MIAMI — Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch seemed to be on track for a full Senate vote when a key Democrat helped throw it in doubt: Bill Nelson of Florida.

Nelson’s position had been closely watched. As a Senate indicator species — he’s an institutional centrist with a history of allowing Supreme Court picks to get a full vote — his stance on Gorsuch stood to provide insight into the political calculus of other Trump-state Senate Democrats who, like him, will be up for reelection in 2018.


By announcing on Monday his intention to filibuster Gorsuch, Nelson raised questions about the judge's path to 60 votes and revealed a shift in political fault lines in the confirmation fight. Faced with the prospect of a primary challenge in the event he didn’t filibuster and the likelihood of a tough general election campaign against GOP Gov. Rick Scott either way, Nelson chose to lock down his left flank.

“Bill Nelson is usually a centrist on issues like this, but he may be influenced by talk of him having a primary opponent,” said state Sen. Randolph Bracy, who’s considering a primary challenge of the senator.

Pam Keith, a 2016 U.S. Senate candidate also mulling a bid against Nelson, said in a text message exchange that “Nelson VERY much is feeling the pressure, as are many Dems in DC.”

“Bottom-line is that the base is far more strident than they are,” Keith continued, adding that rank-and-file Democrats have much to lose if their elected officials help Trump. “The grassroots could give a damn about ‘collegiality' or decorum in the halls of Congress. I think the leaders are learning that the appetite for outright obstruction is as high on our side as it ever was for the Tea Party.”

In his written statement explaining his plans to block Gorsuch or, if that fails, vote against his nomination, Nelson said his decision was rooted in policy and that he had an “open mind” about the circuit court judge until his record became clear.

“I have real concerns with his thinking on protecting the right to vote and allowing unlimited money in political campaigns,” Nelson said. “In addition, the judge has consistently sided with corporations over employees, as in the case of a freezing truck driver who, contrary to common sense, Judge Gorsuch would have allowed to be fired for abandoning his disabled rig during extreme weather conditions.”

But unlike other Democratic senators, Republicans noted, Nelson had voted to confirm Gorsuch for a lower court seat and had allowed for a full vote that led to the confirmation of one of President George W. Bush’s Supreme Court justices.

“Remember, in 2006, Nelson voted for cloture to end the filibuster on Judge Alito’s nomination,” the National Republican Senatorial Committee said in a statement. “The same year, Nelson joined his Senate colleagues to confirm Judge Gorsuch to the Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit in a unanimous vote. Clearly Nelson has been in Washington way too long and is forgetting he represents Florida, not Washington liberals.”

But so much has changed since those votes were cast by Nelson, including a Democratic Party that has moved steadily leftward.

In 2006, Nelson faced his first reelection and Democrats didn’t dare discuss challenging him in a primary. There was also a belief among the state’s Democratic elite that Nelson’s centrist-sounding style was a perfect fit for Florida. In November of that year, he proved it by crushing Republican Katherine Harris, who ran a terrible campaign and was widely despised by many for her role as Florida secretary of state in the disputed 2000 presidential election.

So voting for Alito and Gorsuch wasn’t just easy 11 years ago for Nelson — it was good politics. The electorate was whiter and older. Social media was in its infancy. Black Lives Matter didn’t exist.

Florida politics shifted with the ascent of President Obama’s political team and outside liberal groups that focused on changing the complexion of the electorate through voter-registration drives that made the state’s voters – and especially the Democratic Party — less white, younger and more liberal than ever.

In 2012, Nelson’s second reelection unfolded against the backdrop of Obama’s bid for a second term. And thanks to Democratic turnout inspired by Obama, as well as a weak opponent in Rep. Connie Mack, Nelson soundly won again.

Unlike many other Democrats, Nelson has historically been able to win enough conservative-voting rural and suburban whites while appealing to just enough of his own base’s voters to carry him to victory in the four major urban areas of the state that Democrats need.

Then came Trump and his surprise narrow win in Florida last year — a victory fueled in part by relatively high white and relatively low Democratic turnout. Liberal activists began wondering whether Nelson’s style of politics was right for the electorate. In a party still sorting itself out in the wake of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders’ rise as a progressive force, Keith made noises about challenging Nelson along with Bracy and Tim Canova, a Sanders supporter who subjected former Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz to an unexpectedly expensive primary last year.

Nelson backers say he never faced a serious threat from any Democratic rivals. But they privately concede that the open talk of primary challengers for Nelson is a sign of the state — and nation’s — changing political terrain.

Nelson’s announcement on Gorsuch — more than 10 days before he had a chance to vote — was widely praised by liberal and Democratic activists as well as his three potential opponents. Those who follow Nelson closely say they’re not surprised by his decision. The party is shifting left and so is he.

“Bill Nelson is the only Democrat who has been elected statewide five times. You don’t do that if you don’t know how to read the tea leaves,” one Florida Democratic operative said, referring to Nelson’s past wins as a senator and statewide elected insurance commissioner.

By heeding the call of party leaders and activists to filibuster Gorsuch, Nelson suddenly alters the confirmation equation -- it raises the threat that Democrats could muster enough votes to force GOP leaders to invoke the so-called nuclear option of essentially ending the filibuster.

That’s led Republicans to portray Nelson as a opportunist who’s playing weather vane politics. For Jeff Bechdel, an operative with the American Rising political group who worked for Nelson’s 2012 opponent, agreed in harsher terms.

POLITICO Playbook newsletter Sign up today to receive the #1-rated newsletter in politics Email Sign Up By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

“Nelson portrays himself back home as a moderate gentleman farmer but in reality he has a steady left-wing voting record,” said Bechdel.

He chalked up Nelson’s political aura as a triumph of style over substance. “He is not one for bombast and that has helped him fly under the radar.”

Jeff Weaver, who managed Sanders’ presidential campaign and now runs its Our Revolution spinoff, said Nelson has sound reasons to vote against Gorsuch. Aside from Gorsuch's decisions, he said, Gorsuch sounds like a clone of conservative Chief Justice John Roberts.

And then there’s payback: The GOP refused to allow hearings or a vote on Obama’s third Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland, which kept the vacancy open for Trump.

“What we saw in Democratic primaries last year is independent voters and Democrats were moving to a progressive candidate when offered a real choice,” Weaver said. “It is smart politics to recognize where voters are.”

