David Nather observes in his post on “The Obamacare Enthusiasm Gap” at Politico that “…the task for Democrats is to figure out how to close the enthusiasm gap — and convince their voters that Obamacare should be a voting issue for them, too…The reality is, it’s probably going to be a negative message rather than a positive one. Most Democrats believe they can motivate voters by shifting the conversation to the GOP repeal efforts — warning voters about all the things they’d lose if the law went away…The formula that party strategists had recommended until now — telling candidates to stress that they’ll fix what’s wrong with the law — is not going to work. Instead, they’re saying vulnerable Democrats need to declare that millions of people have coverage now, remind everyone how bad the old system was, and accuse Republicans of wanting to return to it…Liberal Democrats say the “no apologies” strategy is one lesson of the Florida special election this month, in which a weak Republican candidate, David Jolly, won with appeals to anti-Obamacare voters while Democrat Alex Sink lost with the standard “fix what’s bad, keep the good” formula.
At HuffPo Robert Kuttner offers “some thoughts about how to turn Obamacare from lead weight into a political lifeboat for this November.” Kuttner advocates “nationalizing” the mid rem elections: “If Republicans want to make a promise to repeal or de-fund the ACA the centerpiece of this November’s campaign, let’s have that fight and educate Americans on just what repeal would mean. The ACA might even turn into a political winner — or at least not the big loser that it now looks to be…Economists have a nice concept known as “endowment effects.” In plain English, that means people hate to give up what they have. The Republicans have turned that psychology against President Obama, because the ACA requires some really lousy insurance policies to be swapped for better ones that are occasionally more costly…But by November, Obama could turn the psychology of endowment effects back against the Republicans. Do Americans really want to give up their right to get insurance despite being sick?”
And at the L.A. Times Noam M. Levey reports that “At least 9.5 million previously uninsured people have gotten health insurance since Obamacare started” and “Fewer than a million people who had health plans in 2013 are now uninsured because their plans were canceled for not meeting new standards set by the law, the Rand survey indicates.”
If this is in the ballpark, Democratic cheeseheads need some GOTV encouragement, pronto.
From Andrew Kohut’s Wall St. Journal article “The Demographics Behind the Democrats’ 2014 Troubles,” here’s one reason why Democrats should consider campaigning hard against the Republican Party as a whole, instead of just individual candidates, this year: “In Pew’s December survey, 59% rated the GOP unfavorably, while just 35% held a favorable opinion of the party. The Democratic Party’s ratings were not great either, but markedly better–47% favorable versus 48% unfavorable…Democrats have maintained a wide image advantage over Republicans since 2011 when the GOP first threatened to shut down the government over the debt ceiling. The public seems to see Republicans as more likely to take extreme positions and less willing to compromise. Moreover, unfavorable opinions of the tea party have nearly doubled to 49% in 2013 from 25% in 2010, according to Pew’s polling.”
At CNN Politics John King discusses “Inside Politics: Seeds of an Obama political recovery?” King notes that “..Democrats hope to improve their midterm political standing with a push on economic issues with appeal to Democratic base constituency groups — from raising the minimum wage to immigration reform…Broadly, the Democratic push is designed to show, in their view, the Republican obsession with Obamacare has blocked action on a meaningful economic agenda. More narrowly, each of the Democratic priority items is aimed at appealing to a critical midterm constituency, with special emphasis on women, African-Americans and Latinos.”
This should be turned into a nation-wide ad campaign.
Cokie and Steve Roberts also argue “Don’t count out Dems this November,” noting “The Democrats’ best hope for recovery is this: Two large voting blocs, young people and women, actually agree with them on many key issues. The question is whether the party can get past the “bad taste” of Obamacare, and the president’s pallid popularity, and focus attention on those issues…polling numbers on Obamacare are slowly turning around…Democrats retain a huge edge in the technology of politics and the ability to contact — and galvanize — potential supporters…Democrats also retain a large advantage among Hispanic and Asian voters, and Republicans are allowing hard-core conservatives in the House to block immigration reform — a self-defeating position that undercuts GOP attempts to court those groups.”
Ballot measures yes. Usage on election day…maybe not.

It is reasonably clear by now that the report of the bipartisan “lines commission” set up by the President after the 2012 elections to facilitate voting opportunities is being rigorously ignored in Republican-controlled states where the “war on voting” rages on. Here’s my take at Washington Monthly today on the latest developments–and the ultimate solution.

