There’s still a lot of head-scratching going on (mine included) about David Brat’s upset win over Majority Leader Eric Cantor. For now, let’s let Mark Blumenthal and Ariel Edwards-Levy weigh in, from their HuffPollster post, “Cantor’s Pollster Releases post-Election Survey“:

… The new data put to rest the argument that Cantor was undone by an “Operation Chaos” scenario involving Democrats hoping to nominate a weaker GOP candidate. As pollster Mark Mellman (D) pointed out on Twitter, if all of the self-identified Democrats in McLaughlin’s new survey had not voted, Cantor would still have lost among the remaining Republicans and independents. McLaughlin’s analysis concedes that Cantor’s undoing was an “organic turnout” of both independents and Democrats who do not typically vote in Republican primaries.
The independents who made it into the McLaughlin post-election survey demonstrate a strong conservative bent: 75 percent disapprove of President Obama, 74 percent oppose the ACA, 58 percent say they agree with or consider themselves part of the Tea Party and 61 percent plan to vote for Brat in the general election, versus just 17 percent who plan to vote for Democratic nominee Jack Trammel. “I think it was an organic, anti-Washington, anti-establishment turnout, and because it was a Republican incumbent, it was easier for the Democrats and the independents who normally vote Democrat to come in and vote and vent their anger at Washington via Eric,” McLaughlin said.

No doubt Cantor was the near-perfect lightening rod for generalized anti-incumbency, but Ed Kilgore’s take that it could well be unique to him also fits with this data. Meanwhile, Here’s the cross tabs on John McLaughlin’s post-election survey.

“Voter registration is the antidote to voter suppression,” writes Ben Jealous, former president/CEO of the NAACP, at msnbc.com. “…The average margin of victory in Georgia over the last three elections was minimal: just over 260,000 votes. So what would it take to give voters of color in Georgia a voice?…a massive wave of voter registration could shake up the political dynamic. If organizers were to register 60% of unregistered black voters in the state – and those voters then turned out at previous levels – it would create a corps of 290,000 new black voters. That is 30,000 more than the average margin of victory for a governor in the state. Moreover, a voter drive that registered 60% of unregistered black, Hispanic and Asian voters would create 369,000 new voters of color, or 109,000 more than the margin of victory…most of the 13 “Black Belt” states would be similary disrupted by a massive wave of voter registration. In South Carolina, registering 40% of unregistered voters of color would be enough to upset the balance of power. In North Carolina, registering 10% would do the trick.”
The Nation’s John Nichols makes a persuasive case in his post, “Why Scott Walker Will Never Be President.” As a result of Walker’s alleged efforts to circumvent campaign finance laws, “Walker’s presidential prospects look less realistic even than those of his mentor, scandal-plagued New Jersey Governor Chris Christie…Walker has a paper trail that is unlikely to read well on the 2016 campaign trail…Walker might have trouble getting past the 2014 election.”
Albert R. Hunt has an encouraging word for Dems in his New York Times article, “Democrats’ Strategy to Keep the Senate“: Hunt is much-impressed with the creative leadership demonstrated by Democratic Senate Campaign Committee Chairman Sen. Michael Bennett, “Along with his savvy campaign executive director, Guy Cecil, he is recalibrating traditional strategy to stave off this challenge. The focus is less on big television advertising and more on old-fashioned voter mobilization with cutting-edge new technologies…The central components of success are raising enough money and then recruiting a sizable volunteer force — volunteers are more effective than paid canvassers — to work their own neighborhoods and precincts to register voters and get them to vote…They have databases to identify prospects with all of their demographic essentials and possess the techniques to contact and influence them…Thus, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and affiliates plan to spend about $60 million on these mobilization efforts, or about one-third of the budget, almost 10 times what the D.S.C.C. spent in 2010.” As Bennet puts it, “It’s precinct politics with 21st-century technology.”
At The National Journal Andrea Drusch asks “Can North Carolina’s Latinos Help Democrats Hold the Senate?” and notes that, while Latinos were only 2 percent of the NC electorate in 2012, Republican Thom Tillis is so bad on issues of concern to Hispanics, that they could provide Democratic Sen. Kay Hagan’s margin of victory.
Slate’s Reihan Salam has your nightmare of the day: “Teatopia: What would actually happen if Tea Partiers controlled Congress and Rand Paul was president?” It’s a once-over-very-lightly exercise, giving tea party racism a free ride and avoiding any discussion of the likely environmental disaster that would ensue if industry had its Libertarian way with environmental regulations. Ditto for health and safety and consumer protections. Still, anything that gets people talking and thinking in more depth about the disturbing real-world consequences of the tea party/Libertarian “free market” vision is probably a good thing.
At The New Republic Ruy Teixeira and Gary Segura have a takedown of “The Myth of the “White” Latino: Sloppy analysis of Census data is giving the Republican Party false hope.” In addition to the complex and sloppy census methodologies, the authors note, “Whatever the reason some Latinos call themselves white, it’s been far less relevant to their social status than how the white majority sees them…It also matters little in determining elections. Over the last 25 years, there has been a rapid growth of pan-ethnic identity among Latinos, more closely linking populations differentiated by national origin and generation into a more coherent and organized whole. This identity has resulted in growing political mobilization and unity. While the increase in Latino political participation has been frustratingly slow, their growing power has proven pivotal in places like California, Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, and Florida. Latinos–even those calling themselves white–vote overwhelmingly and increasingly Democratic. How they responded to a single Census question doesn’t change that.”
It’s High Noon for Medicaid expansion in VA, and Democratic Governor Terry McAuliffe is ready to take executive action in the absence of any spirit of compromise from the GOP-controlled legislature.
Facing South’s Sue Sturgis takes a by-the-numbers look at “Unions as a remedy for growing income inequality.” Among her stats: “Of the 100 U.S. counties with the greatest income inequality, number in the South: 77; Rank of the South among the nation’s least-unionized regions: 1; Of the five states where union membership is growing the fastest, percent in the South: 100; Percent by which union membership grew last year in Tennessee: 25; In Georgia and Alabama: 22.2; In South Carolina: 19; In Virginia: 13.2.”
Guess which state has America’s healthiest kids. Hint: Nearly 99 percent of children in the state have health insurance.

