At WaPo’s Wonkblog Lydia DePillis and Jim Tankersley explain that “To Fix inequality, Democrats are Pushing Unions,” including Democratic economic moderates, like Lawrence Summers and Robert Rubin, as well as the more progressive wing. One or the more interesting quotes in the article: “Some of us have been saying for a while that the right wing has a much greater appreciation for what unions do than Democrats and progressives do,” says Steve Rosenthal, a progressive campaign consultant who served as political director of the AFL-CIO for seven years.
Mike Lillis reports at The Hill that “Nancy Pelosi, Democrats chart their own path for 2016,” which raises concerns about message fragmentation. All of the “big tent” constituencies have to find a way to articulate their concerns in the context of the mothership message, “Democrats are the party for working families. Republicans are for the rich elite.”
In her Salon.com post “The Democratic Party is facing a Catholic apocalypse,” Patricia Miller writes: “There’s no “Catholic vote” in terms of Catholics representing an electoral bloc that votes according to what their bishops tell them, or in lockstep with the tenets of their religion. Yet winning Catholic voters has been essential to almost every presidential victory in modern times. And the defection of Catholics voters has played a role in some of the most consequential congressional turnovers in recent history — from 1994 to 2014 — making Catholics the ultimate swing voters. And for Democrats, that could be bad news.
At HuffPo Michael McAuliff reports that “Tom Cotton, Arkansas Rep., Took Student Loans, Voted Against Them.”
Seth Freed Wessler’s NBC News post, “Middle-Class Betrayal? Why Working Hard Is No Longer Enough in America” is a good read for Democratic candidates wondering how to connect with discontented younger voters.
Ditto for Anne Fisher’s “American Millennials are among the world’s least skilled” at Fortune.com. Fisher notes, “Researchers at Princeton-based Educational Testing Service (ETS)…administered a test called the Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC). Sponsored by the OECD, the test was designed to measure the job skills of adults, aged 16 to 65, in 23 countries…When the results were analyzed by age group and nationality, ETS got a shock. It turns out, says a new report, that Millennials in the U.S. fall short when it comes to the skills employers want most: literacy (including the ability to follow simple instructions), practical math, and — hold on to your hat — a category called “problem-solving in technology-rich environments.”
Chris Cillizza explains that “In 2016 race, an electoral college edge for Democrats”: “…if you add up all of the states that are either “safe” for the eventual Democratic nominee or “favor” that nominee, you get 217 electoral votes. (A candidate needs to win 270 to be elected president.) Do the same for states safe or favoring the Republican standard-bearer, per Gonzales’s rankings, and you get just 191 electoral votes.” I was expecting for a larger lead.
Dara Lind’s Vox post, “Don’t say “papaya” in Miami, and other lessons for wooing Latino voters” has some excellent tips for Democratic campaigns.
As the nation cranks up for the St. Patrick’s Day celebration tomorrow, this seems like a good video to get the juices flowing. Dropkick Murphys Frontman Ken Casey explains the band’s blistering take town of WI Gov. Scott Walker, who tried to use their song, “I’m Shipping Out to Boston” at an Iowa confab, (@ScottWalker @GovWalker please stop using our music in any way…we literally hate you !!! Love, Dropkick Murphys),” reported by Matt Juul at Boston.com…Casey said. “If you don’t know that our politics and lyrics are certainly Democrat — and certainly pro-working class and organized labor — it is who we are. That’s what we’ve been during our time as a band, so for Scott Walker, there are plenty of bands out there to choose from, just don’t choose us.”

Alan I. Abramowitz offers an observation in his concluding chapter in The Surge, the U.Va. Center for Politics’ new book about the 2014 and 2016 elections, which ought to inform the strategy of all Democratic campaigns in 2016: “In 2014…Republican House candidates defeated Democratic House candidates by a whopping 30 percentage points among white voters without a college degree, according to the national exit poll. The ability of the 2016 Democratic presidential candidate to reduce the Republican margin among white working-class voters, who were once a vital component of the Democratic electoral coalition, may be just as important as turnout among nonwhites in determining the outcome of the election.”

