If you are concerned about voter suppression in the upcomming election, consider joining “Video the Vote,” a national coalition of citizens who are committed to using their cell phone video camera widget to make sure abuses of voting rights they witness are documented and posted on the internet. Here’s a video introduction to the project (and more print background on the project right here):

At The Plum Line Greg Sargent reveals Trump’s “glass jaw” — his tendency to conflate the voters he is talking to in the primaries with those in the general election.
Wow: “In losing disastrously, Trump probably would create down-ballot carnage sufficient to end even Republican control of the House. Ticket splitting is becoming rare in polarized America: In 2012, only 5.7 percent of voters supported a presidential candidate and a congressional candidate of opposite parties…Were he to be nominated, conservatives would have two tasks. One would be to help him lose 50 states — condign punishment for his comprehensive disdain for conservative essentials, including the manners and grace that should lubricate the nation’s civic life. Second, conservatives can try to save from the anti-Trump undertow as many senators, representatives, governors and state legislators as possible.’ — from influential conservative columnist George F. Will.
Alex Roarty’s “EMILY’s List Strategy Questioned After Big Losses” at Roll Call probes the reasons why EMILY’s List-endorsed candidates lost 4 of 5 key races. Although Kate McGinty won the Democratic U.S. Senate primary in PA, List endorsee Donna Edwards lost the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate in MD, as did two other congressional candidates for MD 4 and 8, and a candidate for the PA-8 congressional district. Roarty discusses speculation that Emily’s List contributions were provided too early in the Edwards-Van Hollen race, and perhaps there was too much spending on other safely-Democratic seats.
Salon.com Dave Masciotra explains why “We must shame dumb Trump fans: The white working class are not victims: It’s not smug liberalism to point out Trump backers are low-educated. What’s dangerous is to sympathize with them.” Wiser, I would say, to save the ridicule for candidates, instead of voters.
Andrew Ross Sorkin’s “President Obama Weighs His Economic Legacy” in The New York Times Magazine provides plenty of statistics, talking points and soundbites Democratic candidates and campaigns will find useful, not only in defending the Obama Administration’s record, but also for promoting progressive values as cost-effective in the real world. Here’s one of many revealing quotes and insights from the President during his interview with the author: “If you ask the average person on the streets, ‘Have deficits gone down or up under Obama?’ probably 70 percent would say they’ve gone up,” Obama said, with some justifiable exasperation — the deficit has in fact declined (by roughly three-quarters) since he took office, and polls do show that a large majority of Americans believe the opposite.”
At The Daily Beast, Will Marshall notes “A new PPI poll provides fresh evidence that the pragmatic center’s demise has been greatly exaggerated. Swing voters still exist, and they likely will play a decisive role in determining which party wins control of the White House and Senate in November…The PPI survey examined four presidential battleground states that also feature competitive Senate and House races this year: Florida, Ohio, Colorado, and Nevada. We found that just over 20 percent of electorate in these swing states is made up of voters who lend their support equally to Democrats and Republicans, do not strongly identify with either party, and did not vote for the same party in the last two elections.” Marshall argues further that a more centrist mix of economic policies is the key to winning these voters, even if it means alienating voters with more strongly-held populist beliefs.
Kyle Kondik presents a stunning chart in his Crystal Ball post, “Incumbency Still Powerful in Primaries,” indicating that, since 1946, only 1.6 percent of House of Reps members lost their battles for renomination.
Paul Waldman has a perceptive American Prospect post on “The real Stakes in the Veeptakes,” noting that “…the choice of a running mate matters very little for the final tally on Election Day, but can be critical to the administration’s success.” Waldman makes a strong case that Biden has been one of the most impressive Vice Presidents in U.S. history, and he offers some insights about the current names being bandied about as possible Democratic running mates. He also shares some funny quotes about the Vice Presidency, including “Daniel Webster would turn down the office by saying, “I do not propose to be buried until I am really dead.”

Yamiche Alcindor’s New York Times article, “Bernie Sanders, Shifting Tone, Takes On Democratic Party” signals a new stage in the Vermont senator’s campaign. No one should expect Sanders to fold his campaign anytime soon, and he already has more than enough delegates secured to be a force at the Democratic convention. But his comments at his speech yesterday in Springfield, Oregon do indicate that the Democratic presidential campaign — and the Democratic party’s efforts to win down-ballot — are entering a delicate, potentially transformative phase. As Alcindor explains:

Senator Bernie Sanders spent Thursday afternoon laying out in more detail than usual his views for shaping the Democratic Party’s agenda and the need for elected officials to focus on achieving progressive political goals.
The change in his campaign tone — focusing less on attacking Hillary Clinton — comes as the Vermont senator lays off staff members after several tough losses on Tuesday. Though Mr. Sanders remains adamant that he wants to win the Democratic presidential nomination, his shift hints that the senator is looking past the nominating fight and toward a future role in shaping the party.