Nicholas Confessore reports at the New York Times that the Koch brothers are about to launch the Freedom Partners Action Fund, “the first super PAC founded by the Koch political organization, which until now has relied almost entirely on nonprofit organizations that are not required to disclose their donors…Until now, groups supported by the Kochs and their fellow donors have relied heavily on “issue ads” that do not specifically ask listeners to vote for or against a candidate….Unlike political nonprofit groups, super PACs can spend every dollar they raise on political advertising expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate.”
I like the title of Jonathan Chait’s post “Actually, Let’s Hear More From Dick Cheney on Iraq,” but for a different reason. Every time Cheney, Kristol and their ilk advocate sending other peoples’ children to fight in Iraq, it reminds the public which party started the mess and wants to crank it up again.
Here’s a counter-argument. But Yikes on the hideous neocon triptych accompanying it.
At The Daily Beast:

Sean Trende explains at The Crystal Ball why “meddling in [GOP] primaries” by Democrats is a dicey strategy, despite Sen. Claire McCaskill’s impressive example to the contrary.
From George Bennett’s Palm Beach Post article, “Who wins in 2014? Dem demographics or GOP midterm turnout“: “Democratic-leaning minorities make up a growing share of Florida voters. Hispanic voters have increased from 10.6 percent of the electorate in 2006 to 14.3 percent now. More Hispanics registered as Republicans than Democrats eight years ago, largely because of Cuban-Americans in Miami-Dade. Today, Florida Hispanics are 38.3 percent Democratic and 27.4 percent Republican…The share of Florida voters who are black has increased from 12 percent to 13.5 percent, with Democratic candidates traditionally attracting 90 percent or more of the black vote…”The wind’s at our back with regard to demographics. We have to obviously take advantage of that,” said Florida Democratic Party Executive Director Scott Arceneaux.”
The hog castrator is down 4.
Greg Sargent reports “A new Department of Health and Human Services report documents the impact federal subsidies under Obamacare are having on the insurance costs of people receiving them. As the Post puts it, they “are paying an average of $82 a month in premiums for their coverage — about one-fourth the bill they would have faced without such financial help…Buried in the report are data illustrating the impact subsidies are having on costs in state where the federal government built the exchange — and, by extension, how much those people’s premiums would rise if Obamacare were repealed. This is different from the Medicaid expansion. If the expansion were repealed, people would lose coverage. But if subsidies were repealed, people would not lose coverage, instead seeing premiums jump from loss of the tax credit.”
It appears that Dems’ 2016 veepstakes field just narrowed by one

The American Prospect’s Paul Waldman mulls over the impact of Hillary Clinton’s candidacy on both Democrats and Republicans and comes up with some interesting insights:

…Hillary Clinton was the candidate of liberals’ heads, while Barack Obama became the candidate of their hearts. He may not have had a résumé as lengthy as hers or quite the stamina for endless policy discussion that she had, but he could stir voters’ souls and offer them the promise of transformation. She, on the other hand, offered something much more grounded, even a little grim. “Making change is not about what you believe,” she said during one debate. “It’s not about a speech you make. It’s about working hard.” It was a realistic and accurate assessment, but not exactly one to make you flush with excitement.
And as she moves toward another presidential candidacy, Clinton’s appeal for Democrats is still to the head. She won’t be an ideological warrior and she may not put a catch in your throat with soaring rhetoric, but she’s smart, competent, and experienced. You don’t have to love her, you just have to hire her.

No doubt there are plenty of Democrats and some swing voters who are thrilled and inspired by the possibility of Clinton’s candidacy, while acknowledging that speech delivery is not her strong card. But Waldman’s point about Clinton’s work ethic is a good one. No Republican is going to out-work Hillary Clinton. She is a battle-tested warhorse who has taken the worst her adversaries have thrown at her and emerged stronger and more appealing than ever. And she drives the Republicans nuts, as Waldman explains:

For Republicans, on the other hand, Clinton is most emphatically a candidate of the heart. They may be able to come up with more than enough rational reasons to oppose her, but their feelings are powerful and primal. It took a while for Republicans to work up an intense dislike of Barack Obama; in fact, when he first emerged, conservatives were falling all over themselves to praise him. But Hillary Clinton comes pre-loathed.
The hatred (and that isn’t too strong a word to use) many conservatives feel toward Clinton could be one of her greatest assets should she become the Democratic nominee. As far as they’re concerned, her record as a center-left Democrat–the very thing that gives so many liberals pause–is but a ruse concealing a radical agenda, to be revealed when she takes office and casts aside the cloak of moderation she has worn for two decades. As is so often the case when we truly detest a political figure, they are convinced that nothing she says is sincere, and no position, no matter how long-held, is the product of anything but the most cynical political calculation.

The conservative ideologues hate President Obama on a visceral level, and after the briefest of honeymoons, openly declared all-out war on everything he did. He wasn’t quite ready for the level of unprecedented abuse he had to endure. But he has handled himself with impressive grace, even though he was naive about prospects for bipartisanship for too long. You could also argue that he has played his hand about as well as he could.
Clinton will have a unique advantage if she runs and gets elected, because she has already taken an incredible amount of abuse and vilification, and she is as tough as any Democrat. The ascending bigots in the Republican Party will fight ugly, as many of them did with Obama. But she will have the seasoning to handle whatever they hurl at her, plus she will know her opposition better after watching their antics throughout the Obama Administration. As Waldman concludes,

As for Clinton, she may be a better candidate than she was in 2008, but she can’t be a wholly different one. She’ll demonstrate her deep knowledge of policy both foreign and domestic. She’ll be a tireless campaigner. Her speeches will be thoughtful and thorough, delivered well enough to make you say, “That was good,” even if you don’t have to wipe away any tears…Like every other candidate, Hillary Clinton is who she is, for both better and worse. She may not make your spirit soar. But she probably won’t have to.

