Brad Knickerbocker’s Monitor article, “Democrats: ‘Why we got shellacked in the 2014 elections‘ offers a couple of well-stated insights, including: “”So many people can rattle off easily and succinctly what it means to be a Republican,” said Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the Florida congresswoman who chairs the DNC. “The perception of what it means to be a Democrat has really evolved to be a laundry list of policy statements and disparate ideas.”
On the same topic, AP’s Ken Thomas quotes KY Governor Steve Beshear: “”I am here to tell you the Democratic Party has lost its way…The problems are not with the “party’s core beliefs,” he said, but relate to “our inability to convey our principles to the American people in a precise, concise and passionate way.”
An AP-GfK Poll of 1,045 adults conducted online from 1/29 to 2/2 found that 68 percent of respondents believed that “wealthy households pay too little in federal taxes; only 11 percent said the wealthy pay too much…Also, 60 percent said middle-class households pay too much in federal taxes, while 7 percent said they paid too little…One proposal would increase capital gains taxes on households making more than $500,000. In the survey, 56 percent favored the proposal, while only 16 percent opposed it.”
Laura Clawson’s Kos post, “Famously awful pollster shows how to fake majority support for Netanyahu speech” provides an object lesson in absurdly biased poll questions. The question, from a McLaughlin poll: “Republican House Speaker John Boehner has invited Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to address a joint session of Congress on March 3rd. President Obama and some Democrats think it should be cancelled because it is 2 weeks before an Israeli election. Israeli Prime Minister wants to speak to the American Congress to try to stop a deal that would give Iran a nuclear weapon. These negotiations are set to conclude 3 weeks after the Prime Minister’s speech. Knowing all of this is true, do you support or oppose Prime Minister Netanyahu speaking to Congress on March 3rd?” Clawson’s capper: “Politico, by the way, reported this as if it was a serious poll.”
Paul Krugman shreds the “education is power” meme treasured by class conflict-averse pundits and politicians: “…What I keep seeing is people insisting that educational failings are at the root of still-weak job creation, stagnating wages and rising inequality. This sounds serious and thoughtful. But it’s actually a view very much at odds with the evidence, not to mention a way to hide from the real, unavoidably partisan debate…We should recognize that popular evasion for what it is: a deeply unserious fantasy…The inflation-adjusted earnings of highly educated Americans have gone nowhere since the late 1990s…All the big gains are going to a tiny group of individuals holding strategic positions in corporate suites or astride the crossroads of finance. Rising inequality isn’t about who has the knowledge; it’s about who has the power.”
NYT columnist Nicholas Kristof’s “Straight Talk for White Men” sheds rare light on a topic that merits more discussion, unconscious bias, which likely is responsible for most discrimination and undermines prospects for Democratic political consensus.
Those who believe the time is now ripe for a strong Democratic emphasis on infrastructure upgrades should read Albert R. Hunt’s New York Times article “U.S. Struggles to Build a Strong Infrastructure.” Hunt explains, “There is a broad consensus that infrastructure investment is a significant job-creator. It is embraced by the Chamber of Commerce, the A.F.L.-C.I.O. and many governors and mayors of both parties…Republican congressional leaders want selective big accomplishments to prove they can govern. President Obama wants a few more successes in his final years. Infrastructure is one of the very few areas where they are on roughly the same page.” Hunt sees a gas tax hike as the logical funding vehicle. But the GOP’s knee-jerk opposition to anything that involves spending or tax hikes, or anything Democrats have long advocated, suggests that Republican support for infrastructure upgrades may be more limited when votes are tallied.
Hats off to John Legend and Common for using the Oscar ceremonies to bring needed attention to an issue that doesn’t get enough media coverage — felon disenfranchisement.
Whatever hopes Republicans were entertaining about projecting Columba Bush as Jeb Bush’s “keeping’ it real” anchor will not be well-served by her jewelry shopping expeditions, as reported by WaPo’s Karen Tumutly and Alice Krites: “a $25,600 pair of diamond stud earrings set in platinum; an 18-karat white-gold and diamond bracelet by the Italian designer Bulgari, priced at $10,500; an 18-karat white-gold and diamond necklace, costing $3,200; and another pair of diamond earrings, for $3,300. The records indicate that she received discounts and price adjustments totalling $2,780 and paid $2,491.70 in sales tax…That was one of at least five such loans made by the store to Columba Bush between 1995 and 2009. The most recent was for an $11,700 Rolex watch and a $5,900 pair of earrings…In 1997, when she bought a Roman coin necklace for $15,000 and a $16,600 Rolex watch studded with diamonds…While the 2000 purchase listed the governor’s mansion as her home address, documents suggest that, on at least one earlier occasion, Columba Bush wanted the paperwork sent to a postal box.” Upwards of $90K in all — And that’s just the stuff that’s been reported…