Sanders made one of the best statements thus far about what the central message of the Democratic Party ought to be, if it is to win not just the white house, but majorities in the Senate, House and make gains in the state legislatures. As Alcindor quotes Sanders:

“The Democratic Party has to reach a fundamental conclusion: Are we on the side of working people or big-money interests?” Mr. Sanders asked the crowd. “Do we stand with the elderly, the children, the sick and the poor? Or do we stand with Wall Street speculators and the drug companies and the insurance companies? Now our job is not just to revitalize the Democratic Party, not only to open the doors to young people and working people — our job is to revitalize American democracy.”

That’s about the clearest short statement of what the Democratic Party must decide that has been made so far. If Democratic leaders can rise to Sanders’ challenge, and unify to make that the party’s clear brand, this could be a pivot towards a new era of progressive change.
Sanders’ comments included a sobering assessment of why Democrats have booted numerous electoral opportunities in recent years:

“The problem we are having now is not, in my view, that the Republicans are winning elections,” Mr. Sanders said. “The problem is that the Democrats are losing elections. In November of 2014, the midterm elections, 63 percent of the American people did not vote; 80 percent of young people and low-income people did not vote. And I think the reason for that is the Democratic Party up to now has not been clear about which side they are on on the major issues facing this country.”

This is why the Repubicans are so nervous about Sanders, even though he is not the front-runner. It’s the fact that Sanders understands the importance of a strong, simply-stated message identifying the Democratic Party as the best hope for America’s middle-class, as well as low-income families. Yesterday, Donald Trump even tweeted encouragement for Sanders to run as an Independent, even though Sanders has made it crystal clear that’s not going to happen.
It can be argued that Hillary Clinton has done well-enough as it is, having received over 3 million more votes than has Sanders (and 2 million more than Trump) in the primaries thus far. But Clinton is winning more because of her impressive record of experience and her effective campaign strategy and management than her message, which remains a little too ambivalent for many progressive Democrats. The worst mistake would be for her to miss the opportunity Sanders his presenting: to keep doing what she has been doing to win, but also refocus the Democratic message in a direction that is more appealing to progressives and working-class voters.
Sanders is really talking about the swing voters she is in danger of leaving on the table, and who can make a difference between a narrow victory and a Democratic landslide. These voters may well stay home, or worse, vote for Trump, if down-ballot Dems, as well as Clinton, fail to leverage the unifying message Sanders presents.
Win or lose, Sanders will be bringing over 1500 delegates ot the Democratic convention, more than enough to earn serious respect for his views about refocusing the Democratic message. Everything depends on how well he and Clinton respect and treat each other in the months ahead, and the quality of their working relationship to secure the broadest possible Democratic victory on November 8th.

