At Daily Kos Dreaminonempty has an elegant graphic in his post “Why 2014 is not 2010, in one very clear chart.” Go there and chew on it for a minute.
The chart shows two trend lines, using “loess curves” to depict the course of “Democratic generic congressional ballot polls” for 2014 and 2010 over time, beginning in January of each respective year. The 2014 line is fairly straight, showing a Democratic edge in positive territory, ranging from a low of about +0.4 percent to a high in the ballpark of +2.0 percent.
The 2010 trend line, however, is all over the place — from a low of about -8.2 percent to a high of approximately +0.2 percent.
You will remember 2010 as the year that Democrats got “shellacked” in congressional elections, as President Obama put it. The trend line is very different for 2014, much less volatile — and completely in positive territory thus far.
Granted, the 2014 line only goes to the end of August. In 2010, however, Dems started tanking in early July and experienced an even more precipitous decline beginning in mid-September, when many voters began paying attention. July and August 2014 have come and gone, and Dems are still hanging tough in positive territory. “In past years, massive waves have been quite obvious by now,” notes Dreaminonempty.
Apart from Dreaminonempty’s point that “2014 is not 2010,” what I’m hoping the chart shows is that the Democrats’ demographic advantage is kicking in, solidifying our edge, at least in generic balloting. Perhaps also that Republicans have befouled their nest to the point where some of their rational voters are beginning to bail.
As for how reliable generic ballot polls are in predicting outcomes, that’s another story. But the relative stability of the Democratic positive edge is most likely a good thing. You would rather see that than a mirror image of the 2010 volatility. As Dreaminonempty puts it, “…as of now, there’s no evidence of a developing Republican wave.”
The post has another chart, comparing polling for 6 other elections to 2014. Again the relative stability of Dems’ generic congressional ballot advantage in 2014 is striking.
Of course none of this will mean much if Dems do an inadequate job of turning out the base. Much depends on the scope and scale of the modernized Democratic GOTV projects now underway in the more closely-contested races.

From Joan McCarter’s Daily Kos post “Kochs to Republicans: All your voters belong to us“:

The RNC has been working on creating a program called Beacon. The key part of that sentence is “working on,” because the program isn’t ready and campaigns need it. Campaigns have been going their own way with diverse private vendors, including one called Themis which has a system called i360. That poses a problem for the RNC because they then don’t have access to the databases of voters that the campaigns are identifying. But the RNC is coming up against a behemoth foe.

McCarter then quotes from Jon Ward’s “The Behind The Scenes Story Of The RNC’s Quest For Data Supremacy” at HuffPo:

Beacon is intended to open up the RNC voter file to as many new apps and programs want to interface with it. But when campaigns, or worse, state parties, use i360, that is a problem for the RNC, because i360 is more than an app. It has its own voter file. And so every state party that uses i360 is sending out field staffers–paid for with RNC money, funneled through the state parties–to collect data that goes back not to the RNC, but to the Koch-brothers owned subsidiary.

And then from Josh Israel’s ThinkProgress post “The Koch Brothers And Republican Party Have Just Joined Forces To Track Voters“:

A secretive data and technology company linked to conservative oil billionaires Charles and David Koch has reached an agreement to share its information with the “voter file and data management company” that holds an exclusive agreement with the Republican National Committee. This will allow the Republican Party full access to voter data collected by the Koch’s Freedom Partners entities and clients–and entrenches the Kochs’ network even deeper into the GOP.

In 2014 and going forward, data control will be an increasing source of power. And with all of this invaluable voter data being filtered through the Koch Brothers’ system, it is no exaggeration to conclude, as does McCarter that this “arguably means the Koch brothers essentially own the Republican party, not just its Senate candidates.”

