the children who remain in them?

And will Donalds, whose political roots reach back to the Tea Party movement and its hostility toward expansive public spending, continue his unwavering commitment to school choice7, even as questions persist about its consequences for Florida’s economically disenfranchised communities? Will he acknowledge that expanding educational options does not necessarily mean expanding educational opportunity, particularly for families whose children depend upon adequately funded neighborhood public schools? Or will he continue advancing an ideology that promises parental freedom while leaving the children with the fewest economic resources to bear the greatest risks?

Immigration enforcement will provide another test of executive judgment. Floridians should examine the administration’s cooperation with federal authorities, the use of state resources, and the consequences for due process, families, workers, and local communities.

Housing and insurance may prove especially revealing. Florida households are confronting the costs of property insurance, housing, and everyday necessities. Donalds has promised measures addressing affordability, but campaign promises are not household savings. The relevant questions concern who receives financial relief, who bears new costs, and whether regulatory decisions primarily protect consumers or powerful industries.

Voting rights and election administration demand continuing scrutiny. Administrative procedures, legislative changes, and enforcement priorities can affect political participation without attracting the attention generated by major statewide legislation.

Appointments may be equally consequential. The people chosen to direct agencies, administer programs, interpret regulations, and control public expenditures will shape the daily experience of government long after campaign speeches have been forgotten.

Donalds should be judged by these decisions and their measurable consequences.

If he governs independently, the evidence should show it. If he functions principally as an extension of Trump’s political priorities or the DeSantis governing apparatus, the evidence should show that too.

Florida’s citizens should not have to rely on political theater to discover who is exercising the power of their government.

Angie Nixon and the Democratic Party’s Failure of Political Imagination

Angie Nixon’s Senate campaign may ultimately tell us more about the future of Democratic politics in Florida than the national party is prepared to acknowledge.

Nixon defeated Alex Vindman in the Democratic primary, winning approximately 56 percent of the vote.8 Her victory challenged a familiar assumption in national political strategy: that recognition, conventional credentials, and access to established fundraising networks necessarily identify the candidate best positioned to compete.

Nixon represented a different political proposition.

Her experience as a legislator and community organizer connected her campaign to the material concerns of Floridians who have too often been approached as reliable voting constituencies rather than participants in the formation of political power.

She did not enter the general election without financial support. Her campaign raised substantial money, and outside organizations also invested in the contest. The question is therefore not whether Nixon received assistance. It is whether the Democratic Party’s national institutions recognized her potential early enough, invested sufficiently, and organized with the urgency that a competitive statewide campaign required.

There are several explanations that deserve investigation.

National strategists may have concluded that Florida’s Republican registration advantage and expensive media markets made substantial investment too risky. They may have preferred to concentrate resources in states with more favorable electoral histories.

But that explanation raises its own problem. If national Democrats repeatedly deny Florida the investment necessary to rebuild its political infrastructure, how can the state ever escape the electoral disadvantages used to justify withholding that investment?

There is also the question of Nixon’s politics. Her unapologetically progressive positions and grassroots orientation may have made establishment strategists uncomfortable. That possibility deserves scrutiny, although discomfort cannot be asserted as the cause of funding decisions without evidence.

And there is a larger institutional question. Have Democratic organizations become so dependent on familiar consultants, familiar candidates, familiar fundraising networks, and familiar measures of electability that they struggle to recognize political strength developing outside those arrangements?

Nixon’s campaign did not win. But neither did it demonstrate that her political approach was incapable of competing.

The distinction is fundamental.

A narrow defeat achieved under substantial structural disadvantages can reveal an opportunity. It can also reveal how much stronger a campaign might have been with earlier investment, more durable infrastructure, and a national organization willing to challenge its own assumptions.

The Democratic Party must answer a question it cannot evade indefinitely:

Did national Democrats fail to recognize Angie Nixon’s political strength, or did they recognize it and remain unwilling to embrace the kind of politics that produced it?

Those are different failures. Both deserve examination.

Restoration, Accommodation, and the Voters Who Refuse to Go Back

Florida’s election also raises a question that reaches beyond the candidates themselves.

What happens when the people who organized, contributed, volunteered, persuaded their neighbors, and turned out to vote discover that party leadership intends to return to the very political habits they were struggling to overcome?

There is a difference between cooperation that produces public benefits and accommodation that protects an unacceptable political status quo.

That distinction matters because the Democratic electorate is not uniform. Some voters favor bipartisan problem-solving. Others demand vigorous investigation, structural reform, and consequences for abuse of public authority. Many expect both effective government and accountability.

But Democratic leaders should not mistake a desire for functional government for permission to abandon the work of confronting the political machinery that has produced so much public distrust.

The danger is not simply that party leaders will compromise. Democratic government requires negotiation. The danger is that they will confuse negotiation with surrender, civility with accountability, and the restoration of familiar political routines with meaningful reform.

The voters who helped produce Florida’s Democratic legislative gains may not regard those gains as an invitation to resume business as usual.

They may instead expect their representatives to use every legitimate instrument of government to examine executive decisions, challenge harmful policies, protect public resources, and demand answers from those exercising state power.