New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof has an interesting column about his change of viewpoint towards labor unions. Kristof’s column is significant, not only as an admission that even the top commentators can be mistaken, learn and grow, but also because it is an indication that many Americans are beginning to understand that a healthy labor movement is essential for a stable middle class.
Kristof begins by explaining that he had “disdained” unions because of union members who are grossly overcompensated and the “corruption, nepotism and rigid work rules” he saw in unions. He cites the example of some stage hands earning $400K in compensation.
Such attitudes towards unions are understandable. Outrageous examples of abuse get disproportionate media coverage and are frequently repeated and exaggerated, giving the impression that they are more common than is the case. The role of unions in securing decent living standards for millions of workers, however, gets much less coverage. For every union member who earns $400K per year, there are hundreds of thousands who are earning middle class wages and struggling to pay their bills.
Kristof’s reading and research, along with recent economic trends, apparently lead him to rethink his earlier impressions. “I was wrong,” he states. “The abuses are real. But, as unions wane in American life, it’s also increasingly clear that they were doing a lot of good in sustaining middle class life — especially the private-sector unions that are now dwindling.” He notes, further,

Most studies suggest that about one-fifth of the increase in economic inequality in America among men in recent decades is the result of the decline in unions. It may be more: A study in the American Sociological Review, using the broadest methodology, estimates that the decline of unions may account for one-third of the rise of inequality among men.
“To understand the rising inequality, you have to understand the devastation in the labor movement,” says Jake Rosenfeld, a labor expert at the University of Washington and the author of “What Unions No Longer Do.”
Take construction workers. A full-time construction worker earns about $10,000 less per year now than in 1973, in today’s dollars, according to Rosenfeld. One reason is probably that the proportion who are unionized has fallen in that period from more than 40 percent to just 14 percent.
“All the focus on labor’s flaws can distract us from the bigger picture,” Rosenfeld writes. “For generations now the labor movement has stood as the most prominent and effective voice for economic justice.”

Kristof still condemns abusive union policies, but now adds,

But unions also lobby for programs like universal prekindergarten that help create broad-based prosperity. They are pushing for a higher national minimum wage, even though that would directly benefit mostly nonunionized workers.
I’ve also changed my mind because, in recent years, the worst abuses by far haven’t been in the union shop but in the corporate suite. One of the things you learn as a journalist is that when there’s no accountability, we humans are capable of tremendous avarice and venality. That’s true of union bosses — and of corporate tycoons. Unions, even flawed ones, can provide checks and balances for flawed corporations…Many Americans think unions drag down the economy over all, but scholars disagree.

That’s an important realization and the hope is that other Americans are also beginning to rethink the critical role unions have to play in restoring America’s economic health. “Historically, the periods when union membership were highest were those when inequality was least,” Kristof explains.
Kristof notes that “Lawrence F. Katz, a Harvard labor economist, raises concerns about some aspects of public-sector unions, but he says that in the private sector (where only 7 percent of workers are now unionized): “I think we’ve gone too far in de-unionization.”
“He’s right,” concludes Kristof. “This isn’t something you often hear a columnist say, but I’ll say it again: I was wrong. At least in the private sector, we should strengthen unions, not try to eviscerate them.”
If he did the necessary research, Kristof would likely find that the overwhelming majority of unionized public sector workers are not living all that high on the hog, either. Here as well, a relatively few well-publicized horror stories trump the aggregate reality too often in public perceptions.
Credit Kristof with having the integrity, smarts and candor to own his mistaken impression and share what he has learned with his readers. May others learn from his example.
For Democrats, improved public attitudes toward unions on a broader scale would be a welcome development, since the party’s prospects and goals are intertwined with those of the labor movement. Indeed, it’s hard to envision the Democratic party thriving independently of unions, which provide critical financial and volunteer support during elections, as well as being the most effective force for reducing income inequality. Educating the public about the inextricable relationship of unions to a healthy middle class in the U.S. should become a leading priority of progressives.