Clinton still bristles under media scrutiny occasionally, though she handles criticism with more grace and humor nowadays. No doubt her temperament will gain further polish and wisdom in the months ahead. Democrats haven’t had a better-prepared candidate since FDR’s third campaign. The Republicans know it, and they have good reason to be worried. Her nomination and election are not a sure thing, contrary to prevailing media wisdom. Much depends on the economic recovery leading up to November, 2016 and other wild cards. But she is looking stronger every day.

From E. J. Dionne, Jr.’s WaPo column “An election campaign with too little focus on economic concerns“: “The nature of the public discussion has been a strategic advantage for the GOP…Bread-and-butter concerns are the stuff of Democratic victories because the polls show that most voters still think of the GOP as more protective of the interests of the wealthy than of their own. The less we hear about economics, the better it is for Republicans.”
At Politico and the Crystal Ball Larry J. Sabato has the definitive (for the moment) update on 36 governor’s races in 2014, and notes “the governorship map leans slightly toward Democrats because a few GOP executives elected in the 2010 Republican landslide are vulnerable in blue or competitive states.”
…And Laura Clawson’s Daily Kos post “Chris Christie isn’t the only governor to rob worker pensions to balance a budget” provides some ammo for enlarging that edge, particularly with high-turnout seniors.
In starker-than-ever contrast to their opposition, Matthew Yglesias offers “7 reasons the Democratic coalition is more united than ever” at Vox.
A couple of good quotes from “Giddy Dems’ new strategy: Watch the GOP implode” by Politico’s Edward-Isaac Dovere and Carrie Budoff Brown: “”The narrative has changed,” said Democratic National Committee communications director Mo Elleithee. “To the extent that this election is a referendum on who has broken Washington and left the middle class twisting in the wind, the spotlight is focused squarely on House Republicans.”…”From the Democratic perspective, it goes to the heart of the contrast between Democrats and Republicans” on economic issues and which party will fight for the middle class, said Obama pollster Joel Benenson. “That is something Democrats in tough districts and swing districts should be able to run on and capitalize on.”
In his Upshot post, “Why Hispanics Don’t Have a larger Voice,” NaTe Cohn expo;wins: “The explanation for the gap starts with the most basic rules of voter eligibility. People must be over age 18 to vote, and 28 percent of American Hispanics are under 18, compared with 22 percent of non-Hispanics. Voting-age adults must be United States citizens to vote, yet only 69 percent of adult Hispanics are citizens, compared with 96 percent of adult non-Hispanics.”
But Dems are in good position with Latinos who can vote, as Ronald Brownstein argues in his take at The Atlantic: “Eric Cantor’s Loss Is Hillary Clinton’s Gain: The majority leader’s loss means Republicans won’t take up immigration reform before November–and maybe not before 2016. That’s good news for Democrats.” Brownstein adds further, “…it’s a stiff bet for Republicans to gamble 2016 on holding Clinton below the 39 percent of whites Obama carried in 2012…In that meager showing, Obama lost white women by 14 percentage points, the biggest deficit for any Democrat since Reagan’s second landslide in 1984. As the first female presidential nominee, Clinton might easily do better, perhaps much better. And because Obama already fell so far with white men, there might not be much further for her to fall. Simultaneously, the power of the Clinton name equips her to continue generating lopsided margins with minority voters–unless Republicans find ways to reach them.”
An important step toward reinvigorating the labor movement. Meanwhile, here’s a good film on the topic.
Hmmm. Paul Rosenberg is on to something in his Salon post “Ugly, paranoid, divisive politics: The GOP are all Know-Nothings now” likening the Republicans’ current nativist leaders to Scorsese’s “Bill the Butcher.”