At the Washington Post Abby Phillip and Sean Sullivan report on Democatic preparations for November in three key swing states: “In Virginia, Ohio and Florida — the three biggest swing states in the last election — the Clinton campaign is teaming up with state and national Democratic organizations to build voter files, organize thousands of volunteers, register tens of thousands of voters and raise the funds necessary to compete against a Republican opponent.” Philip and Sullivan provide encouraging breakdowns of Democratic preparations in the three states, but note that Republicans are also registering voters in impressive numbers, due to interest in their primaries.
Alice Ollstein warns at ThinkProgress that “North Carolina’s ‘Monster’ Voter Suppression Law Could Swing The Election.”
William Barber II, president of the North Carolina N.A.A.C.P., is a founder of the “Moral Monday” movement has a New York Times op-ed on voter suppression in the south, and why it is critical that congress pass The Voting Rights Advancement Act, which would restore the protections ripped away by the Supreme Court.
Ed Kilgore’s “Cruz Names Fiorina As Veep Pick — Smooth Move or Last Gasp?” provides an insightful take on the latest GOP gambit to prevent Trump from winning the GOP presidential nomination. At this stage, says Kilgore, it’s a long shot to stop Trump in the pivotal states of IN and CA, made even less likely by Fiorina’s unimpressive track record in both politics and business. Cruz supporters nonetheless hope that the Fiorina ploy will persuade enough voters that she brings added value to the potential GOP alternative ticket, as an attack dog targeting Clinton.
At The Fix Amber Phillips erxplains why “Why Tuesday was a very good night for Senate Democrats,” spotlighting the victories of Katie McGinty and Chris Van Hollen in their respective PA and MD senate primaries, as Democratic establishment-favored candidates.
Not a shocker, but the new Pew Research Center study indicates that, since 1994, “something changed. College-educated Americans became increasingly persuaded to agree with the typically left-leaning position on a whole range of questions, and the percentage of “consistently liberal” college grads skyrocketed from 5 percent to 24 percent in two decades, according to Pew’s study…Over that same period of time, those with lower education levels also moved to the left — but by only by a little bit. Of Americans who only finished high school, the percentage who hold “consistently liberal” beliefs only rose from 1 percent to 5 percent…Highly educated adults — particularly those who have attended graduate school — are far more likely than those with less education to take predominantly liberal positions across a range of political values,” Pew’s report says. “And these differences have increased over the past two decades.,” reports Jeff Stein at Vox.
Alan I. Abramowitz, Senior Columnist, Sabato’s Crystal Ball unveils the latest findings from his Democratic Forecasting Model, which has thus far proved more accurate overall than the polls.
At the San Francisco Chronicle John Wildermuth and Joe Garofoli explore a question that will interest politically-engaged Dems, “Will young Sanders backers stay and steer Democrats leftward?” The authors quote Ben Wikler, Washington, D.C., director of the progressive hub MoveOn, which endorsed Sanders: “If Secretary (Hillary) Clinton is the nominee, then she has to make it crystal clear that the message of the resurgent progressive grassroots has been taken to heart…And if the Democratic convention reflects the values and boldness of the ideas that we’ve seen in the primary — and not a tack back to the center — then I think (Sanders’) people will be on board.” Further, write Wildemuth and Garofoli, “That surge of young, enthusiastic and progressive support for a longtime independent congressman and senator who wasn’t even registered as a Democrat until last year should be a loud wake-up call for the party, said Simon Rosenberg, founder of NDN, a center-left think tank…”This presents Democrats with an enormous opportunity to make their case” to many young people who are more identified with Sanders and his progressive ideals than with any particular party, said Rosenberg, a veteran of former President Bill Clinton’s campaigns. “The question of whether these folks become Democrats is up to the Democratic Party itself.”
Paul Krugman explains why Trump is the last guy voters should want to answer “The 8 A.M. Call” telling the President that “financial markets will melt down as soon as they open.”

From Juliet Eilperin’s Washington Post article, “Obama, who once stood as party outsider, now works to strengthen Democrats“:

Barack Obama rose to prominence as a different kind of Democrat, an outsider who was not part of the establishment and who would chart a separate course. Eight years later, the president finds himself working hard to restore a party from which he was once eager to stand apart.
Obama has presided over a greater loss of electoral power for his party than any two-term president since World War II. And 2016 represents one last opportunity for him to reverse that trend.

Obama was indeed a “different kind of Democrat,” not simply because he is an African American, but also because he was able to articulate an inspiring vision of hope and opportunity more convincingly than did the 2000 and 2004 Democratic presidential nominees. But Eilperin may be overstating the case a bit in calling Obama an “outsider.” He didn’t trumpet his outside status as loudly as did other candidates we have seen more recently, mostly Republicans, like Trump and several others.
Eilperin’s statement that Obama “presided over” the loss of electoral power sounds a little like his neglect of his party’s health caused the GOP’s success in 2010 and 2014 non-presidential elections. Yes, the President is the leader of his party and is accountable to some extent for his party’s political health. But as Eilperin later clarifies:

Many factors have contributed to Republicans’ gains on the state and federal levels, including a concerted push by their donors to target state races and a midterm election that allowed them to lock in favorable congressional district lines.

