Re the U.S. Supreme Court decision ending “the total amount any individual can contribute to federal candidates in a two-year election cycle,” Adam Liptak reports at TheNew York Times that “The ruling, issued near the start of a campaign season, will very likely increase the role money plays in American politics.” Dems should highlight the decision as a wake-up call to voters that a Republican majority in the U.S. Senate will obstruct any hope of restoring balance to the Supreme Court — and make America’s legal system even worse for everyone but the wealthy.
A majority of the current Supreme Court may be in the pocket of the GOP. But at least American voters are consistently opposed to unlimited campaign spending. As Megan Thee-Brenan reports, also at The New York Times, “A Gallup poll conducted in June found that 8 in ten Americans, if given the opportunity, would vote to limit the amount of money candidates for the Senate and the House of Representatives could raise and spend on their election campaigns…Unlike the Supreme Court’s decision, which was split along ideological lines, the public’s views are cohesive. The poll found that broad majorities of all Americans, regardless of their political philosophy, party identification, age, education, sex or income level, preferred limits on campaign donations.”
A The Pew Research Center Jens Manuel Krogstad discusses why “Hispanics punch below their weight in midterm elections.” Says Krogstad: “A record 24.8 million Hispanics are eligible to vote in 2014, according to February Census figures, up from 21.3 million in 2010…Hispanics made up a larger share of the electorate in 2010 than in any previous midterm election, representing 6.9% of all voters, up from 5.8% in 2006. In 2010 House races, Hispanics favored Democrats over Republicans by 60% to 38%…Nearly half (49.3%) of Cuban-origin Hispanics voted, compared with just 28.7% of Mexican-origin Hispanics…Among registered voters who didn’t vote in 2010, one-in-four Hispanics chose “too busy, conflicting work or school schedule” as the reason they did not cast a ballot. About the same percentage of non-voters overall chose the same reason. Nearly twice as many Hispanics as non-voters overall said they forgot to vote, 13.3% to 7.5%.”
E. J. Dionne, Jr. has some good questions his colleagues in the MSM ought to be addressing at this political moment: “From now on, will there be more healthy skepticism about conservative claims against the ACA? Given how many times the law’s enemies have said the sky was falling when it wasn’t, will there be tougher interrogation of their next round of apocalyptic predictions? Will their so-called alternatives be analyzed closely to see how many now-insured people would actually lose coverage under the “replacement” plans?”
At Rothenblog Nathan L. Gonzales explains why “Why Republicans Have Trouble Electing Women to Congress.” At present, “only 73 Republican women, including 17 incumbents, have filed or are expected to file to run for a House seat in 2014 — a 33 percent decrease from 2012.”
Greg Sargent reports that Democrats are renaming Republican Paul Ryan’s budget “The Koch Budget,” and it is “bought and paid for by Charles and David Koch,” and “forces seniors to pay more while providing tax breaks for billionaires like the Kochs.” Further, says Sargent, “if Dems have their way, they will be able to use it in statewide races, where the electorate may be somewhat more diverse, to galvanize core supporters and draw a sharp economic contrast in the eyes of swing constituencies.”
Democrats big push for a minimum wage hike may help Rep. Gary Peters hold on to the Senate seat. As Patrick O’Connor writes at Wall St. Journals’ Washington Wire: “In Michigan, where Mr. Peters is locked in a tight race with likely Republican nominee Terri Lynn Land, the Democrat needs to rally the party’s core constituencies. Mr. Obama won the state by 10 percentage points in 2012. The fall ballot measure raising the minimum wage from $7.40 an hour to $10.10 should give Democrats in union-heavy Michigan another reason to vote in November.”
Skeptical though they are about Dems’ chances in the Senate and House elections this year, Larry J. Sabato and Kyle Kondik say “we suspect a modest net Democratic gain of one to three governors’ mansions.”
Oodles of boo hoo out there from the poor one-percenters, with Chas Koch the latest case in point. You can’t do much better, though, than Joan Wash’s take-down at Salon.com, “Billionaires’ crybaby club: Someone get these whiners a bottle!”