The Upshot’s Nate Cohn presents compelling evidence from precinct and county data that House Majority Leader Eric Cantor was not defeated by a wave of crossover Democrats.
GOP message guru Frank Luntz has a NYT op-ed, “Why Polling Fails: Republicans Couldn’t Predict Eric Cantor’s Loss” noting “Even if every scientific approach is applied perfectly, 5 percent of all polls will end up outside the margin of error…a poll is a useful tool for gaining insight and information, but it is only one arrow in the quiver. Without qualitative insight — talking with voters face to face to judge their mood, emotion, intensity and opinion — polls can be inconsequential, and occasionally wrong.”
In their introduction launching a series on the U.S. elections at The Guardian Paul Lewis and Dan Roberts argue “US midterm elections: Republicans could triumph – but it’s not a sure thing,” and note that top forecasters Nate Silver, Larry J. Sabato and teams from WaPo and the NYT “essentially agree on the big question about control of the Senate: it is too close to call.”
In the first installment of the Guardian series, “Political certainties beginning to fade in black-and-white Georgia As the US gears up for crucial midterm elections,” Paul Lewis reports from Georgia, where Republicans are swimming against a changing demographic tide,” the author notes: “If Perdue, 64, a gaffe-prone former CEO of Dollar General, secures his party’s nomination, Democrats will paint him as a Mitt Romney-style plutocrat with a shady corporate history. It is a characterisation they hope will contrast with Nunn’s commitment to public service…If Kingston, 59, who has represented a congressional district incorporating the city of Savannah since 1993, wins the runoff, Nunn’s team will seek to characterise him as a Washington insider. Nunn, on the other hand, will claim to be an outsider, untarnished by the political fray.”
U.S. District Judge Peter C. Economus has reinstated early voting (three days in advance of elections) for all eligible voters in Ohio.
Crystal Shepeard’s Care2 post “Single Women Will Make the Difference in the Midterm Elections” explains “…nearly a third of unmarried women are not registered to vote…unmarried women have had the largest increase in new eligible voters since the 2012 election with more than ten million new voters. Many of them are young and tend to not participate in large numbers in midterm elections. In 2012, if unmarried women voted in the same numbers as married women, the difference would have been an additional 6.5 million more votes cast.
NPR’s Maria Liasson has explained “Unmarried women are the single most important demographic this year. But unlike other “it” demographics (remember soccer moms?), single women are not a constituency that’s in play: They’re extremely reliable Democratic supporters…Single women make up about 25 percent of the electorate, and they’re growing fast as marriage rates decline. But while they are reliable supporters for the Democrats — that is, when they vote — they are not reliable voters: Between 2008 and 2010, the participation of unmarried women fell by about 20 points. And between 2012 and 2014, single women’s participation is expected to drop off by about the same rate…So single women present Democrats with a turnout problem, not a persuasion problem.” Liasson goes on to point out that the election of Terry McAuliffe as Governor of Virginia shows that it can be done, and NC is the best proving ground for the strategy ion 2014.
In another NPR post, “Easy On The Ears: GOP Ads Adapt To Reach Women Voters,” Liasson shows that Republicans are running scared of single women and softening GOP ad messaging in hopes of neutralizing their strong Democratic tilt.
Oh, Hell yes.

All those pundits and GOP establishmentarians who pronounced the tea party dead have some ‘splainin’ to do in the scorched aftermath of the Republican primary that dumped House Majority Leader Eric Cantor from his seat in Virginia’s 7th congressional district.
Tea party candidate Dave Brat trounced Cantor, 55.5 percent to 44.5 percent, in a “shockingly lopsided” vote. As the Richmond Times Dispatch reported Cantor’s defeat:

“This is one of the most stunning upsets in modern American political history,” said Larry Sabato, head of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia. “This is the base rebelling against the GOP leadership in Washington as represented by Eric Cantor.”
“I’m as stunned as anybody,” Sabato said. “I’ve yet to find one person nationally or in the state outside the Brat circle who thought Cantor would be beaten.”