At Reuters David Adams reports that a Feb. 26-7 poll by Beyond the Beltway found that “most American voters support expanding trade, travel, and diplomatic relations with Havana…Some 64 percent of those surveyed supported ending the embargo, including 74 percent of Democrats, 51 percent of Republicans, and 64 percent of independents…A larger majority of voters – 72 percent – supported expanding travel and trade by Americans and having diplomatic relations with Cuba. Of those, 64 percent of Republicans under the age of 50 agreed that the recent policy changes “are in the best interests of the U.S. and Cuban people.”
For a small state, Maryland has a lot of impressive Democratic political talent, and the upcoming U.S. Senate race to fill retiring Sen. Barbara Mikulski’s seat is shaping up as a marquee contest with tough choices for progressives. Sheryl Gay Stolberg has the story at The New York Times.

“As compared with non-right-to-work states, wages in right-to-work states are 3.2 percent lower on average, or about $1,500 less a year,” according to Elise Gould, senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute. So how about a poll that asks respondents “Would you support a ‘right to work’ law, even though states that have these laws have 3.2 percent lower average wages?”

From the report, “America Goes to the Polls 2014“: “States with Election Day Registration (EDR) far outpaced states that don’t allow voters to register or fix a registration problem on Election Day. Voter turnout in the EDR States averaged 48%, 12 points above voter turnout in non-EDR states. Four states used EDR for the first time in a midterm in 2014, bringing the total number of states using EDR to 13…Seven of the top ten states in voter turnout were Election Day Registration states.”

But it’s not all about EDR: The report also notes that “Nine of the top ten had competitive statewide races. In contrast, the 19 states with the lowest turnout states in 2014 had no competitive statewide races. Nor did any of those bottom 19 states allow voters to correct a registration issue when they went to vote. Nevada, Tennessee, New York, Texas and Indiana made up the bottom five with barely more than a quarter of their state’s voters participating.”
From the same report, here are the leading reasons given for not voting in the 2014 midterm elections: 1. Schedule Conflicts with Work or School – 35%; 2. Too Busy, Out of Town, Sick, or Forgot – 34%; 3. Didn’t Like Candidates, Didn’t Know Enough or Didn’t Care – 20%; 4. Missed Registration Deadline, Recently Moved, or No Transportation – 10%.

In his Washington Monthly post, “Beware the Narrative,” TDS managing editor Ed Kilgore adds to an insightful observation in a “The Week” post by Paul Waldman. Kilgore notes: “I became really phobic about “narratives” during the 2014 election cycle, when the “Great-Big-Adults-of-the-GOP-are-back-in-charge” narrative first drove primary coverage, and then affected the general election as MSM types refused to see The Crazy in GOP candidates like Joni Ernst and Thom Tillis and Tom Cotton–because The Narrative said it had been banished. That’s one of the larger lessons I wrote about in Election 2014, as a matter of fact…Media types should know their own temptations well enough to be on constant alert of narrative-driven coverage of Hillary Clinton. Once they go there, it will be hard ever to come back.”

The New York Times editorial “Republican Idiocy on Iran” observes “Besides being willing to sabotage any deal with Iran (before they know the final details), these Republicans are perfectly willing to diminish America’s standing as a global power capable of crafting international commitments and adhering to them.” The editorial also quotes President Obama: “It’s somewhat ironic to see some members of Congress wanting to make common cause with the hard-liners in Iran,” he said. “It’s an unusual coalition.”

The headline is not completely justified by the story, but John Merline’s Investors Business Daily report on a new IBD/TIPP poll on working-class attitudes towards the President and current economic policies and trends should be of interest to Democrats in particular.
Merline explains that self-identified “working-class” respondents in the poll had an average family income of “just over $50,700 (in comparison to those who self-i.d. themselves as “middle class,” who had and average family income of $70,800, and self-i.d. “upper-middle class” with “close to $100,000” in average family income):

By wide margins, this group is more likely to say the country is headed in the wrong direction, the economy is getting worse, and they fear losing their jobs than any other income class…Just 36% approve of the job Obama is doing as president, compared with 43% overall, and vast majorities say his policies haven’t helped the middle class.