Re the ruling by a federal judge in Texas against President Obama’s executive order shielding immigrants from deportation, Greg Sargent notes “nothing significant has changed. Republican leaders still need to decide whether they are going to agree to fund the Department of Homeland Security cleanly, while dropping their effort to use DHS funding as leverage to roll back Obama’s actions. And if they do decide to do that, they will still need Democratic support to get it through the House, which would enrage conservatives.” Republicans hope that their shutdown threat will help persuade a half-dozen moderate Democratic Senators to support them. Sargent adds, “Today’s CNN poll finding that a majority would blame Republicans over Obama for any such shutdown — by 53-30 — once again shows that shutdown fights institutionally favor presidents over Congresses.”
E. J. Dionne, Jr.’s post, “Can the GOP superego win the day?” has several insightful nuggets on the topic, including this one: “Most Republicans realize that one of the biggest obstacles to their building a majority in presidential elections is the fact that Latino Americans have come to feel that the GOP just doesn’t like them very much. As the party’s now much neglected “Growth and Opportunity Project” autopsy after the 2012 election put it, “if Hispanics think we do not want them here, they will close their ears to our policies.”…In any event, Republicans hold the patent on government shutdowns, so they can forget about shifting responsibility for any interruption in services at the Department of Homeland Security to the president or the Democrats.”
Stephen A. Nuno reports at NBC News, “The Latino National Survey is considered one of the most reputable academic studies of Latinos and includes over 8,600 completed interviews on a wide range of political topics. When it comes to party identification, the LNS reports that among Latino registered voters, 61 percent say they are Democrats while 22 percent identify as Republican and 17 percent as Independent.”
“The fact that vast sums of money were being spent by liberal and conservative groups along with the national parties on the same small set of Senate races probably limited the impact of such spending. Not only was one side’s spending generally matched by the other side’s spending, but the sheer volume of spending probably exceeded the point of diminishing returns in many of these states.” from Alan I. Abramowitz’s Crystal Ball post “Why Outside Spending is Overrated.” Abramowitz conducts a regression analysis to measure the impact of spending and other variables and concludes, “Republicans made major gains in the 2014 Senate elections but the findings reported here indicate that outside spending by conservative groups had little or nothing to do with those gains. The main reason why Republicans did very well in 2014 was that Democrats were defending far more seats than Republicans and many of those seats were in states that normally favor Republicans based on recent presidential voting patterns.”
Chris Kent of The Breeze, James Madison University’s newspaper, reports on a student-led initiative to get a polling site on campus, like Virginia Tech, the University of Virginia, George Mason University and Liberty University all have. No doubt less enlightened states than VA lack such on-campus polling sites. Meanwhile, what is needed is a national law that facilitates on-line voting for out-of-state students and could be accessed anywhere. A young friend at the University of Georgia tells me that he is certain many of his friends who skipped the midterm elections would gladly use such a site. Maybe a nation-wide student movement could help get such a law.
Apropos of our recent staff post, “2016 A banner Year for Democratic Women?“,” do read Sheryl Gay Stolberg’s New York Times article, “Proof That Women Are the Better Dealmakers in the Senate,” citing a Quorum study, reported by Mariel Klein, which found, “Over all, women were far more likely than men to work across the aisle. Quorum found the average female senator co-sponsored 171.08 bills with a member of the opposite party; for the average male senator, that figure was 129.87.”
At The Hill, Jesse Byrnes reports, “Six in 10 Americans want a higher minimum wage while one-fifth are opposed to such a plan, according to a new Associated Press-GfK poll released Thursday…Sixty percent also favor requiring employers to offer paid sick leave, including about half of Republicans polled.”
According to Crowdpac, which provides numerical scores for candidates on the basis of the political contributions they received, their speeches and votes, the Democratic presidential candidate field for 2016 thus far ranges across a more narrow ideological spectrum than was the case in 2008, reports Derek Willis at The Upshot.
Well this is rich, wingnuts bashing Jeb Bush for, gasp, honoring Hillary Clinton for her public service. As Tim Alberta reports at National Journal: “ForAmerica, a conservative grassroots group with a Facebook following of more than 7 million members, released the video Thursday morning. It shows footage of Bush awarding Clinton, the former secretary of state, with the Liberty Medal at a ceremony hosted by the National Constitution Center.” Of course they work in a Benghazi reference to try to shame JB.

Michael Lind’s Salon.com post, “Doomed by the South: Why the emerging Democratic majority may never happen” has a couple of blind spots at the center of his argument, one of which is in this graph:

More bad news for Emerging Democratic Majoritarians: the political journalist Sean Trende has estimated the impact of regional population shifts on House seats (and thus on the presidential electoral vote) in 2020 and 2040. In both periods, the Northeast and Midwest lose congressional representation, while all of the states to pick up House seats are in the South or the West. Texas is the big winner, gaining two seats after 2020 and seven seats after 2040, for a total of nine gained. New York loses one seat after 2020 and two seats after 2020, for a total of three lost. According to Trende, California does not lose seats but picks up only one between now and the 2040s.

