The Hobby Lobby decision will likely go down in the annals of political mistakes as one of the most poorly-reasoned high court rulings of the last century, and it should be condemned for it’s assault on worker rights, as well as reproductive rights. But it did overshadow another disastrous Supreme Court ruling in Harris v. Quinn, which the New York Times op-ed by Cynthia Eastlund and William E. Fortbath describes as a “salvo on unions” in “the war on workers.” Further, opine the authors:

…Though its decision in Harris v. Quinn was narrow, saying that, in some cases, unions could not collect fees from one particular class of public employees who did not want to join, its language suggests that this may be the court’s first step toward nationalizing the “right to work” gospel by embedding it in constitutional law.
The petitioners in Harris were several home-care workers who did not want to join a union, though a majority of their co-workers had voted in favor of joining one. Under Illinois law, they were still required to contribute their “fair share” to the costs of representation — a provision, known as an “agency fee,” that is prohibited in “right to work” states.
The ability of unions to collect an agency fee reflects a constitutional balance that has governed American labor for some 40 years: Workers can’t be forced to join a union or contribute to its political and ideological activities, but they can be required to pay for the cost of the union’s collective bargaining and contract-administration activities.
The majority in Harris saw things differently. Making workers pay anything to a union they oppose is in tension with their First Amendment rights — “something of an anomaly,” in the words of the majority. But the real anomaly lies in according dissenters a right to refuse to pay for the union’s services — services that cost money to deliver, and that put money in the pockets of all employees.
Once selected by a majority of workers in a bargaining unit, a union becomes the exclusive representative, with a duty to fairly represent all of them. That is the bedrock of our public and private sector labor laws.

The decision cements the current Supreme Court majority’s rep as the most anti-labor high court justices in memory of just about anyone still alive. That’s just fine with them. Worker rights are not anywhere near their collective radar screen. Anything to weaken unions — and undermine working peoples’ living standards — is OK with them. They are in-yer-face one-percenters, smug and comfy in their untouchable perches.
For Democrats, it’s another sobering reminder of the folly of giving Supreme Court nominees a pass on their economic ideology. Most of the confirmation battles in the post-war period have centered around nominees’ ethical issues or positions on racial discrimination, reproductive rights and social issues, all important concerns.
But the current majority has given a green light to ‘free riders,’ who want to benefit from union contracts without paying any union dues. The decision is aimed at destroying unions, even though they know it will exacerbate widening economic inequality. From now on Democrats ought to refuse to give any Supreme Court nominees a free ride on their economic philosophy and “Bork” any anti-union nominees without reservation.

If anyone had remaining doubts about how meddlesome the phony ‘strict-constructionalists’ on the U.S. Supreme Court are willing to get, the Hobby Lobby ruling should set them straight. Here we have the highly-partisan Republican majority of the Supreme Court in solid agreement that your employer can cherry-pick and eliminate coverage for medical procedures you and your physician choose. Why? Because your employer’s religious beliefs trump yours even though it’s your body, silly.
Never mind the First Amendment bit about respecting no establishment of religion. Nor is it important that you’re paying for your preferred medical care out of your earnings and benefits. Your boss gets to veto your medical choices that you pay for with your money.
Don’t buy any of the crap about the narrowness or ‘nuances’ of the Hobby Lobby ruling. It established a precedent that begs to be broadened, and this is a High Court majority that is willing to go there. It’s only a matter of time.
No one should be shocked either, that the court’s right-wing (the term ‘conservative’ would be an insult to real conservative jurists in this context) majority is oblivious/hostile to worker rights. They have demonstrated that proclivity at every opportunity.
And it will likely get worse if Republicans win a senate majority in November. If they do, they will prevent vacancies on the court from being filled by any nominees who fit into the moderate-liberal spectrum.
In their Huffpollster post on “Reviewing the Polling on Hobby Lobby,” Mark Blumenthal and Ariel Edwards-Levy write that “Results depend on how you ask.” They quote from Aaron Blake’s post at The Fix:

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that “closely held” companies with religious owners cannot be required to provide their employees with birth control if they have religious objections to it. Do the American people agree? Well, no. And yes. Contraception is one of those issues on which you can get vastly different opinions from the American people just by asking the question in a slightly different way….It suggests that Americans’ opinions on the topic are quite malleable and — by extension — pretty soft. If Americans can offer such different responses based on just a few words being changed in the question, they probably don’t feel all that strongly about the issue or haven’t really paid attention. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t people who feel very strongly. It just means they they are probably in the minority.