A kumbaya approach that substitutes political reassurance for measurable action risks a confrontation with the very voters whose participation made those gains possible.

That possibility should not be treated as a threat to Democratic unity. It is a test of whether party leadership understands the demands of the electorate it claims to represent.

Florida’s voters have already demonstrated that the political balance can change.

The next question is whether the Democratic Party is prepared to change with them.

Holding the Donalds Administration Accountable

The election is over. The work of democratic accountability is not.

Floridians cannot afford to treat the next four years as an interval between campaigns. The decisions that will shape their schools, communities, public services, insurance costs, voting access, and civil rights will occur through legislative sessions, agency proceedings, budget negotiations, appointments, and administrative actions.

Many of those decisions will receive far less attention than the governor’s public appearances. That is precisely why they must be followed.

Florida’s legislative gains may provide Democrats with additional opportunities to challenge executive priorities and exercise institutional leverage, although the extent of that leverage depends upon the final chamber composition and the rules governing legislative action. But accountability cannot be left exclusively to elected Democrats.

Community organizations, civil rights advocates, educators, labor organizations, local journalists, legal advocates, and ordinary citizens possess important tools for examining government action.

Public-records requests can expose administrative decisions and financial arrangements. Legislative hearings can reveal policy priorities and the arguments used to justify them. Budget documents can show whether campaign commitments are receiving actual financial support. Procurement records can identify the businesses and organizations receiving public contracts.

Court challenges may be necessary when executive or legislative actions violate constitutional or statutory protections. And the consequences of government decisions must be documented in the communities that experience them.

Florida should develop a continuing public record of the Donalds administration: its promises, appointments, legislation, spending decisions, agency directives, and measurable outcomes. That record should not depend upon whether a particular decision attracts national media attention. The objective is not perpetual political outrage. It is informed public accountability.

A governor who knows that citizens are watching the machinery of government, rather than merely reacting to political performances, faces a different kind of public scrutiny.

Florida Did Not Fail the Democrats

The Democratic Party must resist the temptation to interpret Florida’s election as another occasion for explaining why the state cannot be won.

That explanation is increasingly inadequate.

Millions of Floridians voted for alternatives to Republican statewide leadership. Democratic legislative candidates achieved meaningful gains. A former Republican congressman who publicly reconsidered his political commitments came within a narrow margin of winning the governorship. A progressive Black woman challenged an incumbent Republican senator in a competitive statewide contest.

Those outcomes do not prove that Democrats would have won with a different candidate, a different message, or a larger investment. Elections do not permit such easy conclusions.

They do establish that Florida’s political possibilities deserve serious examination rather than reflexive dismissal.

The national Democratic Party must confront the possibility that its definition of an unwinnable state has become part of the machinery that keeps that state unwinnable.

And it must confront an even more uncomfortable possibility: that voters are sometimes more prepared for political change than the institutions organized to represent them.

Florida now faces a Donalds governorship. Its citizens will have to contend with the policies he advances, the alliances he maintains, and the uses to which he puts the authority of his office.

But Florida’s Democrats face a different test.

Will they learn from the people who organized and voted for change? Will they invest in political leadership that emerges from communities rather than merely from familiar institutional networks? Will they recognize genuine political growth without demanding ideological perfection? Will they defend the public interest with the seriousness their voters expect?

Or will they return to the old strategies, old calculations, old consultants, and old habits that have repeatedly delivered the same disappointing results?

Florida did not reject change.

And the question is no longer simply whether Democrats can win Florida in the next election.

It is whether a political party that claims to represent change can stop treating the people demanding it as an electoral risk.

 

SCRIBBLING TRUTH  |  OUR COMMON GROUND

FROM THE SCRIBBLING TRUTH BOOKSHELF

front cover of book, They Left Her In a Pool of Her Own BloodTHEY LEFT AMERICA IN A POOL OF HER OWN BLOOD

America Was Gang-Raped ::: American Democracy Robbed of Her Pride, Dignity, and Self

By Janice Graham

A provocative political allegory that examines the criminal violation of American democracy, the institutions that failed to protect her, and the struggle to reclaim the political agency of her citizens.

By Janice Graham  |  OUR COMMON GROUND Digital Publishing

Click the cover to read about the book and preview its contents.

 

An OUR COMMON GROUND Digital Publishing project

FLORIDA AFTER THE MIDTERMS  |  JANICE GRAHAM

SCRIBBLING TRUTH  |  OUR COMMON GROUND

Endnotes

These notes document identified factual premises; they do not independently validate the author’s political interpretations. Entries marked SOURCE REQUIRED remain open research items.

  1. Florida statewide results and candidate identification. Florida Department of State, Division of Elections,“Florida Election Watch: Governor,” 2026 General Election, unofficial election-night returns,

https://floridaelectionwatch.gov/StateOffices/Governor; Christie Zizo, “Election Day in Florida: Republicans Sweep Statewide Races,” News 6, November 3, 2026, https://www.clickorlando.com/election-2026/2026/11/03/electionday-in-florida-donalds-jolly-reflect-on-end-of-campaign/.