Merline adds further,

..nearly two thirds of the working class (64%) say the country is headed in the wrong direction. Nearly as many (60%) say they’re not satisfied with federal economic policies. And 53% say the economy is not improving.
This is in sharp contrast to the views of the upper-middle class. More than half of this group (51%) say the country is headed in the right direction, 53% are satisfied with federal economic policies, and 65% say the economy is improving.
Meanwhile, about 43% of working-class families are worried that they or someone in their household could lose their jobs in the next 12 months. That’s higher than any other income class — even lower-class people are less concerned. Just 28% of the nation as a whole are worried about layoffs.
The working class are even more likely to say their taxes are too high (61% say this) than the middle class (49%), the upper-middle class (48%), or the nation as a whole (52%)..More than half of the working class (53%) hold an unfavorable view of Obama’s leadership, and a similar share disapprove of the job he’s doing. Both are higher than the nation overall…The working class are also more likely to oppose ObamaCare (53% oppose the law) and want it repealed (50%), than the country overall (47% and 44% respectively).
…They also are far more hostile to Obama’s executive action granting amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants — 62% of the working class oppose it, compared with 49% of the middle class and 48% of the upper-middle class.

Perhaps the only good news for Dems in Merline’s report is that “38% of the working class said they are Democrats, compared with 34% of all those polled,” and a similar racial makeup.” I would add that his Obama approval data seems a little more unfavorable than what we are seeing in other current polls.
Merline doesn’t provide any breakdown of racial data, so his report is of limited value in regard to pinpointing current attitudes of the white working class, which Dems hope will vote at least a little more Democratic in upcoming elections. Insofar as the working class includes all races, the poll is more about how different family income groups perceive current policies, which has some value, though limited, as well. Class remains a more complex social entity, influenced by racial, occupational and regional factors, among others.

In political boomerang news, Sahil Kapur of Talking Points Memo reports on “The 5 GOP Presidential Hopefuls Most At Risk If SCOTUS Guts Obamacare.”

It’s just a student vote at one university, but there’s a hint for increasing college student voter turnout in this headline and story. Lots of students care strongly about environmental issues and they just might turn out in more impressive percentages for candidates who do the same.
Here’s another disturbing example of college student voter apathy, and another indication of the failure of California to leverage the NVRA motor voter provision, as referenced in our March 6 staff post. As Benjamin Genta reports at The Daily Bruin, “Less than 9 percent of eligible voters aged 18 to 24 turned out to vote in the 2014 midterm election this past November in California, a historic low, according to a January UC Davis report…In Los Angeles county, it was even less, with only between 5.5 and 7.5 percent of the same age demographic casting their ballots.” Quite a downer for those who remember a time when California college students lead the nation in political action…

At HuffPo Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, writes, “More than 20 countries around the world mandate voting. I had the opportunity to visit Australia last year, where citizens either vote or pay a small fine. Voter turnout there is nearly universal. In Canada, registrars go door to door registering citizens to vote, like we do with the census. In elections there, about 70 percent of voters regularly go to the polls…Mandatory voting would ensure that all voices were heard, that fewer could be shut out. It would broaden the pool of voters and limit the concentration of power that is now enjoyed by certain wealthy and corporate interests of our society. It would help build a sense of duty and responsibility in our citizenry. And it would be healthy for our democracy.”

In his column, “50 years later, Selma’s struggle is not over,” E. J. Dionne, Jr. makes the case for compulsory voting: “…Let’s be more adventurous and make voting in federal elections an obligation of citizenship…Yes, “compulsory voting” seems a nonstarter in the United States, as my political scientist friends Tom Mann, Norm Ornstein and I well know. The three of us have been arguing for this idea based on our experiences in Australia, a country for which we have great affection, where voters are required to go to the polls. The system works well, raising turnout especially among the less well-to-do and the less ideological. This creates a more moderate and more representative electorate. Crucially, such a law tells state and local governments that instead of creating barriers to voting, they should ease the way for citizens to fulfill their civic duty.”

From Clarence Page’s syndicated column “Democrats must connect with working-class whites“: “Two decades later, many Democrats still ask why so many working-class whites “vote against their economic interests.” Blogging in the New York Times after November’s elections, Tom Edsall said Democrats really should be asking themselves: “What has the Democratic Party done for these voters lately?”…I think the most important question in politics, regardless of race, creed or color, is simply, “Who’s on my side?”