Blumenthal and Edwards-Levy report that an early June Gallup Poll indicates that confidence in the U.S. Supreme Court is at an all-time low (30 percent). Naturally, the poll failed to make a significant distinction between the Republican majority, which calls the shots, and the appointees of Democratic presidents, which is kind of the larger point. But it doesn’t seem too much of a stretch to infer that most of the discontent is about the decisions of the majority.
That raises the possibility that Democrats can get some benefit, however small, from reminding voters what is at stake regarding the Supreme Court if Republicans win the senate. It’s not likely that such a focus on the court will sway many voters — it never has. But, in a close election, maybe, just maybe it could help mobilize single women voters in particular, who have the most to lose from a High Court that encourages employers to meddle in their medical care even more.
The Supreme Court of the United States has been dominated by politicized hacks since Bush v. Gore, although too many Dems have trod gingerly around the strong language needed to make it a front and center issue. The Hobby Lobby decision sends a clear warning that those days should be over. And if we needed an additional reminder that employer-linked insurance is a booby-trapped mess, and we really need to push harder for a single-payer system, here it is.

The Nation’s Ari Berman asks (via Moyers & Company) “Where Are the GOP Supporters of Voting Rights?” It’s a good question, and one which should leave the so-called “mainstream” Republicans, especially Thad Cochran, feeling more than a little ashamed. Double ditto for the conservative pundits whose silence on GOP voter suppression would shame Pravda columnists during the cold-war heyday.
Conservative campaign consultant Steve Adler, whose company furnishes the rVotes technology to some Republican candidates, explains “How a tiny GOP data firm helped David Brat win” at Campaigns & Elections, and notes “One of the most significant advantages Brat had against his entrenched and well-funded Republican opponent was, ironically, the same core, grassroots technology Democrats have been using for over a decade…In extreme cases, a razor sharp grassroots effort can make $200,000 more powerful on Election Day than an opponent’s $5 million.”
Sure, Cochran’s Mississippi upset was rooted in extraordinary circumstances, that can’t be so easily replicated, as Ed Kilgore notes below. But still, a Democrat has to hope that African American voters, who know that their voting rights are under an all-out assault by Republicans, will now be more inspired to turn out and make a difference where they can.
Here’s an interesting color-coded map of the “shrinking congressional battleground” showing ad spending in competitive districts by political party.
Anthony Man reports in the Florida Sun Sentinel that Democrats are optimistic about the November election, and with good reason. He quotes Florida congressman Ron Klein: “I’ve never seen the Florida Democratic Party be as strategic as they are about how you dissect Floriida.” State party chairwoman Allison Tant “promised the “biggest field program in Florida Democratic Party history.” Man adds, “she said 15 field organizers have already been hired and more are coming.”
At The New York Times Jeremy W. Peters reports on Democratic campaigns for Native American votes, a rural and sometimes pivotal constituency in several states, including Alaska, Montana, the Dakotas and Nevada.
Also at the NYT, Paul Krugman writes on the enduring folly of tax cuts as panacea, with Kansas as the latest disastrous example.
I recognize these typologies in some people I know. But I have to doubt their durability and utility. Almost by definition, most swing voters combine these traits in unpredictable ways for limited periods of time. But I agree with author David Jarman that Pew Research at least tries to probe the complexity of political attitudes.
A “left-wing tea party” brewing in the states?

Abby Smith reports at The Hill that “Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg said Wednesday that unmarried women are the “absolute centerpiece” of the 2014 midterm elections for his party…Greenberg joined Women’s Voices Women’s Vote founder Page Gardner on a press call with reporters to release the results of a new national survey, which found that, with the right messaging, Democrats could pick up votes from the rising American electorate and shift the vote in their favor from a -1 to a +3 margin….According to the Democracy Corps/Women’s Voices Women Vote Action Fund survey, the rising American electorate responds best to an empathetic “in your shoes” messaging framework. And when unmarried women are exposed to this messaging, they shift from +17 to +31 Democratic margin and increase their turnout by 10 percent. In a congressional race that is neck-in-neck, Greenberg said that messaging could make all the difference for Democrats…His survey found that unmarried women voters respond positively to an economic agenda that caters to their interests, focusing on policies that help working mothers, secure equal pay, raise the minimum wage and make college more affordable.”
From Daniel Kreps’s post on the return of Rock the Vote at Rolling Stone: “Rock the Vote will once again be a merging point of music, pop culture, politics and technology as they strive to reach their goal for the midterm elections: Registering 1.5 million people — including 400,000 young people and 200,000 Latinos — to vote. RTV will also seek to kickstart an advocacy campaign to fight back against punitive laws that have made access to polling more difficult for certain citizens, focusing their efforts on states where voting rights are threatened like Arizona, California, Colorado, Iowa, Georgia, Florida, Ohio, Michigan, North Carolina, New Mexico, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia and Wisconsin.” Here’s RTV’s new website, with a gateway link to voter registration forms for the entire nation.
Deficit spending to boost employment is an economic policy of proven effectiveness. But it remains politically problematic. Ruy Teixeira observes in Danny Vinik’s TNR article “Hillary Clinton’s Biggest Vulnerability: Her Economic Agenda“: “The public is not Keynesians or anything close to it. They don’t understand the relationship between spending, debt and growth. And, therefore, it’s the hardest sell.”
At Reuters Opinion Janal S.Nelson writes, “Congress must act swiftly to move the Voting Rights Amendment Act forward with a hearing in the House and, ultimately, a vote for its passage…The amendment is designed to restore crucial elements of the landmark act and strengthen its safeguards against racial and language discrimination in voting. It updates the formula for identifying jurisdictions that must receive federal oversight by relying on voting violations within the past 15 years as a trigger. It demands crucial advance notice and disclosure of any changes in election law nationwide, increases deployment of federal observers and expands Washington’s ability to suspend potentially discriminatory state laws pending litigation.”
Chris McDaniel may be the new poster boy for sour grapes. But he isn’t the only Republican still marinating in bile over his upset loss to Sen. Thad Cochran, as Emily Arrowood and Olivia Kittel report in their Media Matters roundup of recent comments by wingnut talking heads.
Michael Tomasky makes the case that Dems who were rooting for McDaniel as an easier Republican to defeat in the general election should be glad Cochran won.
Crystal Ball’s Larry J. Sabato, Kyle Kondik and Geoffrey Skelley add credence to the argument that Black voters “saved Cochran’s bacon.”: “Cochran’s victory margin of about 6,400 votes may well have been provided by African Americans, who were recruited by Cochran’s campaign and who realized the incumbent senator was a better choice for their interests than McDaniel. There was a relatively strong positive correlation of r = .64 between the black population percentage of Mississippi counties and turnout change.”
This New York Times editorial makes an excellent point: Thad Cochran should show his gratitude to African American voters by supporting legislation to restore the Voting Rights Act.
Yes Sarah, a third party is a swell idea. Call it ‘The Bitter Tea Party.’

