Alan Grayson was probably never going to win re-election in 2010. It just wasn’t the year for it. His opponent was a long time political institution (even if he’d been out of politics for a while), not visibly toxic, and with deep fundraising ties. In other words, an acceptable, well funded Republican in a swing district in a Republican wave election.

But, let’s be honest. It didn’t have to be as bad a defeat as it was.

Grayson simply refused to run a campaign suited for central Florida.

No one is saying he should have given up his principles or ceased to be a fiery advocate.

But some of his issues were more in tune with the district than others. Somehow, those issues (his Ron Paul-like mistrust of the Fed, I suspect, would have played surprisingly well) never got aired but those were not so in tune with the district (constant criticism of military actions in Afghanistan in a heavily military district, for example; while supporting a draw down from Afghanistan might have polled well, nothing that sounds even remotely like criticism of the military would) were a lot more visible.

At present, Grayson is angling to run for what will presumably be a new, swing district in central Florida (probably with a large Puerto Rican population).

He doesn’t appear to have learned any lessons.

In my inbox are appeals on his behalf from – get this – Ralph Nader.

Not only will this kind of effort not win friends from swing voters, a lot of dyed in the wool Florida Democrats are still a little miffed at Nader about 2000. This is the kind of campaign that could cause a former Congressman, with strong ties to the  base Democratic vote to actually lose a primary, nevermind a general election.

I liked Grayson’s voice in the House. He didn’t win a lot of issues, but he never let up on reminding Congress of its obligations to fairness and justice. We need voices like that. But unless something changes, that voice isn’t going to his.