David Nather observes in his post on “The Obamacare Enthusiasm Gap” at Politico that “…the task for Democrats is to figure out how to close the enthusiasm gap — and convince their voters that Obamacare should be a voting issue for them, too…The reality is, it’s probably going to be a negative message rather than a positive one. Most Democrats believe they can motivate voters by shifting the conversation to the GOP repeal efforts — warning voters about all the things they’d lose if the law went away…The formula that party strategists had recommended until now — telling candidates to stress that they’ll fix what’s wrong with the law — is not going to work. Instead, they’re saying vulnerable Democrats need to declare that millions of people have coverage now, remind everyone how bad the old system was, and accuse Republicans of wanting to return to it…Liberal Democrats say the “no apologies” strategy is one lesson of the Florida special election this month, in which a weak Republican candidate, David Jolly, won with appeals to anti-Obamacare voters while Democrat Alex Sink lost with the standard “fix what’s bad, keep the good” formula.
At HuffPo Robert Kuttner offers “some thoughts about how to turn Obamacare from lead weight into a political lifeboat for this November.” Kuttner advocates “nationalizing” the mid rem elections: “If Republicans want to make a promise to repeal or de-fund the ACA the centerpiece of this November’s campaign, let’s have that fight and educate Americans on just what repeal would mean. The ACA might even turn into a political winner — or at least not the big loser that it now looks to be…Economists have a nice concept known as “endowment effects.” In plain English, that means people hate to give up what they have. The Republicans have turned that psychology against President Obama, because the ACA requires some really lousy insurance policies to be swapped for better ones that are occasionally more costly…But by November, Obama could turn the psychology of endowment effects back against the Republicans. Do Americans really want to give up their right to get insurance despite being sick?”
And at the L.A. Times Noam M. Levey reports that “At least 9.5 million previously uninsured people have gotten health insurance since Obamacare started” and “Fewer than a million people who had health plans in 2013 are now uninsured because their plans were canceled for not meeting new standards set by the law, the Rand survey indicates.”
If this is in the ballpark, Democratic cheeseheads need some GOTV encouragement, pronto.
From Andrew Kohut’s Wall St. Journal article “The Demographics Behind the Democrats’ 2014 Troubles,” here’s one reason why Democrats should consider campaigning hard against the Republican Party as a whole, instead of just individual candidates, this year: “In Pew’s December survey, 59% rated the GOP unfavorably, while just 35% held a favorable opinion of the party. The Democratic Party’s ratings were not great either, but markedly better–47% favorable versus 48% unfavorable…Democrats have maintained a wide image advantage over Republicans since 2011 when the GOP first threatened to shut down the government over the debt ceiling. The public seems to see Republicans as more likely to take extreme positions and less willing to compromise. Moreover, unfavorable opinions of the tea party have nearly doubled to 49% in 2013 from 25% in 2010, according to Pew’s polling.”
At CNN Politics John King discusses “Inside Politics: Seeds of an Obama political recovery?” King notes that “..Democrats hope to improve their midterm political standing with a push on economic issues with appeal to Democratic base constituency groups — from raising the minimum wage to immigration reform…Broadly, the Democratic push is designed to show, in their view, the Republican obsession with Obamacare has blocked action on a meaningful economic agenda. More narrowly, each of the Democratic priority items is aimed at appealing to a critical midterm constituency, with special emphasis on women, African-Americans and Latinos.”
This should be turned into a nation-wide ad campaign.
Cokie and Steve Roberts also argue “Don’t count out Dems this November,” noting “The Democrats’ best hope for recovery is this: Two large voting blocs, young people and women, actually agree with them on many key issues. The question is whether the party can get past the “bad taste” of Obamacare, and the president’s pallid popularity, and focus attention on those issues…polling numbers on Obamacare are slowly turning around…Democrats retain a huge edge in the technology of politics and the ability to contact — and galvanize — potential supporters…Democrats also retain a large advantage among Hispanic and Asian voters, and Republicans are allowing hard-core conservatives in the House to block immigration reform — a self-defeating position that undercuts GOP attempts to court those groups.”
Ballot measures yes. Usage on election day…maybe not.