Quote of the day goes to Eric Alterman, from his post “Why Nobody Seems to Mind That Bill O’Reilly Is a Total Fraud” at The Nation: “…Fox News has become a kind of Frankenstein’s monster of the mainstream media’s own creation. O’Reilly, Ailes and Murdoch are not trying terribly hard to fool anyone. They know what business they’re in; they are feeding red-meat propaganda to (mostly elderly, white) right-wing knuckleheads.” It’s a ‘preaching to the choir’ operation, unlikely to persuade anyone looking for credible information to make an informed voting decision.

Republican Governors of AL, MI, NV, OH, ME, KS, and IA are prepping to raise taxes or user fees of one sort or another, reports Mark Niquette of Bloomberg Politics.
Many have noted the absence of Republican leaders, other then George Bush II, in Selma for the 50th anniversary commemoration of the voting rights movement. Taking a tip from the late Democratic Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who once said, “In the best tradition of our committee, there is hardly anyone here. . . . We know we are not discussing capital gains,” maybe O’Connell and Boehner should hold hearings on capital gains in Selma.

This week the media is full of coverage of the 50th anniversary of the Selma to Montgomery March for Voting Rights, and many Democratic office-holders will be heading to Alabama for the commemorative activities. If you haven’t done so yet, do see “Selma,” if only to better appreciate the great courage, sacrifices made and the blood that was shed so African Americans could exercise the most basic of democratic rights, which white Americans took for granted. Then think about Chief Justice John Roberts’s role as a voter suppression guru in the Reagan white house, his leadership (author of the majority opinion) of the 2013 decision gutting the Voting Rights Act and why every American who cares about democracy should support the Voting Rights Amendment Act of 2015 (more valuable information about the Act right here). For a list of House Reps and Senators now supporting the Act, click here.
And, speaking of Reagan, there has been a fair amount of scribbling lately about why the sainted Reagan would be too liberal for today’s tea party, given his record on certain issues, like immigration. But let’s not forget how destructive Reagan’s legacy has been overall, a reality that is well-summarized in “Reagan started our fall into abyss of greed,” a letter to the editor by James V. Burke.

For an essential guide to understanding America’s political future, study the Center for American Progress publication, “States of Change: The Demographic Evolution of the American Electorate, 1974-2060” by TDS co-founding editor Ruy Teixeira, William H. Frey and Rob Griffin.

WaPo syndicated columnist Dan Balz puts the study in context of the current political moment.

Hard to lose one of the greatest U.S. Senators, retiring Sen. Barbara Mikulski. But Dems have an extremely-strong menu of potential senatorial candidates in Maryland, including Reps. Donna Edwards, Chris Van Holland and Elijah Cummings, Sec’y of Labor Thomas Perez, Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake and several other formidable state leaders.

Brendan Nyhan’s “Voters Unlikely to Care Much About the Hillary Clinton Email Furor” gets it right at The Upshot and shares a good quote from John Sides, “In October 2016, no persuadable voter will be thinking about Hillary Clinton’s email account.” The Hillary-haters are going to have to come up with something a tad more substantial to keep voters awake.
Also, Phillip Bump explains “Why Hillary Clinton probably isn’t sweating this email stuff, in three charts.”

There’s clue or two for Dems interested in getting more of that high-turnout senior vote in Helaine Olen’s Slate.com post “The Semi-Retirement Myth: Don’t buy the tales of meaningful work into your 70s. Your retirement is inevitable–and bleaker than the last generation’s.” Here’s a hint from Olen: “Congress could pass legislation strengthening age discrimination laws, not to mention heeding the call by senators like Elizabeth Warren and Sherrod Brown to increase Social Security checks. A poll conducted last year found 79 percent of Americans agreed Social Security benefits should be increased, with the bill paid by the wealthy.” Whether congress passes such legislation or not, Dems should be highly-visible in support of these reforms. Dems should also consider that when seniors are compelled to take entry-level jobs to survive, fewer of those jobs will be available for younger workers.