The “concerted push” was an unprecedented GOP effort, fueled by the Republican organizational Frankenstein, the tea party. Losses for Democrats have included 13 Senate seats, 69 House seats, 913 state legislative seats, 11 governorships and 32 state legislative chambers.
Another factor that should be addressed is the Democrats’ comparatively weak candidate recruitment. As late as this year, for example, Democrats failed to field a candidate in a potential swing congressional district in VA.
So what is the President now doing to restore Democratic strength down ballot? Eilperin writes:

…The president’s two successful White House bids have vastly upgraded the party’s voter outreach infrastructure by expanding the national voter file the Democratic National Committee first started in 2006. And they point to the huge increases in the number of Democratic campaign volunteers — from roughly 252,000 in 2004 to 2.2 million in 2012 — as evidence of that upgrade.
“Barack Obama has single-handedly modernized the Democrats’ ability to wage campaigns on the local level,” said Jim Messina, who managed Obama’s re­election campaign.
…In December, the heads of three party committees met to develop a joint redistricting strategy, and Obama signed a redistricting fundraising appeal for the Democratic Governors Association in January. Even former members such as Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) have been asked to attend fundraisers on behalf of state lawmakers in states such as Ohio.

No doubt many Democratic leaders want the President to focus more on raising money and providing support for the party’s candidates. But the final six months of every president’s tenure are going to be increasingly focused on legacy-building and achieving significant reforms to help create a more secure nation and world.
Party-building may seem to be a parochial challenge compared to that. But really, it’s an important part of the president’s legacy — especially when his party is the only one that strives to serve human needs of all Americans.

Political data junkies, take note: Philip Bump of The Fix has an interview with Joe Lenski, executive VP of Edison Media Research, which conducts polls for the National Election Pool (NEP), a group of six media organizations including Fox, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC and the Associated Press, on the topic, “How exit polls work, explained.”
The Nation’s Ari Berman reports, “New York Had the Second-Lowest Voter Turnout So Far This Election Season: Among states with primaries, we are only beating Louisiana.” Apparently the fact that the two front-runners of both major parties are New Yorkers is a bit of a yawner for the state’s voters.
Alex Kotch of Facing South addresses the two faces of corporate political priorities, in which “Companies opposing Mississippi’s anti-LGBT law helped elect its proponents.” Much the same could be said for corporate immigration policies and political spending.
At Wapo Politics Matea Gold and Jose A. DelReal ponder the “Trump Makeover” and find scant support outside of his campaign for the notion that it is doable.
“You know, I can’t snap my finger and tell people what to do. But what I will do is do everything that I can to make sure that somebody like a Donald Trump or some other right-wing Republican, does not become president of the United States…” – Sen. Bernie Sanders, from a transcript of his interview by George Stephanopoulos at ABC This Week, via PoliticusUSA.
Robert Kuttner addresses the big question for Dems in his article, “Will Bernie’s People Back Hillary in November?” in The American Prospect. Kuttner also provides a sobering reminder about the timing of the conventions and the image Dems must project: “Remember, the Democrats will meet in Philadelphia on July 25 to 28. That’s just a week after Republicans gather in Cleveland on July 18 to 21. Republicans are primed to make fools of themselves and split down the middle, with the likelihood of an independent protest candidacy (either Trump as sore loser or a business Republican as a rump candidate). With that prologue, Democrats will want to look adult and united.”
Virginia’s Democratic Governor Terry McAuliffe has restored voting rights to more than 200,00 VA citizens, who have completed sentences for felony convictions. As the NYT editorial board notes, “Virginia was one of four states, along with Iowa, Kentucky and Florida, that placed a lifetime bar on voting for anyone convicted of a felony. All other states except Maine and Vermont impose lesser restrictions on voting by people with felony convictions…To people who have served their time and finished parole, Mr. McAuliffe said in a statement: “I want you back in society. I want you feeling good about yourself. I want you voting, getting a job, paying taxes.” It is the largest restoration of voting rights by a governor, ever. “There’s no question that we’ve had a horrible history in voting rights as relates to African-Americans — we should remedy it,” he said. In Virginia, one in five blacks have until now been unable to vote because of a felony conviction.”
For those who doubt that felon disenfranchisement laws are intended to undermine African American voting rights, Janai S. Nelson, associate director-counsel at the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund and a professor at St. John’s University School of Law, shares this in her NYT op-ed on the topic: “A 1906 report quoting the former Virginia state senator Carter Glass forecast that voting laws passed in 1902 would “eliminate the darkey as a political factor in this State in less than five years, so that in no single county of the Commonwealth will there be the least concern felt for the complete supremacy of the white race in the affairs of government.”
Turns out that this Vice Presiddent is a guy you want in your corner — particularly if you are a Democrat running for the U.S. Senate. At Politico Edward Isaac-Dovere reports on “Joe Biden’s 2016 campaign: The Senate.” As the author notes, “A Harper poll taken right after Obama and Biden endorsed showed 57 percent of Pennsylvania Democrats saying that the vice president’s support would make them more likely to support a candidate (58 percent said the president’s support would). Other public and private polls haven’t asked the same question, but campaign strategists are confident that the numbers would hold true in nearly every state.”