The swelling of population in the southern states is accompanied by a substantial increase in the percentage of African American voters, a demographic that is projected to increase even more in the decade ahead. The percentage of white voters is also projected to decrease substantially in southern states. How you get from there to a confident prediction of a permanent Republican majority in the south is a stretch too far.
The emerging Democratic majority may be delayed by voter suppression. There is a compelling argument that voter suppression is the primary force that keeps Republicans in power in the south. As Wendy Weiser wrotes in her post, “How Much of a Difference Did New Voting Restrictions Make in Yesterday’s Close Races?” at the Brennan Center for Justice:

In the North Carolina Senate race, state house speaker Thom Tillis beat Senator Kay Hagen by a margin of 1.7 percent, or about 48,000 votes.
At the same time, North Carolina’s voters were, for the first time, voting under one of the harshest new election laws in the country — a law that Tillis helped to craft. Among other changes, the law slashed seven early voting days, eliminated same-day registration, and prohibited voting outside a voter’s home precinct — all forms of voting especially popular among African Americans. While it is too early to assess the impact of the law this year, the Election Protection hotline and other voter protection volunteers reported what appeared to be widespread problems both with voter registrations and with voters being told they were in the wrong precinct yesterday.
Some numbers from recent elections suggest that the magnitude of the problem may not be far from the margin of victory: In the last midterms in 2010, 200,000 voters cast ballots during the early voting days now cut, according to a recent court decision. In 2012, 700,000 voted during those days, including more than a quarter of all African-Americans who voted that year. In 2012, 100,000 North Carolinians, almost a one-third of whom were African-American, voted using same-day registration, which was not available this year. And 7,500 voters cast their ballots outside of their home precincts that year.
…The Florida governor’s race was decided by only a 1.2 percent margin, with Governor Rick Scott narrowly beating former Governor Charlie Crist by just under 72,000 votes.
Florida has passed a host of new voting restrictions over the past few years. Perhaps the most significant for this election was a decision by Scott and his clemency board to make it virtually impossible for the more than 1.3 million Floridians who were formerly convicted of crimes but have done their time and paid their debt to society to have their voting rights restored. Under Florida’s law, the harshest in the country, one in three African-American men is essentially permanently disenfranchised. Ironically, Scott had rolled back rights that were expanded under Governor Crist, who had established a path for people with past convictions to more easily get their voting rights restored. Under that process, more than 150,000 citizens had their rights restored before Scott changed the rules. This is part of a pattern this year of candidates benefiting from voting restrictions they helped to pass.
…It is little solace to the more than 600,000 registered voters in Texas who could not vote this year because they lack IDs the state will accept that the governor’s race was decided by more than 600,000 votes. For one thing, there are far more races — from state legislator to justice of the peace — that affect voters’ day-to-day lives and that could have been impacted by those lost votes. But more importantly, those citizens — a number of whom were long-time voters who were turned away from the polls this year — were denied their basic right of citizenship, their ability to hold their politicians accountable, and their ability to join their friends and family to have a say over what happens in their communities. The dignitary harm comes through loud and clear when you read their stories.

When you factor out voter suppression laws, Republican majorities in the south and elsewhere become shaky indeed. There will be a blue wave election eventually, and much of the gerrymandering and voter suppression will be reversed.
Lind is right that Latino culture and voting patterns are complex, and yes, Republican social conservatism will continue to appeal to a substantial minority of Hispanic voters. But there is not much indication that the GOP will soon outgrow it’s nativist immigrant-bashers, who are already creating serious problems for the Republicans’ presidential field. The GOP’s share of southern Latino votes will more likely shrink than increase in the years ahead.
Increasing percentages of Latino and African American voters in southern states will continue to help Democrats. Virginia, Florida and North Carolina are now purple states. It will take longer for Georgia and longer still for Texas.
But let’s not forget that the U.S. Supreme Court is just a retirement and an election away from balance being restored. When that happens, the recent era of voter suppression could end quite quickly and the bandwagon dismissing prospects for the emerging Democratic majority will become silent.