Greg Sargent calls attention to the importance of the upcoming gubernatorial races, which will decide how much power Dems will have to check GOP gerrymandering. “The 2014 elections left Democrats in a deep state-level hole: Republicans control over 30 governorships and two-thirds of partisan legislative chambers; they are in total control of state government in 24 states, while Democrats can only say that about six states.” Sargent quotes from his interview with CT’s politically astute Gov. Dan Malloy, who will soon take over helm of the Dem Govs Association: “It’s going to take a four year cycle, not a two year cycle, to turn this back. Democrats have to adopt the Republican concept of constant campaigning. Democrats tend to think of elections as cycles. Republicans don’t. It’s ongoing and constant.”
From an AP report on the political fallout of the House votes to cut off Homeland Security funding (then later to restore it for one week) unless President Obama rescinds his executive order protecting millions of immigrants from deportation: “Bad tactics yield bad outcomes,” GOP Rep. Charlie Dent of Pennsylvania told reporters. Republican leaders, he said, have engaged “in tactical malpractice, and at some point we’re going to vote on the negotiated Homeland Security appropriations bill,” a bipartisan plan that most Republicans oppose but cannot kill…””We all know how this is going to turn out,” said an exasperated Republican, Rep. Mike Simpson of Idaho. “Politically, it’s devastating.”
The NYT editorial The Phony Legal Attack on Health Care cites yet another example of conservatives’ excessive fondness for murderous imagery, in the vein of Norquist’s “drown the baby in the bathtub” : “This bastard has to be killed as a matter of political hygiene. I do not care how this is done, whether it’s dismembered, whether we drive a stake through its heart, whether we tar and feather it and drive it out of town, whether we strangle it.” Note that the speaker, a former chairman of the Competitive Enterprise Institute was not talking about ISIS; he was talking about legislation that has expanded health care coverage for millions, the ACA.
David Masciotra unravels the infantile psychology that underlays the Libertarian “philosophy” in his post, “You’re Not the Boss of Me! Why Libertarianism Is a Childish Sham” at Alternet.
Here’s an interesting nugget from Chris Turner’s post, “The 5 traits of Winning Grassroots Campaigns” at Campaigns & Elections: “Great grassroots operations no longer rely alone upon vote history to select targets. Instead, they enlist analytics experts like Evolving Strategies on the Right and The Analyst Institute on the Left to generate targets based on turnout propensity scores, persuasion scores, and now (new from Evolving-Strategies.com), essentially a “how engageable is this voter” score…Prices for voter file scoring have dropped significantly, making these tools very affordable. Great grassroots efforts knock on the doors of those voters who indicate they are most likely to actually engage, demonstrate a predisposition toward voting, and will vote your way.”
At Salon.com Sean McElwee reports on an important data-driven study of the effects of voter suppression laws and their linkage to racial motivations, “Vulnerability in Numbers: Racial Composition of the Electorate, Voter Suppression, and the Voting Rights Act” by by Ian Vandewalker and Keith Bentele at the Harvard Latino Law Review. From the abstract at the Social Science Research Network: “…We present new empirical evidence that the proposal and passage of restrictive voting laws, such as photo identification requirements and reductions of early voting opportunities, are associated with racial factors such as larger African American populations and increases in minority voter turnout. These results are consistent with the interpretation that restrictive voting laws have been pursued in order to suppress Democratic-leaning minority voters, and they are suggestive that racial discrimination is a contributing factor to this type of legislation….The evidence we present is relevant to litigation under remaining provisions of the VRA, especially the prohibition on voting laws with a discriminatory effect under Section 2…”
Margot Sanger-Katz’s Upshot post “High Rate of Shopping and Switching in Obamacare Plans Is a Good Sign” shows why those who really believe in market competition should be supporting the Affordable Care Act. But don’t hold your breath waiting for Republicans to put support for genuine market competition before their partisan hatred.
Suzanne Dovi asks and addresses a helluva good question at Talking Points Memo Cafe: “We Spend Billions On Democracy-Building Abroad. What If We Matched That At Home?” Dovi argues that investing in making America a more livable nation could be a more cost-effective way to persuade other nations to embrace democracy. Providing “a living, breathing example of a democracy that supports due process, reduces police brutality, provides a good and affordable education to its citizens, and economically thrives with cutting-edge technology would make other political regimes want to imitate our democracy. A matching funds program for U.S. democratic nation-building would be a small price to pay in the long run.”
Say g’nite, Rudy. This headline provides a fitting epitaph for his political career.