So, “Where Would Workers Be Without labor Unions?” At Arizona Centeral Angel Rodriguez has an answer for Arizona — and a challenge for workers.
This new Gallup poll indicates a majority of Americans (53%) support labor unions, but unions have a lot of work to do in educating the public, which also supports the so-called “Right to Work” laws by an even larger margin.
From the Omaha World-Herald’s Cindy Gonzales: “24.4: The biggest percentage of union members from a state is New York. North Carolina is the smallest, with 3 percent. 26: States (including Iowa) that saw their union membership rate decline from 2012 to 2013; 22 states (including Nebraska) saw union membership rates rise. Two states remained unchanged.”
At The Atlantic Chad Broughton’s “When Labor Day Meant Something: Remembering the radical past of a day now devoted to picnics and back-to-school sales” and observes that consumers have a good alternative to Walmart: “…better, people could go to Costco, where workers make about twice the Walmart wage, and don’t have to rely on federal benefits like food stamps and Medicaid (which, according to Americans for Tax Fairness, cost taxpayers $6.2 billion a year). In addition, Costco lets its workers unionize while Walmart instructs managers to report union activity or grumblings about wages to the company’s “Labor Relations Hotline.”…Holiday shoppers will have to wait until Tuesday, though, because Costco is closed on Labor Day. Its workers are where they should be–at the family barbecue or the parade, celebrating our national holiday.”
Steven Greenhouse’s “More Workers Are Claiming ‘Wage Theft‘” at the New York Times spotlights a mixed trend — rising corporate greed meets more assertive workers.
NYT’s Labor Day editorial notes, “There has been progress since last Labor Day. Mr. Obama has signed executive orders to improve the pay and working conditions of employees of federal contractors. The Labor Department is revising rules on overtime pay; simply updating them for inflation would make millions of additional workers eligible for time-and-a-half for overtime…What is still lacking, however, is a full-employment agenda that regards labor, not corporations, as the center of the economy — a change that would be a reversal of the priorities of the last 35 years.”
It appears that the Wall St. Journal couldn’t even manage a ‘thank you’ to, or spare a thought for, American workers who have enriched their clients and WSJ’s bottom line immeasurably.
E.J. Dionne, Jr. pays tribute to the workers and customers of Market Basket, who stood up for a stand-up manager.
AFL-CIO Now’s Mike Hall makes it plain: “Happy Labor Day! Now Let’s Raise Wages”