“The Mystery of Lower Voter Registration for Older Black Voters” by Nate Cohn explores possible reasons for the registration deficit. But it’s up to Democrats to develop some micro-targeting strategies to reduce it, particularly in the mid term elections.
A look at the most recent polling of the public’s perception of labor unions reveals some image issues which labor needs to work on. For example an August Gallup poll revealed that 53 percent approve of labor unions, compared to 60 percent approval in August of 2007. Only 32 percent in the August 2014 poll agreed that those who benefit from a labor contract should have to pay union dues.
At the National Journal Jason Plautz rolls out the environmental horror show Republicans are planning for America, which should be of considerable interest to Democrats who want to hold them accountable to voters.
Buzzfeed has a graphics-rich take on Media Matters for America’s expose of white male elitism on the seven Sunday TV news shows
At Demos Stuart Naifeh explores the limp enforcement of the Motor Voter Act and it’s consequences.
If you’re having trouble wrapping your head around the concept of the terms “Scott Walker” and “educational reform” in the same sentence, check out Charles Pierce’s Esquire riff “Watching Scotty Blow: The national press has gained a sudden interest in the potential presidential contender’s lack of a college degree. I wonder why.”
Happy Presidents’ Day. With reefer legalization gathering steam nation-wide, it seems fitting that we pause to salute the stoner presidents. Russ Belvin has the skinny at, where else, High Times.
“More than 70 percent of Hispanics in America favor President Barack Obama’s decision to reestablish diplomatic relations with Cuba, but less than half want the 43-year-old embargo lifted, according to a Florida Atlantic University poll,” reports Howard Koplowitz at International Business Times.
Forgiveness, Republican style.

At the National Journal Ronald Brownstein reports on the “States of Change Project” directed by TDS founding editor Ruy Teixeira of the Center for American Progress and Karlyn Bowman of the American Enterprise institute: “The goals of the project are: (1) to document and analyze the challenges to democracy posed by the rapid demographic evolution of the United States, from the 1970’s to the year 2060; and (2) to promote a wide-ranging and bipartisan discussion of America’s demographic future and what it portends for the political parties and the policy challenges they (and the country) face.”
Also at the National Journal, Brownstein explains why Georgia, Texas and Arizona will be increasingly central to Republican electoral strategy. Brownstein provides a perceptive, data-driven analysis of demographic change and voting in these three states.
You could call it the “Georgia minority voter reduction Act,” a measure that cleared the Republican-controlled state House Governmental Affairs Committee, reducing early voting days from 21 to 12 and allowing counties to make early voting on Sundays during the shortened period optional.
Former Bush speechwriter David Frum outlines an Eisenhoweresque sanity agenda for Republicans at The Atlantic. Expect few takers among GOP leaders.
Meanwhile, in this year’s politics, Kyle Kondik is “Checking in on 2015’s Gubernatorial Races” at the Crystal Ball, and finds a Republican edge in the three races, with Dems having their best shot in KY.
In his American Prospect article, “How Democratic Progressives Survived a Landslide: They ran against Wall Street and carried the white working class. The Democrats who shunned populism got clobbered,” Bob Moser makes the case that “mushy moderation has failed to convert many Republicans or Republican-leaning independents, even as it gives Democratic-leaners nothing special to get excited about.”
I doubt evolution will be much of a pivotal issue in the 2016 presidential election, but it could make for some amusing squirmage in the GOP presidential primary debates. Luke Brinker has a round-up preview at Salon.com.
But it looks like the Republican establishment would like to have some softball love-ins replacing vigorous debates, as Cameron Joseph reports at The Hill.
Re Jon Stewart’s tent-fold announcement, Jamelle Bouie has a couple of points worth thinking about. Still, credit Stewart with dozens of blistering and hilarious riffs on GOP hypocrisy that no one else on the tube, save Bill Maher would dare to match. Here’s hoping Stewart doesn’t retire from political criticism.

Nate Cohn has hit on a potent insight in his post “The Parent Agenda, the Emerging Democratic Focus” at The Upshot:

…In the months after last year’s midterm elections, a reinvigorated liberal agenda has started to emerge. Few of the pieces of this agenda were discussed in the 2012 presidential elections or last year’s midterms. But they have rapidly moved from various liberal intellectual publications into President Obama’s speeches and budget, as well as Hillary Clinton’s speeches.
The emerging Democratic agenda is meant to appeal to parents. The policies under discussion — paid family leave; universal preschool; an expanded earned-income tax credit and child tax credit; free community college and perhaps free four-year college in time — are intended both to alleviate the burdens on middle-class families and to expand educational opportunity for children. The result is a thematic platform addressing some of the biggest sources of anxiety about the future of the middle class.