Jeremy W. Peters and Michael D. Shear report at The New York Times that “Democrats, as Part of Midterm Strategy, to Schedule Votes on Pocketbook Issues.” The authors explain “The White House and congressional Democrats are preparing to step up attacks on Republicans over pocketbook issues like the minimum wage in the most aggressive and coordinated move yet to try to reverse the Republican momentum that threatens their control of the Senate in the final two years of the Obama presidency…The plan calls for bringing at least 10 different bills to a vote. In addition to the Minimum Wage Fairness Act and the Paycheck Fairness Act, others that are likely to be voted on include a Bring Jobs Home Act that would create tax credits for costs associated with bringing production back to the United States, an act to fund the nation’s infrastructure repair needs and one to make it more difficult to pass laws that raise the Medicare eligibility age.”
At Time magazine Jay Newton-Small explains why, in light of the George Washington University poll noted below: “Democrats are betting on a message of income inequality, which the poll shows is popular with voters. In the survey, Democrats lead Republicans when it comes to voters’ confidence that they’ll stand up for the middle class, 54% to 36%, and on representing middle class values, 52% to 39%.”
Also at the NYT, Jonathan Weisman’s “In Mississippi, It’s G.O.P. vs. Tea Party” probes the “last major battlefield in the clash between the Tea Party and the G.O.P. establishment.”
Bloomberg’s Julie Bykowicz explains how “Kochs, Rove, Chamber Fine-Tune Strategy to Beat Democrats.” Bykowicz rolls out the formula for their victory in FL-13: “The Republican collaboration included a synchronized television- and web-ad plan, a battery of anti-Sink mailers and a last-minute recorded voter appeal by Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky to suffocate support for a third-party candidate who threatened to draw votes from Jolly.”
Here’s the major ingredient missing from the recipe for turning the Lone Star state purple, then blue: “In Texas, which is home to nearly one in five of all U.S. Hispanics, just 39 percent of Hispanics who were eligible to vote in the 2012 presidential election cast a ballot. That’s compared with 48 percent of eligible U.S. Hispanics, 61 percent of eligible white Texans and 64 percent of eligible white Americans…Twenty-five percent of Texas Hispanic voters said they were contacted by campaigns or organizations encouraging them to vote in 2012, the report said. The national average was 31 percent…In Texas, where 38 percent of residents are Hispanic, both major political parties are actively pursuing Hispanic voters, 56 percent of whom identified as Democrats in 2012. Hispanics are expected to be a plurality of the state population by 2020.”
Labor lawyer Thomas Geoghegan makes a pitch that the time is right for a little voter turnout experiment: “Can’t one blue state, just one of them, try compulsory voting by initiative and see if it sets off a constitutional chain reaction? After all, the states are supposed to be “laboratories for experiment.” That’s why we have 50.”
So, “What If Republicans Capture the Senate?” At The Atlantic Norm Ornstein explains what is at sake, and it’s a horrible scenario: “A winning midterm would encourage the GOP’s worst impulses toward obstruction, hearten the 2016 presidential field, and bottle up Obama nominees…First, the real downside. Start by imagining what the GOP zeitgeist will be if the party picks off six, seven, or eight seats. My guess, the same as after the 2010 midterms: “Man, did that politics of obstruction work like a charm! Let’s double down on it and take the whole enchilada in 2016!”
Geoffrey Skelley argues at Sabato’s Crystal Ball that “Democrats’ increased reliance on young voters may lead them to struggle in midterm elections in the near future…Since the first national exit poll was taken for a midterm election in 1978, only once (in that first survey) has the 18-to-29 age group made up a larger portion of a midterm electorate than voters who were 60 or older…While Obama’s reelection in 2012 proved that Democrats can make up ground with strong support from the youngest voting cohort, the party could not turn those supporters out in 2010 and probably won’t be able to in 2014 either, given the historical pattern.”
A new World Health Organization report, flagged by Hunter at Kos, indicates that 1 out of every 8 deaths is caused by pollution. Since Republicans have no anti-pollution policies and embrace knee-jerk deregulation, Democrats might be able get some traction by making them explain how they would address this crisis.