Yesterday in Political Strategy Notes I flagged Jonathan Alter’s Daily Beast post urging Hillary Clinton to embrace an idea promoted, though not originated, by Sen. Bernie Sanders — free college education.
Alter’s point was well-argued, though it should be noted that Clinton has done alright with her current advisors, having won about 3 million* more votes than her adversary. But also give Sanders due credit for running a great campaign that has profoundy transformed the 2016 election, and made affordable education a leading issue.
Alter’s argument works for Clinton because it can connect her in a more substantial way to a couple of needed constituencies, youth and their parents. And if Clinton needed even more unsolicited advice, today we have Tomothy Egan’s NYT column on “Hillary’s Big Idea,” urging the Democratic front-runner to embrace “something grand and unifying and bigger than herself.”
That’s never a bad idea. But the challenge is to keep it grand without sounding grandiose and big, without sounding YUGE. Fortunately, Dems do have a role model who knows how to work such a tone, President Obama.
The President’s measured, dignified tone in making his arguments sets a noteworthy standard for any Democratic candidate. He can turn on the inspirational heat, and even attack when the occasion calls for it. But he understands what looking “presidential” is all about.
“If nothing else,” writes Egan, “the astounding presidential election of 2016 has shown that Americans are ready to junk the present system and try something bold, even reckless. Small ball is out. Incremental change is a nonstarter. Big will beat little.”
I vote we skip the “reckless” part. Republicans seem to have that market well-cornered, and that’s a good thing for Dems. Let’s not emulate one of their most glaring weaknesses, nor forfeit one of Clinton’s strongest assets — that she is sober and serious about policy.
Egan takes pot shots at all the presidential candidates. But his zingers directed at Clinton make some points worth considering, including “no one in the United States is more qualified to be president than the former madam secretary. And yet, her trumpet is barely a bugle; she’s the shrug candidate…She’s not a natural politician, as she admits, though her game was sharp in New York. And Clinton fatigue is no passing hangover.” Further,

But compared with the monumental flaws of Trump, Clinton is in great shape. You don’t need the oratorical gifts of Barack Obama, the élan of John F. Kennedy or the kinetic spark of Teddy Roosevelt to be president.
What you do need is a big idea, something much greater than the personality of the politician. As John Kasich admitted on Wednesday: “If you don’t have ideas, you got nothing, and frankly my Republican Party doesn’t like ideas.”
Hillary Clinton has ideas, but what is the overarching one? “Fighting for us,” her slogan, sounds like poll-driven pablum.

If Egan is right, Job One ought to be a better slogan that somehow encapsulates more vividly why she should be president. As for the ‘first woman pesidentt’ thing, Egan says “The novelty is meh.” There is great merit in having a woman at the helm of the Democratic Party, as far as inspiring woman voters and candidates. But being closely-identified with a highly-popular economic reform is significant value added to her campaign, the kind that can win swing voters.
Egan is surely right that Clinton could benefit from projecting a more inspiring vision, and Alter’s suggestion is a good start. But she has shown impressive management, planning and decision-making skills already. She has recruited an extraordinary campaign team, which has gotten good results. More than any other candidate in recent memory, Clinton has demonstrated capacity for learning from mistakes, and doing better going forward. That’s something many voters want to see in their president.
The other thing President Obama has taught through his example, in appointing Clinton Secretary of State, is the power of embracing your former adversaries in a creative way. Clinton has recently indicated that she has learned that lesson. And if she wins the nomination, she should find a way for Sanders to help empower her presidency with his political integrity, grace and policy insights.
*Correction; Clinton has a popular vote lead over Sen. Sanders of nearly 2.7 million, not 3 milion as is stated in the second paragraph. I regret the error.