From President Obama’s remarks at a Miami Town Hall, as reported by Mollie Reilly at HuffPo: “In the last election, a little over one-third of eligible voters voted. One-third! Two-thirds of the people who have the right to vote — because of the struggles of previous generation, had the right to vote — stayed home. I’m willing to bet that there are young people who have family members who are at risk of the existing immigration system who still didn’t vote.”…”Why are you staying at home?” Obama said. “Why are you not participating? There are war-torn countries, people full of poverty, who still voted 60, 70 percent. If here in the United States of America, we voted at 60 percent, 70 percent, it would transform our politics. Our Congress would be completely different. We would have already passed comprehensive immigration reform.”
Apparently the Republicans are having a taste of their own meds, instead of the cakewalk they were expecting in the Senate, according to “Senate Democrats Show Limits of GOP Spending Strategy,” by Tamar Hallerman and Niels Lesniewski at The Hill.
New Republican front-runner and Koch brothers errand boy Scott Walker prepares to deliver another crushing blow to unions — and middle class living standards.
“Do you believe in evolution or not?” A 49% plurality of Republicans said they do not,” reports Steve Benen at Maddowblog. He adds a quote from Paul Krugman: “For some time now it has been impossible to be a good Republicans while believing in the reality of climate change; now it’s impossible to be a good Republican while believing in evolution.” This is the party that wants to lead America into the information age of the 21st century?
NYT columnist Ross Douthat sets a new standard in windy false equivalency analysis, yet another denial of the GOP’s animosity toward an African American president who dares to oppose their policies.
At Sabato’s Crystal Ball Kyle Kondik reports “Ultimately, there are just 25 seats listed…where there is a consensus among Democrats and Republicans that the races should be competitive, and we’re not even sure we’d go that far: Several of the seats the Crystal Ball has already categorized as Likely for one side or the other, so it is not obvious to us that they will be competitive. Another appears in the Crystal Ball as Safe Democratic (IL-17, held by Rep. Cheri Bustos). More races will obviously come into play, and remember that the Democrats have more Republican targets to unveil. However, there’s little reason to expect at this point that more than about 50-60 seats — and probably fewer — will be truly competitive in the general election. That’s barely more than a tenth of all 435 House seats.”
“Why are Democrats suddenly cheering in Ohio? (+video): Ted Strickland, a Democrat and former Ohio governor, announced Wednesday he’s taking on GOP Sen. Rob Portman. That will be a marquee Senate race in a cycle with lots of opportunities for Democrats,” reports Linda Feldman at The Monitor.
Paige Lavender reports on the “Middle Class Prosperity Project” being launched by Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Rep. Elijah Cummings.
Republicans get told raw by retiring Sen. Barbara Boxer. Jill Bond reports at Blue Nation Review:

The second part of Le Champignon’s Daily Kos post “Democrats wise up, return to 50 State Strategy” addresses the core concern of the title and opens with this observation:

The 50 State Strategy was never intended to install progressives in deep-red districts and states. This simply isn’t going to happen. There’s no reason for these states to vote for a local progressive if they won’t vote for a non-local progressive (i.e., our president). Sure, there are exceptions. I can see why West Virginians, dependent on the extraction industry as they are, would not vote for someone who was a staunch supporter of the EPA, but would vote for a local Democrat who was progressive to the core except on environmental issues.

I agree, but have to wonder if perhaps the term “50 State Strategy” is therefore a little misleading. No doubt there is progress Dems can make in all 50 states, but at a certain point we have to marshall and direct our resources to where they can be most effective.
Le Champ cites some of the exceptional Democratic senate candidates, like Jon Tester, Jim Webb and Ray Manchin, who won in red/purple states, and there are surely many more House candidates who could be named. We should always make allowances and provide resources for good candidates who pop up in unlikely places.
In formulating overall strategy however, Dems don’t have the resources to compete fully everywhere. Spreading our money and manpower too thin can deny victory to our candidates who have the best chances to win. There’s no avoiding these hard choices. Let’s build the Democratic parties of all 50 states, but let’s concentrate our resources where we have the best chances.
Some of our best state-wide candidates like Michelle Nunn in Georgia and Wendy Davis in Texas lost in 2014, providing hard lessons about Democratic limitations, especially in mid term elections. The surprisingly large margins of their respective defeats suggest Democratic resources would be more productively invested elsewhere, at least in the short term and in the next mid-term elections. Yet, the demographic dynamics in TX and GA offer some hope that the “tipping point” for defeating the GOP is coming before too long.
Le Champignon concludes with a note of realistic optimism:

The point I’m trying to make is this. The 50 State Strategy is good. It entails us competing in districts we probably shouldn’t be competing in. But these cries of apostasy have to stop, unless they’re truly deserved (McCaskill, Manchin.. I’m looking at you). We will not compete in every state and district with the hope of winning them, or with the hope of “party building” or what-have-you. We won’t be electing progressives to many of these positions.
But we’ll be electing Democrats. And that’s a good thing. Let’s pick our battles carefully. Let’s win the midterm of 2018, which is going to be the most important election we’ll ever see. Let’s win seats at the table for redistricting by electing governors, secretaries of state, legislators, and so forth. And then, when we have better maps in place, and when states like Arizona and Texas have moved further towards us, then let’s try to elect progressives.

So for now, let’s pick a half-dozen states where a significant infusion of resources in candidate training, campaigns and voter turnout can produce disproportionately beneficial results in a shorter time frame. Some obvious choices for the top tier include FL, NC, CO, WI, VA and MO, and good cases can be made for a few others. When these states are firmly on track, the case for a broader 50 state investment becomes more cost-effective. At the same time let’s keep eyeballs peeled for promising candidates in less likely places — and make sure they don’t lose for want of resources.

A Daily Kos blogger with the handle “Le Champignon” has a post “Democrats Wise Up, Return to 50 State Strategy,” which provides a pitch for unity with a diss for “pet causes…to the exclusion of everything else.” The post has stimulated an interesting discussion (see comments) about the relative merits of ‘big tent’ inclusiveness vs. a more ‘purist’ progressive vision. Further,

We need to be the Coalition of the Dispossessed. We are the groups who are marginalized by sexist men, by racist whites, by homophobic straight cis people, by the uncaring rich, by the supremely powerful, by the untouchable military industrial complex, and by companies whose only purpose is profit over people. We are those who need to be helped, who have been wronged by society, and who haven’t gotten a fair shake. That above all should be our rallying cry. And we should show solidarity to everyone under our banner. Feminists should look into union issues. Gay rights activists should care about disastrous free-trade agreements. Our race leaders need to look into fair taxation policies. In short, we must be as ideologically diverse as our coalition. We must be united.

A worthy insight and a good starting point for a dialogue about rallying around a central theme. But I wish Champ had explicitly included the struggling white working class or lower middle class whites, whatever you want to call it. This large, but frequently-overlooked constituency should have a welcome place in the big, inclusive tent, if we are ever going to secure a working majority that can beat back filibusters and override vetoes as needed.
But let’s never disparage the “pet causes” of any of the constituent groups. That’s their raison d’être, and failure to respect it as such can only lead to further disunity and defeat. Each and every constituency in the big tent should find ways of supporting fellow Democratic coalition groups, to the extent possible. MLK said it well in 1967:

The art of alliance politics is more complex and more intricate than it is generally pictured….A true alliance is based upon some self-interest of each component group and a common interest into which they merge. For an alliance to have permanence and loyal commitment from its various elements, each of them must have a goal from which it benefits and none must have an outlook in basic conflict with the others.
If we employ the principle of selectivity along these lines, we will find millions of allies who in serving themselves also support us, and on such sound foundations unity and mutual trust and tangible accomplishment will flourish.

Mutual respect between constituent groups, as well as unity around a central message, is the glue that will bind a successful Democratic Party coalition. That’s the path of a pragmatically-progressive Democratic Party focused on victory.