  1. Exact gubernatorial vote totals. Florida Department of State, Division of Elections, “Florida Election Watch: Governor,” 2026 General Election, unofficial election-night results, accessed November 6, 2026, https://floridaelectionwatch.gov/StateOffices/Governor. The cited returns report 4,132,334 votes for Donalds and 4,024,639 for Jolly.
  2. Legislative gains. Christie Zizo, “Election Day in Florida: Republicans Sweep Statewide Races,” News 6, November 3, 2026, https://www.clickorlando.com/election-2026/2026/11/03/election-day-in-florida-donalds-jolly-r eflect-on-end-of-campaign/. Reports several Democratic state legislative pickups; final chamber totals should be checked.
  3. Gillum 2018 result — verification pending. [SOURCE REQUIRED] Insert the Florida Division of Elections certified2018 gubernatorial returns before public release.
  4. Donalds’s Jim Crow remarks. Louis Jacobson and Samantha Putterman, “Fact-Checking Byron Donalds’ ‘JimCrow’ Comments on Black Families, Conservatism,” PolitiFact, June 10, 2024,

https://api.politifact.com/article/2024/jun/10/fact-checking-byron-donalds-jim-crow-comments/. Includes Donalds’ explanation and historical context.

  1. Donalds campaign policy agenda. Byron Donalds for Governor, “On the Issues,” campaign website, accessed November 6, 2026, https://byrondonalds.com/issues/. Campaign positions are promises, not evidence of implemented policy.
  2. School-choice policy. Byron Donalds for Governor, “Education,” campaign website, accessed November 6,

2026, https://byrondonalds.com/issues/education/. The platform calls for education funding to follow students. The manuscript’s assessment of effects on economically disadvantaged communities requires separate empirical evidence.

  1. Nixon Democratic primary. “2026 Florida—U.S. Senate Primary,” StumpWatch, citing Florida state electionauthority results, https://www.stumpwatch.com/elections/fec-2026-FL-S-PRIMARY-2026-08-18; Ana Goñi-Lessan, “Nixon Upsets Vindman, Squares Off against Moody for U.S. Senate,” News Service of Florida via WUWF, August 18, 2026, https://www.wuwf.org/florida-news/2026-08-18/nixon-upsets-vindman-squares-off-against-moody-for-us-senate?_amp=true.

Selected bibliography

Image Credits and Permissions

Credits are based on public documents.  No reuse permission is asserted for third-party images.

1. Governor primary results graphic · jolly.jpg

Visible publisher mark: Tampa Bay 28 / ABC. Shows Byron Donalds and David Jolly projected primary victories, not general-election results.

Reference: supplied image; original broadcast/article URL and graphic creator not yet verified.

2. Angie Nixon magazine graphic · nixon3.jpg

Visible mastheads: New York / Intelligencer. Feature headline: ·The Abandoned Florida Project.· Includes Angie Nixon campaign portrait.

Reference: supplied magazine-style graphic; original article URL, photographer, and image license not yet verified.

3. Byron Donalds / aide graphic · byron maga.jpg

Visible publication label: The Daily Beast. Graphic headline concerns a top aide and an alleged racial rant. This is a reproduced news graphic, not an independently verified claim.

Reference: supplied news graphic; original article URL, artist, and reuse rights not yet verified.

4. Donald Trump and Byron Donalds · Donalds post 2.jpg

Photograph depicts Donald Trump and Byron Donalds greeting one another at a public event.

Reference: supplied photograph; photographer, event date, agency, and publication not yet verified.

FLORIDA AFTER THE MIDTERMS  ·  EDITORIAL REVIEW EDITION

SCRIBBLING TRUTH  |  OUR COMMON GROUND

Image Credits and Permissions

Continued. The following images have not yet been matched to verified original publications or licensed source files.

5. Donalds election celebration · Donalds post.jpg

Photograph shows Byron Donalds celebrating onstage amid confetti.

Reference: supplied photograph; photographer, date, and publication not yet verified.

6. Jolly / Donalds side-by-side · jolly byron.jpg

Composite portrait graphic showing David Jolly and Byron Donalds speaking.

Reference: supplied composite; original component photographers and editor not yet verified.

7. Jolly / Nixon campaign graphic · jolly nixon.jpg

Campaign-style ·Take Back Florida / Vote D· graphic featuring David Jolly and Angie Nixon.

Reference: supplied campaign graphic; issuing organization and distribution rights not yet verified.

8. Disney characters · disney.jpg

Photograph of Disney characters in front of Cinderella Castle. Disney characters and associated imagery are protected intellectual property.

Reference: supplied photograph; photographer, copyright owner, and redistribution authorization not yet verified.

9. Byron Donalds pawn cartoon · pawn.jpg

Political illustration depicting a red MAGA pawn labeled Byron Donalds. A faint visible watermark/credit is not reliably legible at the supplied resolution.

Reference: supplied cartoon; artist, syndication source, and reproduction license not yet verified.

PUBLICATION RIGHTS NOTE

No reuse permission is asserted for third-party images.

FLORIDA AFTER THE MIDTERMS

FLORIDA AFTER THE MIDTERMS  •  JANICE GRAHAM

SCRIBBLING TRUTH  |  OUR COMMON GROUND