The Nation’s editor Katrina vanden Heuval argues that “The Welcome Rebellion in the Democratic Party: The rambunctious political discussions currently roiling the Democratic party will only make it stronger come November.”
Allie Yee of The Institute for Southern Studies reports that “Young Latino voters rising in the South.” Yee notes, “Between 2014 and 2016, 500,000 Latino youth in the South will have turned 18 and become eligible to vote, adding to the region’s 8.7 million voting-eligible Latinos in 2014.”
HuffPollsters Natalie Jackson, Ariel Edwards-Levy and Janie Velencia explain why, via David Rothschild of the oprediction markets, “Donald Trump has a 62 percent chance of being the Republican nominee for president of the United States of America, Hillary Clinton has a 92 percent chance to be the Democratic nominee for president of the United States of America, and the Democratic nominee for president has a 74 percent chance to win the general election. It may be surprising that Trump is still at 62 percent to win the nomination despite all of the doom-and-gloom in the press about him failing or not wanting it. But, Trump has 742 pledged delegates to Ted Cruz’s 529 and he is about to go on a roll….He is heavily favored in New York, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island.”
In case you were wondering Kyle Kondik and Geoffrey Skelley explain “House 2016: How a Democratic Wave Could Happen” at the Crystal Ball.
Also at The Crystal Ball, Alan I. Abramowitz argues that “Higher Voter Turnout Alone Is Unlikely to Change the Outcome of the 2016 Presidential Election.”
From Conor Lynch’s Salon.com post, “The Democrats need to stop being the “lesser of two evils” party — starting now“: “According to a report from Pew Research Center, the least financially secure Americans largely preferred Democrats in 2014, but a majority of them did not vote. There is an understandable political apathy among lower class Americans — not to mention voter suppression, which tends to hurt poor people and minorities. After all, both parties supported corporatist trade deals that eliminated working class jobs, both parties supported Wall Street bailouts, both parties are largely dependent on big money donors — it goes on and on.”
Marlow Stern’s post at Daily Best, “John Oliver Blasts GOP Over Lead Poisoning Our Children” includes Oliver’s excellent video rant rant on an infrastructure upgrade issue we can’t ignore much longer. And Vox has got the map to prove it.
To the delight of Democratic Party strategists, Republicans are doubling down on the transgender bathroom “issue,” notes the New York Times editorial board, and now the GOP crazy about bathrooms is spreading to beyond the southern states to KS and MN.
Not to pile on, but Chuck Todd shreds NC’s Republican Governor Pat McCrory for his warped defense of transgender bathroom hysteria, as Caitlin MacNeal notes at Talking Points Memo.

Greg Sargent’s Plum Line considers “How GOP convention chaos could help Clinton win the White House” and notes that “convention craziness could conceivably hurt the GOP in two ways. First, it could create impressions of a party in chaos even as Clinton (should she win the nomination) begins laying out her general election agenda. Second, even if that blows over, intra-GOP bitterness and recriminations could continue to divide the GOP after the convention has come and gone.”
At Rothenblog Nathan Gonzales reports that Democrats blew a good chance for a pick-up of a U.S. House seat (VA-2) — by failing to field a candidate. Please explain, Virginia Democratic Party.
Could this be the beginning of a right to left party-switching trend? Read “Kirk goes full RINO to save Senate seat” by Seung Min Kim and Bergess Everett at Politico.
The American Legislative Exchange Council has been extremely effective in blocking and undermining needed progressive reforms, like early voting, environmental protection, greater Obamacare access and a modest minimum wage increase, to name just a few causes they have blocked with ‘template’ legislation in the nation’s state legislatures. If you google for a few minutes, you can find some good print reports on ALEC here, here and here, for example. And here is a list of ALEC’s member corporations, and here is a list of companies that have quit ALEC, mostly because of public pressure.
Yet, overall, the mainstream media, particularly television news, has failed to adequately educate the public about the destructive effects of this secretive organization. There are a few exceptions. In national media, Moyers & Company has an excellent 1-hour report on ALEC’s agenda and effects. One exemplary exception at the local level is chief investigative reporter Brendan Keefe of ’11-Alive,’ an Atlanta NBC affiliate. Credit Keefe with a gutsy effort to inform the public about ALEC’s activities in this video:

John Oliver gets medieval on ALEC and does a great job of informing his audience in this short clip. And here’s a good example of a media-savvy citizen’s creative video clip on ALEC, which delves more extensively into ALEC’s issues and activities:

American Prospect Senior Editor Eliza Newlin Carney explains why “Chaotic Primaries Signal Voting Trouble Ahead.” Her lede: “If the long lines, ballot shortages, technical glitches, and poll-worker errors plaguing this year’s presidential primaries are any indication, Election Day 2016 could prove mighty chaotic…the polling place breakdowns in recent primaries, which have drawn just under 30 percent of voters, bode poorly for a general election that is expected to feature double that level of turnout.”
Sanders supporters, please take note: Bernie and Jane Sanders will vote for Clinton, if she is nominated. “If Bernie wins, hopefully Secretary Clinton’s supporters will support him,” says Ms. Sanders. “and if she wins we hope our supporters will support her.” It would be good if both candidates affirmed that they would not only “support” the other Democratic candidate; they would also campaign vigorously for the Democratic nominee. A spirit of Democratic unity at the top could help down-ballot candidates.
At Democratic Underground a poster named “eridani” notes that “Ironically, in 2008 it was Clinton supporters vowing to stay home–or vote for John McCain–if Obama became the nominee. At the time, that same HuffPo columnist warned that “balkanized Democrats could give the White House to John McCain.” That May, primary exit polls found less than half of Hillary Clinton’s supporters in Indiana and North Carolina saying they’d consider voting for Obama in the general election. Even in early July, after Obama had secured the nomination, only 54 percent of Clinton backers said they planned to vote for him…Those self-described “PUMAs”–“party unity my ass”–may have stayed home by the dozens that November, but at the end of the day nine out of 10 Democrats supported Obama in an election that featured the highest turnout in 40 years. A similar dynamic played out with Howard Dean supporters in 2004.”

It doesn’t do one’s state a lot of good when top entertainers, like Bruce Springsteen, boycott it because of homophobic policies rammed through the state legislature at the behest of wingnut evangelicals and signed by the Governor.
It makes even less sense when your state is a possible beachhead for Democrats in the South, since Obama won it in 2008, especially in a pivotal election year in which Democrats are gaining momentum and a U.S. Senate seat now held by Republican Richard Burr is vulnerable. As Crystal Ball’s Larry J. Sabato, Kyle Kondik and Geoffrey Skelley recently wrote,

Having easily dismissed a trio of primary challengers on March 15, Sen. Richard Burr (R) can now focus on the general election, where he will face ex-state Rep. Deborah Ross (D), who won her party’s nomination to take on the incumbent. To a greater extent than Missouri, the new rating in North Carolina comes down to basic coattail math: If the GOP presidential nominee falters, the Tar Heel State will likely be the first red-state domino to fall because Romney only carried it by just two percentage points in 2012. With Trump or Cruz as the nominee, it’s possible that Democrats could carry North Carolina in November, boosting Ross’ chances.

And that was written before the latest jobs meltdown. As you might imagine some NC Republicans are shrugging it off, with a “who cares about Springsteen” attitude. But now the stakes are considerably higher, as David Bracken and Paul A. Specht write in “Economic impact of HB2 mushrooms in the Triangle” in the News and Observer,

The economic impact of the state’s controversial House Bill 2 continued to mushroom Tuesday, as Deutsche Bank announced it was freezing plans to create 250 jobs in Cary and a top Wake County economic development official said that five companies since early last week have canceled or postponed efforts to bring jobs to the county.
“We’ve had some companies choose to suspend their site selection search in North Carolina and consequently in Wake County,” said Adrienne Cole, executive director of Wake County Economic Development. “Some have said they’re taking North Carolina off the list, others have said they’re postponing things to see what happens.”
The economic development projects included an IT company and a clean energy company and ranged in size from 75 jobs to one that could have brought 1,000 jobs to the Triangle, she said.
Cole said that, after Deutsche Bank’s decision, she’s also worried about economic development projects that the area has already secured. The German bank in September announced plans to add 250 jobs in Cary by the end of next year.
But it halted that expansion Tuesday, saying in a statement that HB2 “invalidated existing protections of the rights of gay, bisexual and transgender fellow citizens in some municipalities and prevents municipalities from adopting such protections in the future.”

The authors add that “Deutsche Bank is the second major corporation to halt expansion plans in North Carolina because of HB2. Last week, PayPal scrapped plans for a new Charlotte operations center that would have employed 400 people. Two other companies, Red Ventures and Braeburn Pharmaceuticals, have said they are re-evaluating expansion plans because of the law.” Further,

The legislation also has led some municipalities and states to ban nonessential employee travel to North Carolina. The Greater Raleigh Convention and Visitors Bureau released a report Monday saying that Wake County had lost out on an estimated $732,000 in economic benefits after four groups canceled plans to hold events in the county.

North Carolina’s Republican Governor Pat McCrory has chosen to learn his lessons the hard way. As Craig Jarvis writes in the NC News and Observer,

Gov. Pat McCrory on Tuesday issued an executive order that he said was needed to clarify widespread misunderstanding about the new North Carolina law regulating protections for gay and transgender people.
The governor’s order didn’t change the most controversial provision of the law: requiring transgender people to use bathrooms of their birth gender. Gay rights advocates criticized McCrory for not doing enough, while Republican leaders supported him.