Yes, another Republican upset, only this time the tea party lost (though not by much). Republican incumbent Thad Cochran was likely to lose to challenger Chris McDaniel in the GOP primary, according to some astute political commentators.
As R. L. Nave wrote in his article “McDaniel Polling Ahead, Black Voters Still a Big Unknown” the Jackson Free press on Monday,

By most accounts, going into tomorrow’s Republican primary for U.S. Senate, state Sen. Chris McDaniel of Laurel has a commanding advantage over the incumbent, U.S. Sen. Thad Cochran…That is, among likely GOP voters…Over the weekend, Chism Strategies–a Democratic firm that has commissioned several polls since the June 3 primary election that resulted in a runoff–unveiled its latest survey of Republicans that shows McDaniel leading Cochran by eight points. For the first time since Chism began polling, the lead is well outside the 4 percent margin of error.

Instead Cochran eked out a victory 50.8 to 49.2, with 99 percent of the votes counted. At the upshot, Nate Cohn explained it this way:

Overall turnout has surpassed that from the initial primary by 14 percent, or 45,465 votes, so far…The increase in turnout was generally to the benefit of Mr. Cochran. Turnout increased by 34 percent in the counties where Mr. Cochran was strongest and won at least 62 percent of the vote. But turnout also increased by 18 percent in counties where Mr. McDaniel was strong…The increase in the number of voters upset the conventional wisdom that turnout plummets in a runoff election.
…Mr. Cochran ran extraordinarily well in the traditionally establishment-friendly and heavily black Mississippi Delta, as well as around Jackson…The Cochran campaign’s efforts to appeal to Democratic-leaning black voters appeared to succeed. The increase in turnout was largest in heavily black counties, particularly in the Mississippi Delta. Over all, turnout rose by 43 percent in the counties where black voters make up more than 65 percent of eligible voters. Turnout increased by 92 percent in Jefferson County, where African-Americans represent 85 percent of the population, the largest share of any county in the country…

Cochran beat McDaniel by a little more than 6,000 votes. Cohn reports that “Turnout increased by 4,156 votes in the handful of counties where black voters represent more than 65 percent of eligible voters.” It seems reasonable that he could have picked up another 2-3 thousand African American votes in all of the other counties.
Cochran will no doubt crow all the way to November about how Black voters appreciate his constituent service and reasonable policies. But clearly, many African American voters who cast ballots for Sen. Cochran felt strongly that McDaniel would be an even more reactionary opponent of their voting rights and reforms that produce jobs and educational opportunity.
It’s an ambivalent outcome for Democrats. On the one hand, as Cohn notes, “Mr. Cochran’s victory eliminates whatever slight chance Democrats would have had if Mr. McDaniel had been the Republican nominee. Mr. Cochran is all but assured of winning re-election in Mississippi, one of the most Republican states in the country.”
On the other hand, a show of political strength by African American voters as a pivotal force in Mississippi is good news. It might embolden a stronger Black turnout in the future, if not in 2014. If it signals a new era of African American political upsurge in the south, it could set the stage for a blue wave in 2016.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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