At NPR.org, Maria Liasson reports in “Democrats Count On The Fine Art Of Field Operations” that “The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is planning a massive investment to address that problem. It plans to spend $60 million to hire 4,000 staffers in the most competitive Senate race states. The goal is ambitious: to make the midterm electorate — which tends to skew older, whiter and more Republican — look more like a presidential year electorate: younger, browner, and with more single women. In short: more Democratic.” Liasson quotes Sasha Issenberg, the author of The Victory Lab: “Everything we know from basically 15 years of field experiments shows that high-quality, face-to-face contacts for a volunteer living in the same community as the voter is the best way to turn somebody out…So there is a road map to doing this. But it is expensive and it takes a lot of staff, and a lot offices and infrastructures to recruit and train those volunteers.”
Mark Sappenfield’s ‘DC Decoder’ post, “Nate Silver’s new Senate forecast could terrify Democrats into action (+video)” at The Monitor says that Silver’s statement that the odds favor a Republican takeover of the Senate in November may actually help Dems hold the Senate because “Democratic operatives have found that the most effective way to get a potential donor to open an e-mail is to put Silver’s name in the subject line, according to a report by National Journal’s Scott Bland…”
Drew Westen’s “A Southern Strategy for Democrats” in the Washington Post offers an interesting observation about addressing racial politics: “Too often, Democrats have dealt with racial issues by avoiding them. Research shows that’s the wrong strategy, particularly in the South. Speaking directly about race allows our conscious values — which tend to be intolerant of racial intolerance, even in the heart of Dixie — to override our unconscious prejudices, which control our behavior when we’re not looking, or when other people aren’t, as in the voting booth. The best way to handle this kind of dog-whistle politics is to expose it for what it is…A successful political message that addresses race or any other divisive issue tends to have three components. The first is a value-laden statement that connects with most voters, making clear that the candidate cares about people like them and understands their ambivalence. The second is a statement raising a concern that makes the average person anxious or angry enough to want to do something about the issue. The third is a statement of hope, wedded to a solution, which suggests that the problem is solvable in a way that reflects the values and interests of ordinary voters.”
Kimberly Beller’s Liberty Voice post “Red State Women: Propaganda for the 3rd Millennium,” illuminates the GOP’s women’s group — and the Repubican men behind it — tasked with defeating Wendy Davis’s bid for Governor of Texas.
Ashley Parker reports in the New York Times that ” Senate Majority PAC, a group that supports Democratic Senate candidates, is preparing a $3 million advertising campaign against Charles G. Koch and David H. Koch…The group’s effort will last for roughly two weeks and span five states — Arkansas, Colorado, Louisiana, Michigan and North Carolina.”
MSNBC’s Steve Benen reports on how a Canadian hospital president, Dr. Danielle Martin made Republican Sen. Richard Burr eat his smirk…Maybe you should see it for yourself:

At the Hill Brent Budowsky explains how “Dems can win O-Care war“: “Will Democratic athletes, movie stars, television stars, rock stars and best-selling novelists fight for the future of their country as hard as the Koch brothers and the Chamber of Commerce? They will — if they are asked. Can they move the market, increase sign-ups and inform voters of the benefits of ObamaCare? They can — if they try…Democrats today have their backs against the wall. They need to think big, take names and kick butt. If the president extends the enrollment deadline and the all-out war against ObamaCare is answered by the full force and power of the Democratic world, the battle of ideas will be won, the Democratic base will be roused and the elections of 2014 will be saved for Democrats.”
The Libertarian fantasy of charity as the best way for a modern society to address social problems is consigned to its rightful place on the dungheap of history by Mike Konczal at Democracy, flagged by E. J. Dionne, Jr.
Re CREATIONISTS DEMAND AIRTIME ON ‘COSMOS’ FOR THE SAKE OF SCIENTIFIC BALANCE: AUDIO, no, it is not a parody from The Onion.

Obamacare-bashers are not going to like Rick Ungar’s Forbes article (flagged at Kos), “The Real Numbers On ‘The Obamacare Effect Are In-Now Let The Crow Eating Begin,” signifying the awakening of the reality-based business community.
Democratic strategist Bob Shrum argues that Dems should run hard on Obamacare. As Linda Feldmann reports in The Monitor: “And the right way, he says, is to play up all the popular aspects of the law: barring insurers from denying coverage to unhealthy people; a ban on lifetime limits; a ban on charging women more than men; allowing adult children up to age 26 to stay on their parents’ plan; and enhanced drug coverage for seniors.”
From The Fix: More evidence that the tea party is spinning wheels.
Hotline on Call’s Karyn Bruggeman explains why “Why Pot Won’t Help Democrats In 2014.” She acknowledges, however, that “Pot earned its reputation as a Democratic turnout trick in 2012, when measures to expand access to it appeared on the ballot in Colorado, Oregon, and Washington. In those states, turnout among voters between 18 and 29 spiked, increasing the youth share of the electorate between 5 and 12 percentage points from 2008. Nationally, the share of youth turnout grew by just 1 point between the two elections, from 18 percent to 19 percent.”
At The Progressive Ruth Conniff reports that progressives are bringing the heavy linguistic artillery to Wisconsin, framing wizard George Lakoff, to do battle with Scott Walker and his Republican minions in the state legislature.
Donna Brazile’s “3 lessons Democrats must learn after Florida loss” at CNN Politics notes that “Public polling in the run-up to Election Day showed that the electorate was going to skew toward Republicans by around 10%. The actual Republican margin of victory? About 2%….Luckily, we’ll have another chance to win this seat back in November — and with more people voting, we’ll have an even better shot at picking up the seat.”
For a graph-rich analysis of the historical relationship of the war on unions to accelerating economic inequality, read Colin Gordon’s Dissent article “The Union Difference: Labor and American Inequality.”
Here’s hoping that Democrat Jason Carter, running for Georgia Governor, and Michelle Nunn, running for U.S. Senate read the report “America Goes to the Polls: Voter Participation Gaps in the 2010 Midterm Election,” which notes “Black turnout – 44% in 2010 – continues to trail white turnout, with the gap widening during midterm elections… In several states, most notably Georgia and Alabama, the black turnout rate exceeded the white turnout rate.”
Neocon Chickenhawk gets TOLD.