The latest state to curtain early voting is, unsurprisingly, Wisconsin, as The Nation‘s Ari Berman reports:

Yesterday Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker signed legislation eliminating early voting hours on weekends and nights, when it’s most convenient for many voters to go to the polls. When they took over state government in 2011, Wisconsin Republicans reduced the early voting period from three weeks to two weeks and only one weekend. Now they’ve eliminated weekend voting altogether.
Over 250,000 Wisconsinites voted early in 2012, one in twelve overall voters. Cutting early voting has a clear partisan purpose: those who voted early voted for Obama 58 to 41 percent in Wisconsin in 2012, compared to his 51 to 48 percent margin on Election Day. Extended early voting hours were particularly critical with respect to high voter turnout in big cities like Milwaukee and Madison. “It’s just sad when a political party has so lost faith in its ideas that it’s pouring all of its energy into election mechanics,” said Wisconsin GOP State Senator Dale Schultz, a critic of the legislation.
Wisconsin Republicans are following their Ohio brethren in adopting this strategy:
A month ago, Ohio passed legislation cutting early voting by a week, eliminating same-day voter registration and restricting the availability of absentee ballots while Secretary of State Jon Husted issued a directive doing away with early voting on weeknights and Sundays as well. 600,000 Ohioans, ten percent of the electorate, voted early in 2012. The cuts in Ohio, like Wisconsin, have a clear partisan and racial underpinning–in Cleveland, for example, African-Americans made up 56 percent of those who voted on weekends in 2008.

It’s another sign, to me at least, of the folly of letting states and localities exercise so much control over the fundamental right of democratic participation. Of course conservatives who are prone to believe that evil liberal elites are buying votes by supporting government benefits for those people are going to utilize every lever they have for foiling the “plot.” But the rest of us don’t have to go along with it, and at some point we’re going to realize that nationalizing election procedures to the maximum constitutional extent is the only way to stop these franchise-reducing measures.

Democrats need to make the right to vote more than an occasional preoccupation in this or that state, but instead a constant, abrasive, national priority.

The mid term fall off of young people discussed by Ed Kilgore yesterday is a very serious concern for Democrats, all the more so in light of a new Gallup poll indicating that “Young adults — those between the ages of 18 and 29 — have typically aligned themselves with the Democratic Party, but they have become substantially more likely to do so since 2006.”
The polling data, discussed by Jeffrey M. Jones in his Gallup.com post “Young Americans’ Affinity for Democratic Party Has Grown,” are based on “yearly aggregated data from multiple day Gallup telephone polls conducted between 1993 and 2013.” Jones adds:

From 1993 to 2003, 47% of 18- to 29-year-olds, on average, identified as Democrats or said they were independents but leaned to the Democratic Party, while 42% were Republicans or Republican leaners. That time span included two years in which young adults tilted Republican, 1994 and 1995, when Republicans won control of Congress. Since 2006, the average gap in favor of the Democratic Party among young adults has been 18 percentage points, 54% to 36%.
A major reason young adults are increasingly likely to prefer the Democratic Party is that today’s young adults are more racially and ethnically diverse than young adults of the past. U.S. political preferences are sharply divided by race, with nonwhite Americans of all ages overwhelmingly identifying as Democrats or leaning Democratic.
Gallup estimates that 54% of 18- to 29-year-olds are non-Hispanic white and 45% nonwhite, compared with 71% non-Hispanic white and 29% nonwhite in 1995, the first full year Gallup measured Hispanic ethnicity.
In 2013, 62% of nonwhite Americans between the ages of 18 and 29 were Democrats or Democratic leaners, while 25% were Republicans or Republican leaners. That 37-point Democratic advantage, though sizable, is slightly lower than the average 42-point advantage from 1995 through 2013.

It’s not only race that drives the blue trend, however. As Jones explains, “Young white adults, who previously aligned more with the Republican Party, have shifted Democratic. From 1995 to 2005, young whites consistently identified as or leaned Republican rather than Democratic, by an average of eight points. Since 2006, whites aged 18 to 29 have shown at least a slight Democratic preference in all but one year, with an average advantage of three points.”
Jones doesn’t offer any insights about party preferences between college-enrolled youth and those who are working in the labor force, which would be helpful for GOTV purposes. Dems should be encouraged by the trend favoring their party. But it won’t mean much if these young voters don’t show in November. Clearly, Democrats can benefit substantially from some well-targeted youth voter turnout projects.