Politico has obtained an internal Republican report commissioned by two conservative groups: Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS and the American Action Network, which says “although Republicans have tried to improve outreach to female voters, women still believe the party is “stuck in the past” and “intolerant.” Forty-nine percent of women polled for the report looked on the GOP unfavorably. Only 39 percent felt that way about the Democratic Party,” reports Marina Fang at HuffPo. “The report drew its conclusions from focus group discussions and a poll of 800 registered women voters. In top issue areas, such as health care, the economy and education, the poll found that Democrats held a huge advantage. For example, when considering which side “wants to make health care more affordable,” the women surveyed chose the Democratic Party by a 39 percent margin. They also said that a policy of equal pay for equal work would “help women the most.”
It’s not just the federal level. The GOP does major damage to women’s health and rights at the state level, according to this report by People for the American Way.
In his article “Politicians and Billionaires: Pledging Allegiance to Each Other in Secret” at HuffPo, Mike Lux chronicles the squalid doings at the Koch Bros/GOP ring-kissing grovelfest, at which Mitch and other Republican candidates gush shamelessly about their benefactors and brag about screwing over working people.
At The New Republic Brian Beutler explains why Democrats shouldn’t be suckered by Republican denials that they will shut down the government in retaliation for President Obama expanding a program which would defer deportation of low-priority immigrants: “the people who orchestrate government shutdowns never admit to the explicit nature of their threats. Last year, conservatives adamantly denied that they were preparing to shut down the government unless President Barack Obama agreed to spoil his own signature initiative, and they deny that’s what they did to this day. Instead, they insist that President Obama and Harry Reid shut down the government out of their own misplaced devotion to Obamacare, as if it were not already a law on the books.” Beutler adds that Mitch McConnell, among others, is “threatening to use the appropriations process as leverage to extract concessions. That’s a government shutdown fight. And no matter how he plays it, he will unleash forces he and other GOP leaders have proven incapable of restraining. They can’t control the plot…Nobody’s saying a government shutdown will definitely happen. But a confrontation is very likely, and Republicans in Congress are the reason. Even if they never say the words “government shutdown.”
In another TNR post, Beutler floats an interesting idea for Dems in the event of a big 2016 win: “…if the wave materializes, they should be prepared to use the threat of aggressive, opportunistic redistricting as a source of leverage, to entice Republicans into supporting some kind of non-partisan redistricting system, ideally in every state.”
From The Princeton Election Consortium’s “Senate Democrats are outperforming expectations” by Sam Wang, who picked every single 2012 Senate victor (33 races) correctly: “The PEC polling snapshot has mostly favored Democrats. Starting from June 1st, Democrats have led for 61 days and Republicans for 26 days, a 70-30 split. During that period, the Senate Meta-Margin has been D+0.24±0.57%. Assuming that the June-August pattern applies to the future, I can use this Meta-Margin, and the t-distribution with 3 d.f., to predict the future, including the possibility of black-swan events. The result is that the November Senate win probability for the Democrats (i.e. probability that they will control 50 or more seats) is 65%.
I would argue that President Obama has nothing to worry about in much-hyped polls showing, for example, that only 36 percent say his “approach to foreign policy and national security” is “about right.,” compared to more than half earlier in his presidency. The questions and response menu of such polls are so vague as to be nearly worthless. Obama is a centrist on the interventionist/isolationist continuum, and his party is not likely to suffer because of it in the midterms.
How can any political leader seriously argue that “Illinois’ new same-day voter registration statute is a Democratic “trick,” especially Chris “The Bridge” Christie? 2014 may go down in U.S. political history as the emblematic year when Republicans outed themselves in a huge way as shameless advocates of voter suppression. In fact, reports David Sirota at International Business Times, “most of the 11 states with same-day registration laws currently have Republican governors.”
It’s just a snapshot, but this poll should make Karl Rove and Reince Priebus choke on their Cheerios.

Caitlin Huey-Burns’s post “How Democrats Can Hold Their Senate Majority” at Real Clear Politics is not well-titled, since it is more a horse race update than a genuine how-to. Read as a recap, however, it does offer a “road ahead” snapshot of the challenges Dems face in holding their upper-chamber majority. As Huey-Burns elaborates:

…It’s not all doom and gloom for Democrats. A silver lining, party operatives say, has been there all along. What the party has going for it are strong, battle-tested incumbents. And that advantage is holding up — so far.
“Republicans have a terrible record of beating incumbent Democratic senators, going back to their last good year in this category, 1980,” wrote Larry Sabato and his “Crystal Ball” colleagues this week. “There is no obvious way for the GOP to gain the six seats necessary for control without taking down some incumbent Democrats, a task at which Republicans have struggled — they haven’t beaten more than two Democratic Senate incumbents since that huge 1980 landslide.”
…Several Democratic incumbents are either leading or within the margin of error, according to polls. With the exception of Montana, South Dakota and West Virginia, no Republican challenger has pulled into a significant lead in Democratic-held states.
After Labor Day weekend, voters will begin to tune in in earnest to the congressional races in their states and districts and the ad wars will heat up. Contests will surely tighten, and both Democrats and Republicans expect close races up until Election Day…
Democrats note that at this point in 2010, a GOP wave was already coming and much hope was lost. “Now, the Republican brand is worse than it’s ever been, so even in red states where we should be losing, we’re not,” said Justin Barasky, spokesman for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. “It speaks to the strength of our incumbents and their brands.”