Cohn is unsure whether the agenda will “resonate with voters,” but “it does have the potential to give the Democrats a more coherent message for the middle class than the party had in 2014 or even 2012.” I would say that agenda will certainly appeal to middle-class parents. What is less clear is whether it will be well-projected by Democratic leaders and whether the media will get distracted by GOP side-shows.
The agenda, as outlined by Cohn, is not only well-tailored to appeal to middle class parents. It also dovetails nicely with the experience and policy priorities of Hillary Clinton, should she win the Democratic nomination to run for president in 2016. Clinton, who was mentored by Children’s Defense Fund President Marian Wright Edelman, should be able to articulate a middle-class family agenda with confidence and expertise no Republican could match.
As for the demographic appeal of a parents agenda, Cohn adds,

The parental agenda has the potential to resonate among the large group of voters with children under 18 at home, 36 percent of the electorate in 2012. It might also resonate among the already Democratic-leaning young voters of the Obama era, 18 to 29 years old in 2008, who are now entering prime childbearing years. The birthrate among millennials has dropped to near-record or record lows, depending on the age cohort, probably in part because of economic insecurity. Weekly earnings for full-time workers aged 25 to 34 are down 3.8 percent since 2000.

Cohn notes an added benefit: “This emerging Democratic agenda has already co-opted the message of so-called reform conservatives, who argue that the G.O.P. needs to come up with policies to help families.” Whatever hope the Republicans had for staking out a healthy share of the moderate vote would be shattered by a compelling parents’ agenda.
“Control of Congress has allowed the Republican Party to defer its public campaign against Mr. Obama’s initiatives, since they are dead on arrival,” notes Cohn. “But the G.O.P. will not have that luxury in 2016, when it will need to offer a more cogent and specific response than it has so far.”
It will be interesting to see how Republican presidential candidates address the Democratic parents agenda in the primaries, in which they will be pressed to pander to their right flanks. At the same time, however, they will alienate parents who like the ideas of tuition-free community colleges, paid family leave, child care assistance and other social programs which benefit families. They will surely try to distract voters from the core policies of concern to families. But it’s up to Democrats to hold them accountable and keep the media focused on the parents agenda.

From Adam Sneed’s report, “Poll: Good grades for Obama on unemployment” at Politico: “Fifty-one percent of those surveyed say the president is handling unemployment well, according to an Associated Press-GfK poll. The poll was conducted before Friday’s jobs report, which showed the strongest job growth in three months since 1997 as well as a notable growth in hourly wages for the private sector…The new numbers come with more good news for Obama’s party: The poll finds Americans are more likely to trust Democrats than Republicans on handling economic issues, but the numbers are low for both parties. Thirty-three percent trust Democrats on the economy, and 28 percent trust Republicans.”
At National Journal, James Oliphant’s “How Not to Run for President: What 2016 hopefuls can learn from former flameouts” has some well-stated advice that could apply to down ballot campaigns as well.
AP’s Ken Thomas and Thomas Beaumont report on the Democratic strategy to out Jeb Bush as a Romney political clone: “Mitt Romney opposed the government’s rescue of U.S. automakers. So did Jeb Bush. Both worked in finance and backed the Wall Street bailout. Both are advocates of tax cuts that Democrats contend only benefit the wealthy and big business…They also are eager to note how Bush, after leaving office, served on an advisory board for Lehman Brothers, a financial firm that collapsed in 2008 during the recession. They compare Bush’s work in private equity to Romney’s role at Bain Capital, which was criticized during the 2012 campaign for its leveraged buyouts of companies that in some cases led to job losses…”We don’t need to try to show that Jeb is like Romney. He pretty much is Romney,” said Eddie Vale, vice president of American Bridge 21st Century, a liberal group set up to conduct opposition research on Republicans. “When it comes to any ideas or policies, he’s the same as Romney.”
This could be fun.
At MSNBC.com Zachary Roth reports on the effort to undo the politicized felon disenfranchisement laws Republicans have passed in several states. Roth focuses on an Iowa case that reveals how low Gov. Terry Branstad has stooped to disenfranchise citizens of his state in service to the G.O.P. agenda.
NC Democrats have chosen former state legislator and congressional candidate Patsy Keever of Asheville to lead the state party to the 2016 elections, in which NC will elect a U.S. Senator, Governor and possibly, the President.
Despite all of the bragging rights the GOP has claimed about their improved campaign technology, conservative political consultant Adam B. Schaeffer explains “Why Republicans Haven’t Closed the Gap on Targeting and Tactics” at Campaigns & Elections.
At Family Studies.org Amber and David Lapp report on “One Idea for Renewing Friendship in Working-Class America” — weekend retreats to build trust and camaraderie between families, a technique that was used with some success in the wake of the Spanish Civil War.
For a funny take on a Republican Governor striving to present himself as a down-home dude, read Kurt Erickson’s “Rauner still tryin’ to be a regular guy.” As Erickson notes, “But even though the campaign is over, the Winnetka Republican is still working the working class, blue collar theme. The latest evidence came Wednesday when he delivered his first State of the State speech to a joint session of the General Assembly…Just a few minutes into his address, Statehouse denizens began noticing a dramatic change in his language…He was droppin’ his G’s…It was clear Rauner has decided — perhaps with the assistance of a speech coach — that he might better connect with the masses if he said “disappearin” rather than “disappearing.”…Infightin’ over infighting. Neighborin’ over neighboring” etc.