From another perspective in the Times Dispatch report: “I can’t believe that the voters in the 7th District would trade Number 2 and possibly Number 1 in Congress for Number 435 and that shocks me,” said Mike Woods, a longtime Cantor supporter.” Richmond Mayor Dwight C. Jones, chairman of the Democratic Party of Virginia, said “If ever there was any doubt, tonight’s results prove that extremists have taken over the Virginia Republican Party. Eric Cantor tried to cater to hard-core conservatives, but he failed.”
It looks like Brat’s campaign had excellent GOTV. As Nate Cohn put it at the Upshot, “Turnout was not unusually low: More than 63,000 votes have been counted so far, up from around 47,037 in 2012.” According to this map, it appears Brat’s superior GOTV in the exurbs north of Richmond did the trick.
Pollsters didn’t do too well on this one, as Cohn reports: “…One survey conducted for the Daily Caller by Vox Populi, a new Republican firm, showed Mr. Cantor just over 50 percent and ahead by 12 points. News media accounts suggested that Mr. Cantor’s campaign was confident, and one internal poll showed he had a 34-point advantage.”
Cantor’s huge financial advantage counted for little. If there was a pivotal issue it would likely be immigration, as the Times Dispatch reports:

Brat, dwarfed by Cantor in spending, drummed home the immigration issue, accusing the incumbent of favoring “amnesty” for illegal immigrants. Cantor denied the charge, saying only that children of illegal immigrants should not suffer because their parents brought them into the country…”Everybody agrees that if immigration reform was on life support before, they’re pulling out the plugs,” because no other Republican wants to lose as Cantor did, Sabato said.

If Republicans had dismal prospects for winning Latino votes in 2014, Dems will likely trumpet Brat’s victory as a clear indication that the GOP is moving toward an even more reactionary position with respect to immigration.
The district, which stretches from western Richmond northward to the outskirts of Warrenton (about 50 miles west of Washington, D.C.), northeastward to outer Fredricksburg and northwestward to the ‘burbs of Charlottesville, has been Republican since 1981. VA-7 is redolent with early American and Civil War history, and includes some of George Washington’s childhood stomping grounds.
As currently configured, the district is 74.3% White, 17.1% Black, 4.9% Latino, 3.9% Asian, 0.3% Native American/Alaskan, and 2.1% “other,” according to 2010 Census data. Romney won it with 57 percent to Obama’s 42 percent of votes cast in 2012. Cantor himself won with 58 percent of the votes in the same year.
It will be a tough race for Democrat John “Jack” Trammell, a Randolph-Macon College professor like Brat, and author and father of seven. Charlie Cook gives the district a R+10 “partisan voting index” rating. Yet anything north of Richmond is increasingly fair game for Dems, as D.C. cosmopolites and workers in the state’s exploding high tech corridor along I-95 search for affordable housing.