Wesley Lowery’s post “Democrats’ anti-Koch strategy is risky” at The Fix assesses the pros and cons of Dems’ efforts to make the Koch brothers poster-boys for the evils of big money in politics. Lowery offers some interesting polling data to help gauge the efficacy of the Dems’ strategy:

A poll of registered voters conducted in January for the Democratic-aligned America Votes found that Kochs had relatively low name identification in five battleground states, ranging from 29 percent to 37 percent, according to a person familiar with the results. The exception was Wisconsin, where AFP helped Gov. Scott Walker fight off a recall effort. There, 50 percent of people recognized the brothers.

Fair enough. I’ve also wondered about their name recognition among voters and the cost-benefit calculations that determine how much money, time and energy should be invested in the anti-Koch brothers project.
But name recognition can be increased, which is one of the purposes of political ads. There is no question in my mind that Dems have to inform the public about the unprecedented influence of money in politics resulting from the Koch brothers’ meddling, and how they stand to benefit economically from it.
The weakest part of Lowery’s post is his suggestion that “Tom Steyer, the hedge-fund executive who plans to target Republicans over climate change” is somehow equivalent to the Kochs. The Kochs have already poured millions into campaigns to defeat Democrats and progressive reforms. When all of the spending is tallied at the end of the 2014 campaign, Steyer’s contribution will likely be small change compared to what the Kochs have already spent.
My hunch is that pretty soon we will see a spate of ads deifying the Koch brothers as “self-made” entrepreneurs who deserve our respect. Ludicrous as that sounds, it may just offset enough Dem messaging to the contrary.
The only question is, what is the wisest way to allocate resources so other Democratic messaging doesn’t suffer. Dems have a daunting challenge, for example, in convincing a large segment of the public that the Affordable Care Act is a good reform for their families. This is not unrelated to the Koch brothers bashing of Obamacare. But messaging shouldn’t get too complex for short television ads. Then there is the need to invest heavily in turning out the Democratic base, which many strategists believe is a more cost-effective investment than messaging to win/change hearts and minds.
There is also a danger of allocating resources away from publicizing another message that Dems must get across, loud and clear, by November — that the Republicans in congress are doing everything they can to prevent economic recovery. Again, the Koch brothers are part of the picture. But shifting focus away from the Republican members of congress toward the Kochs may have the unintended effect of letting them evade accountability. The Koch brothers could serve as sort of a ‘red herring,’ which I’m sure would please them immensely.
Democrats do have to go after the Kochs and big Republican donors. The unacceptable alternative is to allow them to buy elections.The critical questions Dems face in meeting this challenge have to do with timing, resource allocation and message emphasis.
At a minimum, Dems should always link their attacks on Koch brothers spending to specific Republican candidates at the congressional, state and local levels. Lots of current Republican office-holders have made some very risky policy calls, like GOP governors refusing funds for Medicaid expansion, forcing rural hospitals to close (e.g. GA, plus 18 other states not taking expansion funds) or state legislatures reducing early voting opportunities (e.g. OH, FL, GA, TN, WV, NC and others). Dems must make Republicans eat their blunders, not allow the Koch brothers to distract them from that imperative.