Huey-Burns gets down to specific cases and notes that Dem Senate incumbents are holding up surprisingly well and our challengers are playing serious offense in red states GA and KY. Republicans are more worried than they thought they would be on the eve of Labor Day. She acknowledges that “there is still little room for error on the Democratic side” considering the large number of Senate seats Dems are defending. But the fact that so many seats are still very much in play is encouraging.
As we approach the Labor Day break, it seems like a good time for Democrats who want to help boost turnout in November to start thinking about voter registration deadlines and planning GOTV projects. Toward that end, Rock the Vote has the voter registration skinny — and registration forms — for the 50 states right here.

In her Salon.com post “The left’s secret midterm weapon: How marijuana ballot initiatives can change turnout,” Heather Digby Parton concludes that DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz’s opposition to a medical pot is ‘political malpractice.’ Parton cites some compelling data to make the point:

… Studies have shown that a controversial ballot initiative can boost turnout by as much as 4 percent in off year elections. For years the Republicans used “gay marriage” as the boogeyman to rouse their social conservative voters but that seems to have backfired on them in recent years as marriage equality is now being routinely acknowledged by legislatures and the courts.
Today it’s the Democrats who are taking advantage of the ballot initiative process to push for a loosening of marijuana laws in states across the country and having some big successes. In fact, there’s good evidence that while the youth vote overall stayed nearly exactly the same percentage of the electorate in 2012 as 2008, in the states where marijuana legalization was on the ballot, the 18-29 year old vote went way up:

In 2008 young people made up just 14 percent of the vote in Colorado but this year it was 20 percent. Even more incredibly, in Washington State the youth vote went from just 10 percent of the electorate last election to 22 percent this time.

In Oregon there was also a 5 percent point increase. Polling last spring showed a very big advantage for Democrats if marijuana is on the ballot this fall:

George Washington University Battleground poll, a national survey of likely voters, reveals that nearly four in 10 respondents say they would be “much more likely” to vote if marijuana legalization issues were on the ballot. An additional 30% say such ballot initiatives would make them “somewhat” more likely to vote.

Parton adds that opponents of medical marijuana have found no convincing evidence that there is much “downside to the drug itself,” other than legal problems. She puzzles over Wasserman-Schultz’s opposition to the modest medical reefer reform measure on the ballot in Florida. I guess some, not many, Democrats are conservative on the issue, maybe fewer than those who are conservative about reproductive rights and same-sex marriage.
Further, adds Parton, a May Quinnipiac Poll found that “Florida voters support 88 – 10 percent allowing adults to legally use marijuana for medical purposes, if a doctor prescribes it. Support is over 80 percent among all listed groups, including 84 – 13 percent among voters over 65 years old.”
Wasserman-Schultz is usually one of the more astute message-crafters in the Democratic party. But I think Parton is right that it is probably unwise for the DNC head to go too high-profile against medical marijuana. Or, if she must, then always make it clear that she is not speaking for the DNC or her party and emphasize that it is just her personal point of view.
In any case, other Florida Democrats should feel unencumbered in taking a position strongly supporting medical marijuana in their state. That train has pretty much left the station, as far as young voters are concerned, and Dems have nothing to gain by blocking the tracks.

Jeffrey M. Jones writes that “Disapproval of Congress Linked to Higher Voter Turnout,” and explains at Gallup Politics:

Congressional job approval, currently 13%, is on pace to be the lowest it has been in a midterm election year. Moreover, a near-record-low 19% of registered voters say most members of Congress deserve re-election. This latter measure shows a similarly strong relationship to voter turnout as does job approval.
Voter turnout in midterm elections has ranged narrowly between 38.1% and 41.1% since 1994, considerably lower than the 51.7% to 61.6% range for the last five presidential elections. But there has been a clear pattern of turnout being on the higher end of the midterm year range when Americans were less approving of Congress. The correlation between turnout and congressional approval since 1994 is -.83, indicating a strong relationship.
The disapproval-turnout link is a fairly recent phenomenon. From 1974 — the first year Gallup measured congressional job approval — until 1990, there was only a weak relationship between turnout and approval, with turnout higher when approval was higher, the opposite of the current pattern. But that weak relationship was driven mostly by the 1974 midterm elections, when turnout was among the higher ones for midterms and Congress was relatively popular after the Watergate hearings that led to President Richard Nixon’s resignation that summer.