Big problems remain and booby traps lie ahead, but “Obama Promised to Do 4 Big Things As President. Now He’s Done Them All,” writes Jonathan Chait. And it’s all the more remarkable, considering the Republicans’ unprecedented obstructionism. Good talking points here for responding knee-jerk Obama critics.
Re Julian Zelizer’s “Will Democrats pay a price for Bergdahl deal?” at CNN Politics. The short answer is “only if voters can be hoodwinked en masse by GOP demagoguery.” The better question is “Will Republicans pay a price for arguing that it’s OK to let an American soldier languish in prison?”
Charles Pierce has a few choice comments on the topic in his “The Bergdahl Chronicles: The Bitchening.” See also John Cory’s “The Empty Soul of GOP Politics” at Reader Supported News, which notes “The air is rife with the flatulence of rancid sanctimonious political opportunism and self-serving patriotic indignation. Truth, fact, and morality be damned…Sgt. Bergdahl was a prisoner of war and America does not leave POW’s behind. Ever. We don’t do it. It doesn’t matter if the POW walked off and got captured or if the POW collaborated with the enemy under duress and torture – doesn’t matter. We, America, bring them back.”
From AP’s “Political parties fight to manipulate voting times“: “At least 33 states now have laws that let people vote in-person before elections without needing an excuse to obtain an absentee ballot. Early voting laws became increasingly common after the disputed 2000 presidential election as a means of diminishing long Election Day lines that had frustrated voters…Republican-controlled legislatures in Ohio, Missouri, North Carolina and Wisconsin all have taken recent steps to curtail early voting by limiting the days on which it’s available…Early voting generally increases voter turnout by 2-4 percent, which is statistically significant, said Paul Gronke, director of the Early Voting Information Center at Reed College in Portland, Oregon…Some of the assumptions about early voting have been challenged by recent research at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Professors there found that early voting that diminishes the publicity surrounding the actual election day can hurt turnout, and ultimately aid Republicans. But they found that when early voting is coupled with same-day registration, the advantage shifts to Democrats.”
The repeal Obamacare movement is now on track to end, “not with a bang, but a whimper,” explains Sam Baker at The Atlantic.
Not that the Republican sniping will end anytime soon, as Greg Sargent points out in his post “GOP’s guerrilla resistance to Obamacare alive and well.”
At Lost Remote, Adam Flomenbaum has an interesting interview with Bill Maher’s executive producer about Maher’s ‘Flip a District’ campaign. Flomenbaum notes that “Maher plans to flip a congressional district in the upcoming mid-term elections by periodically going to specific congressional districts, talking about that congressman, and seeing if “we can’t get some change effected in America.”
At The Upshot, Nate Cohn and Josh Katz argue against the beliefs of many poll analysts that “It’s Not Too Soon to Pay Attention to Senate Polling.”
Democratic candidates and campaign strategists, please study “Map: Where the average student loan burden is largest” and the accompanying notes by Niraj Chokshi. If there is any hope of energizing young voters this year, Dems need to be talking about bold initiatives to address this crisis.

Nia Malika-Henderson presents compelling evidence in a new Washington Post-ABC News poll that “Democrats’ ‘war on women’ strategy still works. For now.” Her most encouraging sentence: “In August of 2012, on the eve of a presidential election, 69 percent of women said that they were absolutely certain to vote. Now, that figure stands at 77 percent.”