Here’s a teaser from “Everyone Economics: New data supports economic populism as a Democratic strategy” by Ruy Teixeira and Guy Molyneux: “A new national survey we have conducted for the Center for American Progress Action Fund, supported by other public opinion data, suggests that what we’re calling “Everyone Economics”–a framework for advocating and explaining progressive economic policies–has tremendous appeal to voters in the center of electorate. It also unites the interests of the “coalition of the ascendant”–minorities, unmarried and working women, Millennial and more secular voters, and educated whites living in more urbanized states–with the white working-class voters who once formed the core of the Democratic coalition. And it deprives conservatives of one of their most powerful rhetorical weapons, while potentially dividing their political coalition.”
Also at TNR, Jonathan Cohn comments on Greg Sargent’s interview (also discussed below) with Paul Begala and distills their comments to come up with an apt description the GOP’s alternative to Obamacare: “The official Republican Party position is to restore the old order.”
Leveraging “March Madness” ads to sell Obamacare to young men is a good strategy. But a little more emphasis on the urgent need for young people to vote in 2014 would be even better.
E. J. Dionne, Jr. also has some solid advice for the president and Democrats: “Going on offense means, first, building on what Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is undertaking in his campaign against the Koch brothers and other right-wing millionaires trying to buy themselves a Congress…This is not just a tactical effort to turn tens of millions of dollars in negative advertising into a boomerang by encouraging voters to ask why the ads are appearing in the first place. It is also about drawing a sharp line between the interests and policy goals of those fronting that money and the rest of us…”
The “Screaming Siren” in this Monitor post by Scott Sappenfield may be a tad overstated. Alex Sink lost FL-13 by less than 2 percent. After all, had Sink persuaded a little more than half of this very small margin to cast their ballot for her instead, pundits would be talking about a “Republican debacle.”
For an excellent discussion of what a Democratic economic agenda should look like, read “The New Populist Movement: Organizing to Take Back America” by Roger Hickey, co-director of the Campaign for America’s Future.
America needs a lot more of this — large gatherings of religious leaders of all faiths standing up, united in their opposition to voter suppression: “The Rev. Dr. Jawanza Karriem Colvin, Pastor of Olivet Institutional Baptist Church in Cleveland explains: “We are drawing on the activist traditions of our faiths. The legacy of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel, and Mohandas K. Gandhi and so many others who not only inspire but challenge us to be voices and vehicles of social change.”
There are more Republican women governors, but “Female Democrats have an advantage over female Republicans of almost 2 to 1 in state legislatures; that ratio rises to more than 3 to 1 in Congress,” reports Albert R. Hunt at Bloomberg, via NYT.
Hoist a pint of Guinness, mateys, in tribute to a gutsy, stand-up company.