McCrory is also up for re-election this year, and his prospects were rated a “toss-up” by Crystal Ball’s Sabato, Kondik and Skelly — also before the latest jobs meltdown.
Progressive who savor the spectacle of Republican leader squirmage and such poorly conceived and clumsy walkbacks should stay tuned. This show is just getting started and it will soon be played out in other southern states.
What we are seeing in the pushback in the southern states is a great victory for all those who are opposed to mean-spirited, homophobic state laws — and a showcase for the power of the boycott as the most effective form of citizen action. It is more than possible that such boycotts could be used to repeal and prevent other reactionary state laws, including ALEC’s voter suppression measures and other laws that abuse civil and hiuman rights.
It just may be that NC swing voters will soon tire of the GOP’s Keystone Kops routine and, if NC Dems play this hand well, decide that Republicans, who frequently brag about their party’s “pro-business” policies, are clearly clueless about what it takes to attract — and keep — jobs. November 8 would be a good time to send that message.

At Huffpo Daniel Marans discusses a debate between pairs of Democratic candidates in the primaries in their respective states over whether or not to cut Social Security benefits.
Marans writes that the debate is erupting in several key senatorial primarties, including Kamala Harris vs. Loretta Sanchez in CA; Donna Edwards vs. Chris Van Hollen in MD; Katie McGinty vs. Joe Sestak in PA; and Alan Grayson vs. Patrick Murphy in FL. Harris, Edwards, Grayson and McGinty are all oposing Social Security cuts. Their opponents are leaving the door open to discussing the proposals suggested by the Bowles-Simpson Commission, which Marans reports include “major cuts to Social Security benefits, including raising the retirement age and cutting the cost-of-living adjustment…”
If this debate seems a little backwards, you are thinking clearly. At a time when millions of elderly Americans who have worked hard for decades are retiring in poverty and economic hardship, Democrats should not cosider reducing these modest retirement benefits at all. And at a time when Democrats are losing the votes of millions of high-turnout senior citizens to Republicans, the Democratic Party should not risk being perceived as wobbly on Social Security benefits.
Rather, the debate should be about how much Social Security benefits should be increased and to what extent eligibility should be expanded. If Democrats truly want to win a stable majority, then the goal should be to make sure every swing voter understands that cuting Social Security benefits is off the table for Democrats, and Dems are the party that wants to improve retirement security, not flirt with undermining it.
Marans quotes some Democrats and progressives who get it:

“While some in Washington have voted to balance the budget on the backs of seniors, Kamala would oppose cuts to Social Security and Medicare, and believes we need to strengthen these safety nets…Elizabeth Warren’s impassioned November 2013 speech embracing benefits expansion became a turning point that helped move the idea into the mainstream. The New York Times editorial board endorsed Social Security expansion in January. And both Democratic presidential candidates have pledged to increase benefits, not cut them.

Marans notes further that Alex Lawson, executive director of Social Security Works, argues that “putting a political price on past support for Bowles-Simpson “is not an ideological purity thing. This is about millions of Americans somehow getting by on benefits of $14, $15, $16,000 a year and elected officials thinking they can cut benefits.”
Marans adds that “A Pew study released on March 31 found that opposition to Social Security cuts is the only position shared by a majority of the supporters of all of the presidential candidates in both parties.”
Further, top economists agree that the least painful way to insure the solvency of Social Security is to eliminate the cap on Social Security taxes. As The National Comittee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare explains,

Incredibly, most people still don’t realize that workers who earn more than $110,100 don’t contribute on their full income and that simply removing that tax loophole for high earners would close the vast majority of Social Security’s modest long-term funding gap. Legislation introduced by Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR) would apply the same payroll tax already paid by more than 9 out of 10 Americans to those with incomes over $250,000 a year. Making the wealthiest Americans pay the same payroll tax already assessed on those with lower incomes should be a no-brainer and it is the solution Americans prefer rather than cutting already modest Social Security benefits.

Nearly all Republicans in congress want to cut Social Security benefits, instead of lifting the cap. When such a simple — and popular — alternative solution to addressing the program’s future funding exists, Democrats should speak with one voice on this issue, as the unflagging champions of increased retirement security for working Americans. Making this principle a central and prominent component of the Democratic Party’s message will win enough votes from American seniors to secure a stable majority.