Jones reviews the history of the relationship between turnout and congressional approval, post-Watergate and adds, “As a result, it is unclear how the current frustration with Congress will manifest itself in terms of party control of the two houses of Congress.”
If recent patterns prevail, the expectation is that Republicans will reap the benefit, with their traditional midterm turnout edge, although most recent polls show that voters are more displeased with congressional Republicans than with Democrats. If the Dems’ Bannock Street Project lives up to some of the more optimistic reporting, they will likely do better than expected in the Senate and hold their majority. The DCCC’s recent 13-seat expansion of its “Red to Blue” campaign may also get better results than expected with a turnout surge.
As always the “safe” bet is with recent patterns. But if Bannock Street and Red to Blue do a good job, all bets are off.

Molly Parker’s “Democrats roll out new strategy to motivate folks to the polls” at the Southern Illinoisian” describes the challenge Dems face in Illinois — and a template Dems can use in other states: “…5.1 million Illinoisans voted in the last presidential election, compared to 3.6 million that voted in the last midterm election. That means some 1.5 million people sit out midterm elections. Of those 1.5 million, roughly 1.2 million of those non-voters are Democrats…so-called “drop-off voters” have been identified in every county and every precinct in the state. Party leaders are going door-to-door and asking these folks to sign a card pledging to vote in November. The cards will be mailed back to them before the election as a reminder of their pledge, in addition to three separate mailers they will receive…” She quotes Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin: “”If we bring theses people out, a large portion of these people out, we’re going to win elections.”
At Daily Kos Jeff Singer’s “Want to make sure every vote counts? Get involved in these key races for secretary of state” spotlights often-overlooked, but critically-important election contests, which deserve more attention from Democratic political operatives.
At the Atlantic Molly Ball’s “Inside the Democrats’ Plan to Save Arkansas–and the Senate” notes “To beat the odds, across the country Democrats have mounted an ambitious political organizing effort–the first attempt to replicate the Obama campaign’s signature marriage of sophisticated technology and intensive on-the-ground engagement on a national scale without Obama on the ballot. The effort is particularly noticeable in states like Arkansas and Alaska, which have small electorates and which haven’t been presidential battleground states for a decade or more. (In 2004, John Kerry initially tried to compete in Arkansas, but pulled out of the state three weeks before the election and lost it by 10 points.) In Arkansas, campaigns traditionally begin after Labor Day; this year, the airwaves have already been blanketed with campaign ads, from both the candidates and deep-pocketed outside groups, for months…This year marks Democrats’ attempt to roll out the program on a national scale. Dubbed the Bannock Street Project, after the Bennet campaign’s Denver headquarters, it will, by the time the election is over, comprise a 4,000-employee, $60 million effort in 10 states. The voter-contact metrics recorded in each state are uploaded in real time to the Washington headquarters of the senatorial committee. While such efforts are commonly described as turnout operations, Matt Canter, the committee’s deputy executive director, says there’s more to it than that. “This is about much more than [get-out-the-vote],” he tells me. “This is not just identifying supporters and turning them out. This is actually building sustained voter contact programs through multiple face-to-face conversations that can persuade voters to change their minds and vote Democrat.”..Democrats believe they have a technological edge in their ability to use data to model and target voter preferences. Republicans, who have invested heavily in technology since 2012, are working to catch up. But on a basic level, turning out voters relies on the simple arithmetic of the application of resources–bodies on the ground, close to their communities, tirelessly recruiting volunteers who will work to activate their neighbors and family and friends…”
Re the recent UNH/WMUR poll showing Scott Brown down just two points from Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, Mark Blumenthal, Ariel Edwards-Levy and Rachel Lienesch say “Stop Freaking Out Over The Results Of One Poll.”
At Forbes, pollster John Zogby concludes from a new Zogby Analytics poll that “In 2010, it was older, whiter, and more conservative voters who turned out, while many of the Democrats’ base voters stayed home. Thus far in 2014, it looks like Democrats may show up at the polls and independents may just stay home because they don’t like either party.”
Susan Davis illuminates why “Alaska becomes crucial frontier for Senate Democrats” at USA Today.
It appears that President Obama’s “economic patriotism” meme may have sturdy legs. Americans are at long last ready to take a stand against corporate ex-pats exploiting U.S. taxpayers, then skipping out on the bill. Anne Tucker’s “Curbing Corporate Inversions Through Public Pressure for Economic Patriotism” includes this observation: “Feared negative public reaction tipped the scales in favor of remaining a U.S. company for Walgreens, with market pressure nearly causing the opposite result. Public pressure for economic patriotism and corporate stewardship must be a part of any permanent solution. It will mitigate market-based profit maximization pressures. Brand identity and consumer loyalty are not subject to the kind of loopholes that riddle the tax code or the partisan gridlock in Washington, D.C.” It’s a great slogan for Democratic candidates looking for creative ways to call out their Republican opponents’ refusal to protect American jobs. UPDATE: This report suggests Burger King may also need to be challenged on its “economic patriotism.”
The National Journal’s Scott Bland and Adam Woolner report on the larger contributions to pro-Democratic Super-PACs to help Dems hold their senate majority.
The “voting with your wallet” app gets a lot of diss, but I’m thinking Buypartisan is a good tool for identifying companies which fund Republicans. Sure it’s maybe too much of a hassle to use for groceries and everyday purchases. But for bigger ticket items like stocks, phones, cell services services and cameras etc., why not? If Google and Facebook are supporting ALEC, or Verizon, ATT and T-Mobile support Ted Cruz, why should Dems give them any play?