At pbs.org, Judy Woodruff interviewed political analysts Susan MacManus and Stuart Rothenberg about the FL-13 election. Rothenberg noted: “Democrats do have — often have trouble with low-turnout elections. Remember, elections are not about what Americans think. They’re about what the particular voters think…So there’s no doubt here. But there is a problem for Democrats. The fact that the electorate was so Republican suggests Republican enthusiasm and maybe lack of Democratic enthusiasm. And Democrats are going to have to deal with this in November in the midterms as well.” MacManus added, “Democrats do well in Florida and elsewhere when they get a large share of younger voters. It’s exactly who helped Obama win in the last hours, were the younger voters that turned out higher than people ever anticipated in Florida…She wasn’t able to really engage them. And I think some of the fault comes with these national ads which featured just about 100 percent older people in there. There was nothing that really drew younger people to the polls at all, and it’s spring break time in Florida.”
The Fix’s Sean Sullivan argues that “Jolly’s win belongs more to the outside groups that rallied to his side than it does to him…the Republican groups spent money smartly, hitting the airwaves with complementary messages and avoiding stepping on each other’s toes or doubling up unnecessarily…The Republican organizations “actually talked to one another and spaced out their buys so there was coverage the whole campaign. Not everyone was up at the same time. “It’s a page from our playbook,” said one Democrat with an eye on the race, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to provide a candid assessment.”
At The Plum Line Greg Sargent probes the insights of Democratic strategist Stan Greenberg for lessons from the FL-13 election: “Greenberg said the Dem failure to turn out their voters in FL-13 – and not opinion on the health law — was the decisive factor. (The First Read crew noted today that turnout in the district was barely more than half that in 2012, and that Dem voters “didn’t show up.”) Greenberg said, if anything, that the closeness of the race (given GOP turnout superiority) indicated that Dem Alex Sink had mostly neutralized Obamacare as an issue, given all the outside GOP ads hammering her over it.”
In Zachary Roth’s MSNBC.com post, “Are Americans souring on voting restrictions?,” he writes: “A Des Moines Register poll released Monday found that 71% of Iowa voters–including two out of three Republicans–think it’s more important that every eligible registered voter has the chance to vote than that no ineligible voter is allowed to cast a ballot. Just 25% said the reverse…And focus groups involving swing voters in Columbus, Ohio found strong support for making voting easier…Both Iowans’ and Ohioans’ views on the issue might be shaped by recent high-profile investigation into voter fraud conducted by the secretaries of state in both places. Both probes were lengthy and costly, but neither turned up evidence of large-scale fraud or illegal voting.”
From Jack Craver’s report, “Rasmussen poll has Mary Burke, Scott Walker tied in Wisconsin governor’s race” at The Cap Times: “A new poll shows the race for Wisconsin governor in a dead heat, with Gov. Scott Walker and Democratic challenger Mary Burke tied with 45 percent apiece.
And it might have something to do with a anger at a new Republican voter suppression bill that has just passed the Wisconsin state senate. “The bill ends early/absentee voting on weekends. Early voting on weekends is something that has been popular in the state’s larger cities — like Madison and Milwaukee,” reports Mike Lowe.
The Hill’s A.B. Stoddard explores Rand Paul’s 2016 strategy and prospects, and concludes that he will be influential, win or lose. But “anarchist and racist voices within the libertarian movement” may present a significant problem for him.
As the Libertarian influence grows inside the GOP, Dems should read “3 inconvenient facts that make libertarians’ heads explode” by Lynn Stuart Parramore (Alternet, via Salon). It’s a good read, but Parramore doesn’t address what may be the Libertartian movement’s Achilles’ heel with young voters — their failure to offer any measures to protect the environment from pollution.
President Obama’s approval ratings are up 6 points from December in a new Bloomberg poll, reports Julianna Goldman.

After acknowledging that the sky is not falling In the wake of the narrow Republican victory in FL-13, Dems do have to face the fact that Koch Brothers money is a huge problem in this and future election cycles. Toward that end, check out the New York Times editorial “The Democrats Stand Up to the Kochs,” which states:

…By far the largest voice in many of this year’s political races, for example, has been that of the Koch brothers, who have spent tens of millions of dollars peddling phony stories about the impact of health care reform, all in order to put Republicans in control of the Senate after the November elections.
Now Democrats are starting to fight back, deciding they should at least try to counter the tycoons with some low-cost speech of their own. Democrats may never have the same resources at their disposal — no party should — but they can use their political pulpits to stand up for a few basic principles, including the importance of widespread health-insurance coverage, environmental protection and safety-net programs.
The leader of this effort has been Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader, who has delivered a series of blistering attacks against the Kochs and their ads on the Senate floor over the last few weeks. In addition, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has set up a website, www.kochaddiction.com, to remind voters of just what the Kochs stand for, and why they raised $407 million in the 2012 election. And individual candidates are making sure voters know who is paying for the ad blitz.

As for the motivation of the Koch brothers, the editorial explains:

Mr. Reid’s comments have gone to the heart of the matter. In his most recent speech, he pointed out that the fundamental purpose of the Kochs’ spending is to rig the economic system for their benefit and for that of other oligarchs. They own an industrial network that ranks No. 14 on the list of the most toxic American air polluters, and got their money’s worth in 2010 by helping elect a Republican House majority that has resisted environmental regulation.
“That Republican majority is, in fact, working to gut the most important safeguards to keep cancer-causing toxins and pollution that cause sickness and death out of the air we breathe and the water we drink,” Mr. Reid said. “Without those safeguards, the Koch brothers would pass on the higher health care costs to middle-class Americans while padding their own pocketbooks.” He called it “un-American” to spend lavishly to preserve tax breaks and end workplace safety standards.
…What the Kochs want — and polls show they have a strong chance of getting it — is a Senate led by Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, now the minority leader, who promises in his latest campaign ad to “be the leader of the forces that take on the war on coal,” the most polluting power-plant fuel. Nothing could be better for the owners of Koch Carbon, and they are willing to spend whatever it takes to make it happen.