At CNBC.com John Harwood encapsulates the challenge facing Democrats: “Democrats have begun efforts to mitigate the damage, with their House and Senate campaign committees tripling investments in voter mobilization since the last election. With its sophisticated voter identification and mobilization programs, the 2012 Obama presidential campaign produced a more Democratic-leaning electorate than many Republicans had thought possible. In 2014 battlegrounds such North Carolina and Colorado, vulnerable Senate Democratic incumbents hope to capitalize on the results of those efforts the way Terry McAuliffe did in winning the Virginia governorship last year…Obama’s party can try to motivate Latinos by blaming Republicans for blocking immigration legislation, and women by blaming Republicans for blocking equal-pay and early childhood education legislation. Although Republicans attack the new health-care law to motivate their base, Democrats can warn young voters that repealing it would kick young adults under 26 off their parents’ insurance plans.”
Conservative columnist Byron York laments the GOP’s lack of a coherent/appealing message strategy for 2014.
At The Monkey Cage John Sides’s “Can turnout save the Democrats in 2014?” crunches stats and observes “Turnout is not going to explain a 63-seat gain for Republicans in 2010…The question is how much turnout matters. My sense is that commentators still put too much emphasis on it. That is, there is not enough grappling with what changes in the electorate do not explain — such as, perhaps, the majority of Republican seat gains in 2010. There is not enough grappling with how Democrats did so well in 2006 despite a midterm electorate, as political scientist Michael McDonald has noted. For more, see Mark Mellman’s four excellent columns on this, and especially political scientist Seth Hill’s research.”
Public opinion on the Bergdahl swap is a near-washout. Obama did the right thing and brought an American P.O.W. home. It appears that the GOP wingnut gallery will get no real traction on this one.
The VA dust-up was more damaging, at least in the short run, according to the latest CNN/ORC poll. But the same poll indicates Obama has some offsetting gains with respect to his policies re terrorism and the environment — continuing concerns which may have more shelf life.
David Firestone’s NYT blog post “Joni Ernst Fights for Dirty Water in Iowa” — provides a solid meme for Dems to work. As Firestone elaborates, “That a Senate nominee could take this position, even more than the others, shows how far Republican candidates have drifted from the party’s old moorings. In 1972, the Clean Water Act passed with full bipartisan support, and is widely regarded as one of the most successful environmental acts ever passed. It doubled the number of rivers, streams and lakes suitable for fishing and swimming. It drastically reduced the amount of chemicals in drinking water, and substantially increased the size of protected wetlands. Rivers no longer catch fire…The law’s value is so obvious that it shouldn’t even be necessary to defend it. But in Iowa, it remains a divisive issue, and Ms. Ernst’s offhand remark was a clear signal to the state’s big agricultural interests of which side she is on.” Dems should smell blood on this one, and make Ernst explain it at every opportunity.
At The Upshot Nate Cohn makes a so-so case that Thad Cochran’s senate seat may be out of reach for Dems. But McDaniel isn’t all that, and whether Cohn is right or wrong, making the GOP spend some dough there might be a worthwhile project.
The Crystal Ball’s Kyle Kondik and Geoffrey Skelley are less skeptical than Cohn: “Former Rep. Travis Childers, the Democratic nominee in Mississippi, decided to run because of the possibility of a McDaniel win. His gamble looks likelier and likelier to pay off, and this could actually be a race in the fall, particularly if McDaniel stumbles and the runoff is bloody.”