NPR’s Pam Fessler has an update on the counter-offensive against voter suppression: “There are many such proposals among the 1,200 voting bills already introduced in state legislatures this year…There are also proposals in Arizona, Georgia, Hawaii, New York and Oregon to do something completely new — automatically register eligible citizens to vote, unless they opt out…Underhill says there are also many measures that would expand early and absentee voting…”Right now, there are 37 states that offer such an opportunity for their voters,” she says. “But that leaves another 13 states that don’t have one of those options. And it looks like there is legislation in nine of those.”
So how important is same-day registration? At The Daily Pennsylvanian Dan Spinelli reports, “A study conducted by the public policy organization Demos concluded that states with same-day voter registration average a 10 percent greater turnout than states without the policy. According to the study, same-day registration especially increased voter turnout among blacks. In North Carolina, which recently eliminated its same-day registration program, 41 percent of voters who registered on the 2012 Election Day were black, compared to just 20 percent of the population.”
In not-absolutely-all-Republicans-are-into-voter suppression news, here we have a, gasp, Republican, OK state Sen. David Holt, pushing for expanding early voting hours, online registration (20 states now have it) and, get this — all mail elections by 2020 (3 states now have it, CO, OR and WA). Interestingly, the conservative Oklahoman editorial board supports his proposals.
Legislative obstruction is not such a bad thing — when it prevents harassment of immigrants under the cover of “homeland security.”
Yes, it’s early and it’s only one poll. But even in the wake of Jeb Bush’s big media offensive, Jim Saunders of the News Service of Florida reports that “A Quinnipiac University poll released Tuesday shows former Gov. Jeb Bush and former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in a virtual tie in a hypothetical 2016 presidential race in Florida. The poll gave 44 percent to Clinton and 43 percent to Bush…the poll also shows the Democrat Clinton leading another native son, Republican U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, by a margin of 49 percent to 39 percent in Florida.”
Heady days for Koch brothers’ fav WI Gov. Scott Walker, who now leads in IA, NH and Drudge polls in quest for GOP presidential nomination. But he lags in FL, OH and PA polls.
But Walker’s “boots on the ground” “anywhere and everywhere” interview with Martha Raddatz is likely to bring some blistering heat from opponents in his own party, as well as progressives. Conor Friedersdorf adds at The Atlantic, “the GOP consensus on foreign policy remains sufficiently ill-considered that even thoughtless comments often go unchallenged within the party…This shortcoming may well hand Election 2016 to Democrats.”
Just in time for 2016, here comes a new era of political video ads, custom-tailored for facebook.
Greg Sargent puts the latest GOP noise about repealing Obamacare into the context of the upcoming Supreme Court decision King v. Burwell. “The repeal vote is a reminder that the only consensus GOP position on health reform is to blow up Obamacare and replace it with nothing. That could have important implications for King v. Burwell…today’s repeal vote — symbolic or not — confirms, doing away with Obamacare subsidies for everyone in the country who is receiving them is the actual consensus GOP position.” Could be a very tough sell in 2016.

The revelation that the Koch Brothers plan to spend at least $889 million on the 2016 elections has reignited the discussion about what progressives can do about it. At National Journal Scott Bland’s “Should Democrats Double Down on Attacking the Koch Brothers?” tackles the question:

No Democratic strategy got more attention in 2014 than the party’s ritualized slamming of the conservative Koch brothers. From Harry Reid’s floor speeches to TV ads broadcast across the country, Democrats bloodied the billionaire brothers and they candidates they funded–yet most of the Koch candidates won anyway.
…Not every Democrat wants to double down on the Kochs. It’s expensive, for one thing, to raise the profiles of businessmen most people have never heard of in order to attack them. “I think the Kochs are a great fundraising foil, but I continue to believe they’re not the best line of attack for Democrats,” said Travis Lowe, a Democratic ad-maker.