As regular readers of TDS know, a baleful reality facing Democrats this year is the abiding reality of “midterm falloff” among key Democratic constituencies, particular young and minority (and particularly Hispanic) voters. At Larry Sabato’s Crystal Ball today, Geoffrey Skelley ran some numbers on the phenomenon for under-30 voters, and it makes for sobering reading. Here’s how I explained it at Washington Monthly:

According to Skelley’s numbers, the “midterm falloff” in the percentage of the electorate comprised of under-30 votes from the preceding presidential election was 9.5% in 1978, 8.0% in 1982, 7.8% in 1986, 6.3% in 1990, 7.6% in 1994, 3.7% in 1998, 5.7% in 2002, 4.4% in 2006, and 6.3% in 2010. You can say it’s not as bad lately as it once was, but it’s still mighty consistent. And at the same time, thanks to the aging of the Baby Boom generation, the percentage of the midterm electorate made up of over-60 voters has risen and then stayed high. In every midterm since 1994, over-60 voters have more than doubled under-30 voters as a percentage of the electorate. The gap in presidential years is vastly lower (as recently as 1992, under-30 voters still outnumbered over-60 voters).
As Skelley notes, the reasons for the age gap in midterms are not attributable to easy-to-change shortcomings in candidate or party messages:

[S]harply lower young voter participation in midterm elections is surely a trend that predates national exit polls. Older people are simply more likely to vote in general due to a number of lifestyle factors, such as buying a house, starting a family and becoming settled in a community. Even when the 18-to-29 cohort made up a plurality (30.4%) of the country’s adult population in 1980 (the last time that was true as the Baby Boomers got older), the 1982 midterm election saw an eight-point drop in that group’s portion of the electorate from the 1980 presidential election, falling from 22.9% to 14.9%.

There are, however, low-falloff years, such as 1998 (when Democrats broke the rules by making gains in a second-term midtern) and 2006 (when Democrats ran the table). Those should be the models for Democrats this year, when they depend on young voters more than at any time in memory.

With Senate Democrats in particularly suggesting that mitigating “midterm falloff” is their top priority, they have their work cut out for them.