Hotline on Call’s Adam Wollner flags “The 8 Primary Races to Watch Tuesday.” For Dems CA-33 looks like the marquee contest, followed by CA-31.
The American Prospect’s Paul Waldman mulls over “How Conservatives Will React to Obama’s New Climate Regulations.” Hint: expect to hear terms like “lawless job-killing socialism,” which Waldman shows will not be too hard to rebut.
Democrats should seek out more candidates of color, as well as women. But take this as a challenge to also elect more members of congress who actually come from blue collar America.
NYT columnist Russ Douthat discusses prospects for “the small world of reform conservatism” in light of Jonathan Chait’s critique. Douthat’s mild optimism seems a little premature. It will take a proper drubbing of the Republicans by a blue wave before ‘reform conservatism’ can establish a beachhead in the GOP.
Addressing the same topic at Democracy: A Journal of Ideas via The Atlantic, E. J. Dionne, Jr. concludes in a long article, “…Reform conservatism must still prove itself to be more than a slogan, more than a marketing campaign, more than that new pizza box. The Reformicons can be part of the historic correction the conservative movement badly needs–or they can settle for being sophisticated enablers of more of the same.”
At Roll Call Emily Cahn notes “The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has reserved $43.5 million in television airtime in dozens of targeted House districts this fall — a signal the party is attempting to play defense and offense in a challenging midterm cycle…The money is split across 36 districts, including 17 pickup opportunities, according to a DCCC aide. More districts and more money could be added to the reservations as the cycle progresses, the aide said…The DCCC had $43.3 million in the bank at the end of April and has raised more than its Republican counterpart by large margins this cycle.”
Taegan Goddard shows “Which State has the Most Gerrymandered Districts?”
Paul Krugman ruminates “On Inequality Denial”: “…This latest attempt to debunk the notion that we’ve become a vastly more unequal society has itself been debunked. And you should have expected that. There are so many independent indicators pointing to sharply rising inequality, from the soaring prices of high-end real estate to the booming markets for luxury goods, that any claim that inequality isn’t rising almost has to be based on faulty data analysis.”
I like this a lot. Regardless of Hillary’s decision and prospects re 2016, she has enormous cred right now and it’s good that she is leveraging it in service to Dems’ 2014 campaign.