“MIcrosoft Ditches ALEC In Latest Blow To Conservative Group,” reports Dylan Scott at Talking Points Memo Live Wire. Scott adds: “Microsoft joins Coca-Cola, General Motors, Bank of America, and Proctor & Gamble as some of the major corporations that have severed their relationship with ALEC, according to CNET. Others — like Google, Facebook, eBay, Yahoo, and Yelp — remain involved with the group.”
Via Plum Liner Greg Sargent’s “From a vulnerable red state Democrat, a strong pro-Obamacare ad“:

Nate Cohn explores several reasons why “Alaska Might Be More Friendly to Democrats Than It Appears” at The Upshot.
Also at The Upshot, however, Josh Katz argues that “Georgia Is the Reason the G.O.P. Is Edging Up in the Overall Senate Race.”
New Suffolk University/USA Today poll has Democratic U.S. Sen. Hagan up 2 percent with LVs in NC, a stat tie.
The New Yorker’s Jeffrey Toobin is not so dismissive as others of the likelihood that Texas Governor Rick Perry may lose a ruling on the two-count indictment (“abuse of official capacity” and “coercion of a public servant”) that has been filed against him, as Toobin explains in his article “Why Rick Perry May Be Out of Luck.”
At Fox News Latino Elizabeth Llorente explains why “Despite Expected Low Turnout, Latino Voters Could Prove Crucial In Some Midterm Races.” She quotes Fernand Amandi, a managing partner at polling company Bendixen & Amandi International: “The question for the midterm elections is, given the extra emphasis on immigration, and the economy and the impact of the healthcare program,…will that cause a Hispanic spike in voting, like we saw in 2006, or will Hispanics revert to the historical pattern of less than a regular turnout?”
A paragraph from Al Hunt’s latest Bloomberg View column suggests an important messaging point that might bear some repetition: “The U.S. economy has turned around with the unemployment rate dropping from as high as 10 percent in the first year of the Barack Obama presidency to a little over 6 percent now. That hasn’t registered with many voters. In the most recent NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll, the public was dissatisfied with the economy by an almost two to one ratio. Almost half of Americans thought the U.S. still was in a recession; the deep downturn caused by the financial crisis actually ended five years ago.”
Maybe not. But the gender gap suggests she will more likely vote Democratic.