Jeremy W. Peters and Michael D. Shear report at The New York Times that “Democrats, as Part of Midterm Strategy, to Schedule Votes on Pocketbook Issues.” The authors explain “The White House and congressional Democrats are preparing to step up attacks on Republicans over pocketbook issues like the minimum wage in the most aggressive and coordinated move yet to try to reverse the Republican momentum that threatens their control of the Senate in the final two years of the Obama presidency…The plan calls for bringing at least 10 different bills to a vote. In addition to the Minimum Wage Fairness Act and the Paycheck Fairness Act, others that are likely to be voted on include a Bring Jobs Home Act that would create tax credits for costs associated with bringing production back to the United States, an act to fund the nation’s infrastructure repair needs and one to make it more difficult to pass laws that raise the Medicare eligibility age.”
At Time magazine Jay Newton-Small explains why, in light of the George Washington University poll noted below: “Democrats are betting on a message of income inequality, which the poll shows is popular with voters. In the survey, Democrats lead Republicans when it comes to voters’ confidence that they’ll stand up for the middle class, 54% to 36%, and on representing middle class values, 52% to 39%.”
Also at the NYT, Jonathan Weisman’s “In Mississippi, It’s G.O.P. vs. Tea Party” probes the “last major battlefield in the clash between the Tea Party and the G.O.P. establishment.”
Bloomberg’s Julie Bykowicz explains how “Kochs, Rove, Chamber Fine-Tune Strategy to Beat Democrats.” Bykowicz rolls out the formula for their victory in FL-13: “The Republican collaboration included a synchronized television- and web-ad plan, a battery of anti-Sink mailers and a last-minute recorded voter appeal by Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky to suffocate support for a third-party candidate who threatened to draw votes from Jolly.”
Here’s the major ingredient missing from the recipe for turning the Lone Star state purple, then blue: “In Texas, which is home to nearly one in five of all U.S. Hispanics, just 39 percent of Hispanics who were eligible to vote in the 2012 presidential election cast a ballot. That’s compared with 48 percent of eligible U.S. Hispanics, 61 percent of eligible white Texans and 64 percent of eligible white Americans…Twenty-five percent of Texas Hispanic voters said they were contacted by campaigns or organizations encouraging them to vote in 2012, the report said. The national average was 31 percent…In Texas, where 38 percent of residents are Hispanic, both major political parties are actively pursuing Hispanic voters, 56 percent of whom identified as Democrats in 2012. Hispanics are expected to be a plurality of the state population by 2020.”
Labor lawyer Thomas Geoghegan makes a pitch that the time is right for a little voter turnout experiment: “Can’t one blue state, just one of them, try compulsory voting by initiative and see if it sets off a constitutional chain reaction? After all, the states are supposed to be “laboratories for experiment.” That’s why we have 50.”
So, “What If Republicans Capture the Senate?” At The Atlantic Norm Ornstein explains what is at sake, and it’s a horrible scenario: “A winning midterm would encourage the GOP’s worst impulses toward obstruction, hearten the 2016 presidential field, and bottle up Obama nominees…First, the real downside. Start by imagining what the GOP zeitgeist will be if the party picks off six, seven, or eight seats. My guess, the same as after the 2010 midterms: “Man, did that politics of obstruction work like a charm! Let’s double down on it and take the whole enchilada in 2016!”
Geoffrey Skelley argues at Sabato’s Crystal Ball that “Democrats’ increased reliance on young voters may lead them to struggle in midterm elections in the near future…Since the first national exit poll was taken for a midterm election in 1978, only once (in that first survey) has the 18-to-29 age group made up a larger portion of a midterm electorate than voters who were 60 or older…While Obama’s reelection in 2012 proved that Democrats can make up ground with strong support from the youngest voting cohort, the party could not turn those supporters out in 2010 and probably won’t be able to in 2014 either, given the historical pattern.”
A new World Health Organization report, flagged by Hunter at Kos, indicates that 1 out of every 8 deaths is caused by pollution. Since Republicans have no anti-pollution policies and embrace knee-jerk deregulation, Democrats might be able get some traction by making them explain how they would address this crisis.

Celinda Lake, Daniel Gotoff, and Alex Dunn have completed a strategic analysis of a new George Washington University Battleground poll of likely voters. Among their conclusions:

With the 2014 elections just over six months away, the midterms remain very tightly matched. In this most recent Battleground poll, Democrats have closed January’s 2 ‐ point deficit on the generic congressional ballot, and are now running neck and neck with Republican candidates nationally (43% Republican, 43% Democrat, 14% undecided). This dynamic, among other factors, substantiates the argument that the Democrats are competitively positioned for 2014, despite the gloomy conventional wisdom about the Party’s chances. The Democrats enjoy double ‐ digit advantages on key issues, including standing up for the middle class, representing middle class values, Social Security, and Medicare. Voters also see the Democrats as better when it comes to solving problems and the Party remains competitive on jobs, the economy, and even taxes. The data also reinforce the notion that congressional Democrats are making progress shifting out of a defensive posture on health care, both as the White House goes on an aggressive–and so far successful–full court press to encourage new sign ‐ ups, and as Americans increasingly come to see through the Obamacare spin and understand the benefits of the new law. Moreover, we see in this study evidence that Democrats’ efforts to define the elections around populist economic issues–raising the minimum wage, ensuring equal pay for working women, and strengthening the safety net of Social Security and Medicare–are finding traction among the 2014 electorate.

But the authors note that Dems face a formidable challenge:

…Turnout will be a major test for the Democrats. Fully 64% of Republicans are extremely likely to vote compared to 57% of Democrats, and that number falls to 36% among 18 ‐ 29 year olds and 38% among single women.

The authors cite “serious divisions within their ranks” among Republicans. Further, “while “68% of Democrats are happy with the direction of their Party, just 33% of Republicans are happy with the direction of their Party.” Lake, Gotoff and Dunn add that “Even stronger are perceptions that this country’s economic rules favor the rich (64% agree, 34% disagree), and a resounding majority believes the middle class has it the toughest in America (72% agree, 25% disagree)…This basic economic framework…has taken hold as the central narrative for understanding our economy by every major and minor subgroup in the data, with the exception of Republicans (though even 41% of GOPers believe that economic rules favor the rich).” In addition:

“The Battleground data reveal a compelling desire for the government to act in order to reduce the gap between the rich and everyone else (59% agree, 41% strongly ; 38% disagree), a direct rebuttal to Republican claims that the American people are not looking for solutions that create a different kind of economy. This call to action is voiced by 59% of independents, 84% of Democrats, and even 32% of Republicans. In fact, we find striking consensus around the desire–the need–for government to intervene on grounds of economic fairness. Women (+31 agree) and men (+9 agree) want intervention. Every age cohort in this data wants intervention, ranging from voters under 30 (+25) to seniors (+5). The same is true for whites (+11), moderates (+53), independents (+23), and by a whopping 26 ‐ point margin those voters who are undecided in the congressional contests. To say this is not a consensus position would be to ignore bold data to the contrary. …Not only do voters believe that Democrats are the Party more likely to stand up for the middle class (54% Democrats, 36% Republicans), but by similar margins that Democrats more closely represent middle class values (52% Democrats, 39% Republicans). This is no coincidence, of course–we have long found a Democratic advantage on the middle class. But neither are these casual advantages, and they may represent an intensifying effect as congressional Democrats (and the President) make the case for policies that would reduce the gap between the rich and everyone else: raising the minimum wage, investing in basic infrastructure projects designed to put Americans back to work, making college and job training more affordable for America’s youth, putting an end to corporate welfare, and requiring the very wealthy to pay their fair share in taxes.

“The Democrats must pivot from rebutting attacks on the Affordable Care Act to an agenda of bold economic action,” say the authors. “The Congressional Trial Heat and Views of the Parties The last two months have ushered in a number of encouraging signs for Democrats, and

The modest 2 ‐ point improvement in the generic congressional ballot obscures more dramatic movement underneath. Moderates have swung toward Democratic candidates in a big way, supporting them over Republicans by more than a two ‐ to ‐ one margin (46% Democrats, 21% Republicans, and 34% undecided). Independents are now closely split in their support: 31% backing the GOP, 29% the Democrats, with a formidable 40% of independents undecided. Seniors, who supported Republicans by seven points in January, now divide their loyalties between Democrats (43%) and Republicans (46%). The gender gap is alive and well, with women supporting the Democrats by a 10 ‐ point margin and men the Republicans by a similarly impressive 12 ‐ point margin. The marital gap is enormous: married men are voting Republican by a 22 ‐ point margin, while married women split (R+1). Single women are voting Democratic by a whopping 36 ‐ point margin, and single men by 13 points….Democrats should also capitalize on several important strengths as they prepare their candidates for November. Voters put their confidence in Democrats over Republicans on key issue dimensions, including standing up for the middle class (D+18), Medicare (D+14), representing middle class values (D+13), and Social Security (D+10). Voters who are undecided in the congressional race follow similar patterns. That the voters trust Democrats to protect Social Security and Medicare is no small token given the advanced age of the electorate in a midterm year; voters 60 and over afford Democrats a 7 ‐ point advantage on Social Security and Medicare

Lake, Gotoff and Dunn avoid making “sweeping predictions for November.” But they urge Democrats to “capitalize on several important strengths” and advocate “a bold economic policy agenda.” It’s an encouraging poll for Democrats, and if it’s on target, 2014 could be a precendent-busting midterm election.

At The National Journal, Alex Seitz-Wald’s “68 Percent More Likely to Turn Out If Measure to Legalize Pot Is on the Ballot” should be of considerable interest to state Democratic parties in their search for strategies to turn out younger voters in November. Seitz-Wald explains:

A new poll, conducted by a Democratic and Republican polling firm in partnership with George Washington University, suggests voters would be overwhelmingly more likely to go to the polls if they could vote on a ballot measure to legalize marijuana, something Democrats may want to keep in mind as they work to boost turnout.
Facing a tough map and perennial low turnout in midterms, Democrats are hoping to minimize losses in this year’s elections by enticing their voters to the polls in any way possible, which in some states includes marijuana liberalization. At least six states are expected to have marijuana questions on the ballot this year.
Colorado and Washington, which each had referenda to legalize the drug on the ballot in 2012, saw the youth share of the vote jump between 5 and 12 percentage points that year over 2008, even as it increased only marginally nationwide.
…The top response: “Much more likely,” an option selected by 39 percent of respondents. The next most popular choice was “somewhat more likely,” which garnered 30 percent of responses. Just 13 percent said they’d be somewhat or much less likely to vote, and 16 percent said it would make no difference.
Together, when rounded, that suggests that 68 percent of likely voters would be more likely to go to the polls if they could vote on a measure to legalize pot.