It’s an excellent editorial, which says a lot about what is at the center of congressional dysfunction and governmental paralysis — big money pouring into GOP coffers from vested interests.
But the real fun begins in David Firestone’s follow-up article in the Times, “There’s a Difference Between Union Money and Koch Money,”in which he obliterates the much-parroted Republican argument that Labor contributions to political campaigns somehow justify unlimited donations from a few self-interested billionaires. Here’s Firestone, responding to a comment complaining about union money following the editorial:

…Two brothers, aided by a small and shadowy group of similarly wealthy donors, spent more than millions of union members. The fortunes of just a few people have allowed them an outsized voice, and they are openly trying to use it to turn control of the Senate to Republicans.
The Koch group Americans for Prosperity has also joined the right-wing drive to reduce union rights and membership around the country, with the goal — made explicit at last week’s Conservative Political Action Conference — of muzzling the voice of union members in politics.
…But for the most part, unions, unlike the Koch network, don’t try to disguise their contributions in a maze of interlocking “social welfare” groups. Their contributions on behalf of candidates or issues may be unlimited, thanks to Citizens United, but they are generally clearly marked as coming from one union or another. (They want Democrats to know which unions raised the money.)
Union members aren’t coerced into giving political money, either, despite the claims of several commenters. Thanks to a 1988 Supreme Court case, workers have the right not to pay for a union’s political activity, and can demand that their dues be restricted to collective bargaining expenses. The union members who contributed to that $400 million pot in 2012 opted in to the system.

It’s just another version of conservative “false equivalency,” this time focused on money in politics. As Firestone concludes, “…There’s a world of difference between a small group of tycoons writing huge checks, and a huge group of workers writing small ones.”

By all accounts Tuesday’s special election in congressional district FL-13 will be bellwether close, as Democrat Alex Sink tries to take the district from Republicans. According to Jennifer Leigh Oprihory’s Al.com post “Democrats, GOP test fall strategy in Florida House race,”: “…In an effort to deflect Republican attacks on the health care law and rollout problems, Democrats also plan to prominently feature proposed Republican curbs on Social Security and Medicare in competitive races across the country…”Those issues are paramount,” said Rep. Steve Israel of New York, who chairs the House Democrats’ campaign operation. “Having Republicans say that they want to cut Medicare but continue to fund massive subsidies to big oil companies … that will be a defining theme.” Those who want to help out with some last-minute calls on Sink’s behalf should click here.
Abby Rapoport explores “Why Does the National Media Get Texas so Wrong?” at The American Prospect and notes, “Arguing that the right is getting beat back because incumbents largely escaped unscathed misses the whole point. Many incumbents are Tea Party already.”
If you are looking for an apt description of Sarah Palin’s CPAC speech, Charles Pierce’s Esquire post “CPAC BONUS SATURDAY — THE PRINCESS IN EXCELSIS” should serve the purpose: “It was as singularly embarrassing a public address as any allegedly sentient primate ever has delivered. It was a disgrace to politics, to rhetoric, to the English language, and to seventh-grade slam books everywhere…She is the living representation of the infantilization of American politics, a poisonous Grimm Sister telling toxic fairy tales to audiences drunk on fear, and hate and nonsense…”
But Paul Begala explains why Ted Cruz’s bashing of war heroes Sens Dole and McCain as lacking in principles may be nearly as nauseating.
Those manly Republicans can’t stop gushing about Putin’s decisiveness. But former Secretary of Defense Gates sees it a little differently: “My own view is, after all, Putin invaded Georgia when George W. Bush was president. Nobody ever accused George W. Bush of being weak or unwilling to use military force…In the middle of a major international crisis, that some of the criticism, domestic criticism of the president ought to be toned down, while he’s trying to handle this crisis.”
Michael Tomasky reviews Lane Kenworthy’s “Social Democratic America” at The New York Review of Books and mulls over the possibilities for “A New Populism,” even under Hillary Clinton.
Sen. Sanders might contribute to elevating a new populism — if he runs as a Democrat.
Chris Cillizza doesn’t get into it in his post about the new Pew Research Center study, “Republicans’ young-people problem” at The Fix. But I suspect one of the most likely reasons why young people are turning off to the GOP in larger numbers than the Gen Xers is who they are blaming for the rapidly diminishing educational and career opportunities their generation faces.
The short answer would be ‘No.’