No doubt there are plenty of potential Democratic voters who don’t resent those who acquire as much wealth as they can, but who might be troubled to learn about the myriad Koch conduits like the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and Americans for Prosperity, which support legislation and candidates who protect polluters, undermine unions, cut needed social programs, oppose the minimum wage and reduce employee benefits, health and safety protection for working people. Educating the public about such Koch brothers projects is a challenge. But not doing so is giving one of the most regressive political institutions in American history a free ride to do their worst, which is pretty bad.
As Jane Mayer wrote in The New Yorker,

The Kochs are longtime libertarians who believe in drastically lower personal and corporate taxes, minimal social services for the needy, and much less oversight of industry – especially environmental regulation. These views dovetail with the brothers’ corporate interests. … Greenpeace issued a report identifying the company as a ‘kingpin of climate science denial.’ The report purported to show that, from 2005 to 2008, the Kochs vastly outspent ExxonMobil in giving money to organizations fighting legislation related to climate change, underwriting a huge network of foundations, think tanks, and political front groups. Indeed, the brothers have funded opposition campaigns against so many Obama Administration policies – from health-care reform to the economic-stimulus program – that, in political circles, their ideological network is known as the “Kochtopus.”

Some have advocated boycotting Koch products. But it is more problematic. The tentacles of Koch Industries include massive petrochemical holdings, refineries, manufacturers, energy, minerals, paper products, fertilizer, ranching, commodities trading and other subsidiaries employing an estimated 70,000 people world-wide. Koch Industries is the second largest privately held company in the U.S. (If Koch Industries were publicly-held, it would have ranked 17 in the Fortune 500).
Georgia-Pacific is probably the most vulnerable Koch Industries company in terms of a possible consumer boycott, since they are the top producer of household paper products. But it takes some research for consumers to find Koch-free alternatives. Many grocery chains carry few other options, so ubiquitous are the company’s paper products. If a consumer wanted to get totally off the Koch industries grid, it would probably require walking to work and using tree leaves for toilet paper. Even a successful boycott of Georgia Pacific would likely have limited influence, since Koch Industries is so broadly diversified.
That’s not to say that other protest tactics, such as picketing their homes or demonstrating against their union-bashing would not help educate the public about their destructive influence on legislation at the federal, state and local levels. Doing nothing to protest against their increasing funding to prevent needed social reforms makes even less sense than overreacting.
Is it possible that targeting the Koch brothers in the 2014 midterm elections failed mostly because it wasn’t sharply focused or done with sufficient repetition? Bland reports that targeting the Koch brothers got impressive results in at least one state:

Paul Tencher, who managed Democratic Sen. Gary Peters’s victorious 2014 campaign in Michigan, says his team’s efforts demonstrate that the strategy is too potent to give up, especially with the Kochs’ political network planning to spend a gargantuan $889 million in 2016. Tencher says their methods are the only way to keep the ever-growing influx of Koch-network money from swinging elections.
…Peters’s campaign in Michigan was one of the few November bright spots for his party, and it came after months of relentless TV ads linking Republican nominee Terri Lynn Land to the Kochs and a trio of environmental and economic issues with Koch-owned companies in the state. According to analysis from Kantar Media/CMAG and The Cook Political Report, 35 percent of Democratic TV ads in Michigan’s 2014 Senate race attacked the Kochs–the highest rate in the country.
When Tencher started as Peters’s campaign manager last winter, Koch-affiliated groups such as Americans for Prosperity had been advertising against Peters for months, and Land was doing better in both public and private polling. So Peters’s campaign shifted resources to opposition research–but on the Kochs, not Land.
…Democratic outside groups picked up on the campaign’s research, which highlighted chemical storage along the Detroit River and major layoffs in northern Michigan, and aired TV ads attacking the Kochs’ motivations for backing Land. And from the spring through the early fall, as Peters pulled away and Land’s unfavorable ratings grew in Democratic polling from 25 percent to the 40s, the Kochs’ name recognition and unfavorable ratings grew in lockstep, too.
“We have to be smarter and more disciplined about shutting off the spigot of outside money,” Tencher said in an interview. “… This isn’t just about bruising up the Koch brothers and raising money. It’s about shutting off that spigot and making their brand incapable of carrying the Republican message
…”The Kochs left in August,” Tencher said. “Whether it was because she became a non-viable candidate or they became a non-viable messenger, one way or another we stopped their money.”…I think other campaigns could and should have bought into this messaging better.”

It appears that targeting the Koch brothers can work, when it is properly focused under the right conditions. If a campaign teams do a good job of educating voters about the Koch brothers’ business practices, environmental record and role in politics, and then persuasively connect them to Republican candidates in a substantial way, it can help elect Democrats.