Further, adds Seitz-Wald, “A breakdown of the numbers provided to National Journal shows liberals are more enthusiastic than moderates or conservatives, with 76 percent saying they would be more likely to vote if marijuana legalization were on the ballot, compared with 64 percent of conservatives and 61 percent of moderates.”
As for caveats, Seitz-Wald notes, “While it worked in Colorado and Washington in 2012, a legalization referendum didn’t seem to help drive youth or liberal turnout in California in 2010. And medical marijuana, as opposed to full legalization, doesn’t seem to have any stimulative effect on youth turnout.”
And it’s not just younger voters, Seitz-Wald explains: “Indeed, the age breakdown on the GW poll found that voters between the ages of 45 and 64 were the most likely to express a strong preference for voting on a legalization ballot measure, although the overall numbers saying they were more likely to vote were roughly even across age ranges, except for those over 65.”
Seitz-Wald notes that there is not much time to get marijuana measures on ballots in November. Wherever it’s still possible, however, it appears that doing so has no down side for Democrats.

The Republicans’ “pity the poor, beleaguered Koch brothers” whine in response to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s calling them out is getting a lot of airplay with the GOP’s lapdog media personalities. It’s highly unlikely, however, that it will get much traction in public opinion polls. Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich does a good job of explaining why in his HuffPo post, “The New Billionaire Political Bosses“:

But in using their vast wealth to change those rules and laws in order to fit their political views, the Koch brothers are undermining our democracy. That’s a betrayal of the most precious thing Americans share.
The Kochs exemplify a new reality that strikes at the heart of America. The vast wealth that has accumulated at the top of the American economy is not itself the problem. The problem is that political power tends to rise to where the money is. And this combination of great wealth with political power leads to greater and greater accumulations and concentrations of both — tilting the playing field in favor of the Kochs and their ilk, and against the rest of us.
America is not yet an oligarchy, but that’s where the Koch’s and a few other billionaires are taking us.

Reich, author of Beyond Outrage, has some telling numbers to back up his claim:

So far in the 2014 election cycle, “Americans for Prosperity,” the Koch brother’s political front group, has aired more than 17,000 broadcast TV commercials, compared with only 2,100 aired by Republican Party groups.
“Americans for Prosperity” has also been outspending top Democratic super PACs in nearly all of the Senate races Republicans are targeting this year. In seven of the nine races the difference in total spending is at least two-to-one and Democratic super PACs have had virtually no air presence in five of the nine states.

Unfortunately, it’s not just the Koch Brothers who are leveraging their wealth to support candidates who are committed to voter suppression, destruction of unions, environmental deregulation and a host of other policies opposed by the American people. As Reich writes,

…Billionaire TD Ameritrade founder Joe Ricketts and his son, Todd, co-owner of the Chicago Cubs, have their own $25 million political operation called “Ending Spending.” The group is now investing heavily in TV ads against Republican Representative Walter Jones in a North Carolina primary (they blame Jones for too often voting with Obama).
Their ad attacking Democratic New Hampshire Senator Jeanne Shaheen for supporting Obama’s health-care law has become a template for similar ads funded by the Koch’s “Americans for Prosperity” in Senate races across the country.
When billionaires supplant political parties, candidates are beholden directly to the billionaires. And if and when those candidates win election, the billionaires will be completely in charge.
At this very moment, Casino magnate Sheldon Adelson (worth an estimated $37.9 billion) is busy interviewing potential Republican candidates whom he might fund, in what’s being called the “Sheldon Primary.”
“Certainly the ‘Sheldon Primary’ is an important primary for any Republican running for president,” says Ari Fleischer, former White House press secretary under President George W. Bush. “It goes without saying that anybody running for the Republican nomination would want to have Sheldon at his side.”

Reich acknowledges that Democrats have some support from billionaires like Tom Steyer and Michael Bloomberg. But their contributions are dwarfed by shady, right-wing PAC money funding Republicans.
It’s not surprising that Republicans are upset with Majority Leader Reid calling out the Koch brothers and questioning their patriotism. But they are likely preaching to a small choir of the already converted. More thoughtful voters will credit Reid with a much-needed wake-up call.