We don’t hide our partisan leanings here at TDS, but we reserve the right to call out media which profess nonpartisanship, but appear to practice otherwise. Kendall Breitman’s report, “Gallup poll: Democrats losing sympathy for Israel” at Politico provides an example.
Lydia Saad’s Gallup post, “Seven in 10 Americans Continue to View Israel Favorably” reports on the 2/8-11 poll Breitman references:

A key reason Americans’ sympathy for Israel has solidified at a sizable majority level is that Republicans’ support for the Jewish state has increased considerably, rising from 53% in 2000 to more than 80% since 2014 — with just 7% choosing the Palestinian Authority. A particularly large jump in GOP sympathy for Israel occurred in the first few years after 9/11 and at the start of the 2003 Iraq War.
Democrats’ support for Israel has also risen since 2000, but not quite as sharply as Republicans’. Additionally, the percentage of Democrats sympathizing with Israel fell 10 points this year to 48%, possibly reflecting the tension between Obama and Netanyahu…The percentage of Democrats viewing Israel favorably is also down, currently at 60%, vs. 74% a year ago. Positive views of the Palestinian Authority are fairly scarce, but no lower than they have been in recent years.

Saad’s report does not reveal exactly how the questions were phrased. Gallup leaves it to the reader to figure out the precise meaning of the terms “support for the Jewish state,” “sympathizing” and “viewing Israel favorably,” devoid of any real context. Would it take up to much space to provide the wording of the questions, or at least a link to them? Really?
Despite contradictions in the Gallup report, Politico’s headline writer goes with “Gallup poll: Democrats losing sympathy for Israel.” Breitman has no mention of the “60 percent of Democrats viewing israel favorably,” nor the increase in Democrats support for Israel since 2000.
The Politico report provides a convenient handout for Republican fund raisers targeting Jewish donors, right on time in the wake of the Netanyahu dust-up. I scanned a few dozen of the more than 2400 comments following the Politico article, but saw little besides splenetic pro- and anti-Zionist rants.
Yet, if ever there was a topic that cried out for serious nuanced analysis, but rarely gets it these days, public attitudes toward Israel’s policies and those of it’s adversaries could be exhibit “A.”
In my view, Politico often demonstrates a conservative bias, though I have posted comments on some of their articles which seem even-handed enough, and even a few which slant from the left. Their business model seems to be “conservative to centrist slant with an occasional liberal post.” There is nothing wrong with partisan commentary, as long as it doesn’t pretend to be objective reporting.
UPDATE: I lamented the lack of nuanced analysis too soon. TDS co-founding editor William A. Galston does exactly that in his Brookings.edu post “The complex American and Israeli politics of Netanyahu’s address to Congress.” As Galston notes:

…Last November, the Chicago Council on Global Affairs found that 67 percent of Americans–including majorities of Republicans and Independents as well as Democrats–support U.S. leaders meeting and talking with the leaders of Iran. And 62 percent support the current interim agreement with Iran, which they understand to ease some international sanctions against Iran in exchange for Iran restricting but not eliminating its nuclear program and submitting to tougher inspections of its nuclear facilities.
This solid support for the interim agreement suggests that the American people are inclined to accept the best results the current negotiations can achieve–namely, a long-term deal that leaves Iran with a substantial nuclear infrastructure, subjects it to rigorous inspections, and phases out sanctions over an extended period.
What should happen if the Iranians commit a major violation of the agreement? According tothe Chicago Council on Global Affairs, 60 percent of Americans (including 55 percent of Democrats) would favor a UN Security Council resolution authorizing a military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities. Previous surveys–by CBS News, the Pew Research Center, and Reuters, among others–have found that Americans would favor a U.S. strike to prevent Iran from producing nuclear weapons.
These clear but complex public views will shape the American reaction to Prime Minister Netanyahu’s forthcoming speech. On the one hand, Americans’ support for Israel remains very strong, and there will be visceral sympathy for Israel’s desire to abate what it sees as an existential threat. On the other hand, the evidence suggests that the American people would like to see their leaders strike a deal with Iran, even if it leaves some nuclear infrastructure in place, impose the toughest possible inspection regime–and harshly punish major violations. In short, Americans are willing to use force against Iran, but only after they have tested the consequences of a negotiated deal and found them wanting. If Americans regard Netanyahu as trying to block any agreement that is feasible in the real world and to set the United States on an inexorable course to war with Iran, they are unlikely to support him.

Galston’s analysis could be a template for nuanced and balanced poll analysis of highly complex attitudes of Americans toward the conflict between Israel and it’s neighbors.