Re the debate about “tax inversion,” loopholes allowing corporations to relocate their HQs overseas to avoid taxes, Justin Sink notes in his post “White House betting ’14 midterm elections on economic patriotism” at The Hill: “A poll commissioned by the Americans for Tax Fairness found that half of all voters were aware of the issue, and that large majorities — including 86 percent of Democrats, 80 percent of independents and 69 percent of Republicans — disapprove of it…”Tax fairness stuff polls really well across the board,” said ATF executive director Frank Clemente…He said voters are “very sensitive to offshoring of profits and offshoring of jobs, and this inversion stuff feeds very much into that.”..His polling leaves him “extremely” confident it will resonate with independent voters.”
Rand Paul tries to sell his “big government is to blame” snake oil to exploit the tragic slaying of Michael Brown in Ferguson, MO for political gain. If you were thinking that budget cuts resulting in poorly-trained police had something to do with it, just never mind.
Other Republicans are treading gingerly around the Ferguson tragedy, but that probably won’t last, since they rarely miss an opportunity to gin up racial divisions. Ferguson may not be front-page news by November, but the development Republicans would fear most would be an energized movement to register African American voters emerging from it and spreading nation-wide. As Tommie Dale, a former resident of Ferguson who has set up a voter registration drive in the community, explains “It’s the only way we can make a change,” she said standing in front of a boarded-up Chinese restaurant, damaged during a night of violent unrest. “People don’t understand. Looting and rioting aren’t going to get it.”

Most political observers seem to have their favorite bellwether state, and NYT columnist Frank Bruni makes a good case for monitoring CO political trends. As Bruni describes the political demography: “In many ways, Colorado is the new Ohio, a political bellwether. The percentage of its voters who chose Barack Obama in each of the last two presidential elections almost precisely matched the percentage of voters who did so nationwide. And nearly all the currents that buffet national politics swirl around the Rockies…bursting with agriculture and booming with high tech, outdoorsy and urbane, a stronghold of the religious right (Colorado Springs) and a liberal utopia (Boulder)…In other ways, “Colorado is the new California,” in Hickenlooper’s words. It floats trial balloons — marijuana being one example, education reforms being another — while other states watch to see which take flight and which wheeze and crumple to earth.”
Moshe Z. Marvit of In These Times reports on a new labor organizing technique — creating “micro-units” of unions, which represent only workers who join the union. Marvit explains, “…A micro-unit is a traditional, NLRB-certified union, containing the majority of the workers in the unit and serving as the exclusive bargaining representative for the entire unit–it just represents a specific department or job classification…For labor, the potential advantage of micro-units is that they tend to draw from those departments that have higher levels of worker support, as opposed to wall-to-wall units, which may include departments where support is lower. Therefore, they’re harder to crush during the organizing phase.”
Meanwhile George’s Zornick’s post at The Nation, “A Bill to Get the Labor Movement Back on Offense” provides a backgrounder on a reform that would get the right to organize into labor unions included in both the Civil Rights Act and the National Labor Relations Act. The legislation, introduced by Reps. John Lewis and Keith Ellison, would “give workers a broader range of legal options if they feel discriminated against for trying to form a union. Currently, their only redress is through a grievance with the National Labor Relations Board–an important process, but one that workers and labor analysts frequently criticize as both too slow and often too lenient on offending employers.” This one may require a Democratic landslide to enact, but a dialogue about the concept is overdue.
Jack Healey reports at The Times that Montana Dems are running a 34-year old one-term state legislator/math teacher to replace Sen. John Walsh, who quit his candidacy after a plagiarism scandal. Amanda Curtis has no money and only three months to make her case to hold the U.S. Senate seat for Dems, who have held the seat for a century. Still, she has a populist message, a working-class background and an opponent who has lost his only two previous statewide campaigns.
Great headline, cute picture.