Problem: In the closely contested 2000 election, the state played a pivotal role. Out of more than 5.8 million votes for the two main contenders Bush and Al Gore, around 500 votes separated the two candidates for the all-decisive Florida electoral votes that landed Bush the election win. Florida's felony disenfranchisement law is more severe than most European nations or other American states. A 2002 study in the American Sociological Review concluded that "if the state’s 827,000 disenfranchised felons had voted at the same rate as other Floridians, Democratic candidate Al Gore would have won Florida—and the presidency—by more than 80,000 votes."
What did this mean in the 2000 election 
---
Answer: if the state’s 827,000 disenfranchised felons had voted at the same rate as other Floridians, Democratic candidate Al Gore would have won Florida


Problem: From the 1930s through much of the 1960s, Florida was essentially a one-party state dominated by white conservative Democrats, who together with other Democrats of the Solid South, exercised considerable control in Congress. They gained federal money from national programs; like other southern states, Florida residents have received more federal monies than they pay in taxes: the state is a net beneficiary. Since the 1970s, the conservative white majority of voters in the state has largely shifted from the Democratic to the Republican Party. It has continued to support Republican presidential candidates through the 20th century, except in 1976 and 1996, when the Democratic nominee was from the South. They have had "the luxury of voting for presidential candidates who pledge to cut taxes and halt the expansion of government while knowing that their congressional delegations will continue to protect federal spending."
What do these candidates that Florida supports pledge  
---
Answer: the luxury of voting for presidential candidates who pledge to cut taxes and halt the expansion of government


Problem: Provide Campaign Assistance. Minority leaders are typically energetic and aggressive campaigners for partisan incumbents and challengers. There is hardly any major aspect of campaigning that does not engage their attention. For example, they assist in recruiting qualified candidates; they establish "leadership PACs" to raise and distribute funds to House candidates of their party; they try to persuade partisan colleagues not to retire or run for other offices so as to hold down the number of open seats the party would need to defend; they coordinate their campaign activities with congressional and national party campaign committees; they encourage outside groups to back their candidates; they travel around the country to speak on behalf of party candidates; and they encourage incumbent colleagues to make significant financial contributions to the party's campaign committee. "The amount of time that [Minority Leader] Gephardt is putting in to help the DCCC [Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee] is unheard of," noted a Democratic lobbyist."No DCCC chairman has ever had that kind of support."
Why does the DCCC establish leadership PAC's?
---
Answer:
unanswerable