Richard Parker’s NYT op-ed, “Lone Star Blues” takes a sober look at prospects for Texas becoming a Democratic state. It would be a game-changer for presidential politics. But, as Parker points out, Dems must overcome formidable obstacles, including:

…The Hispanic vote is not monolithically Democratic, nationally or in Texas. In 2004, 40 percent of Texas Hispanics backed George W. Bush for re-election. In 2010, Rick Perry got almost 40 percent of the Hispanic vote statewide, and nearly half in South Texas, the purported base for Democratic growth.
Then there is the problem of Democratic infrastructure: there hasn’t been one for years. In 1995, Ron Kirk forged a coalition of Hispanics and African-Americans to become the first black mayor of Dallas, but he could not do the same statewide; he lost a Senate race to John Cornyn in 2002.
That same year, the millionaire oilman Tony Sanchez, a Democrat running for governor, had money, a Mexican heritage and an ability to appeal to Mexican-American voters. For it, he still lost 35 percent of the Hispanic vote to Mr. Perry, who claimed the governor’s mansion.
But the biggest problem is voter participation. Only about half of eligible Hispanic voters show up nationwide; this edged up slightly in 2012 to 53 percent. In Texas, just 4.1 million Hispanics are registered to vote, and only about half of them make it to the voting booth.

President Obama received 41.38 percent of the popular vote in Texas last November, compared to Mitt Romney’s 57.17 percent. In addition, Latinos are 37.6 percent of Texans, and African Americans are 11.8 percent of state residents. Latinos and African Americans accounted for over 60 percent of births in Texas in 2010.
The challenge for Dems is clear, as Parker explains:

… It may be that the demographic wave makes all this beside the point, and that increasing turnout among Hispanics just a little might make a big difference…
But that requires ground troops, voter education and turnout efforts over a multicycle campaign. It also requires that Democrats stop assuming they’re going to lose. “If we start treating this as a purple state,” said Matt Glazer of the activist group Progress Texas, “we would be one that much sooner.”
…Aside from get-out-the-vote efforts and pro-immigrant posturing, the Democrats need to develop a better understanding of Texas Hispanics as more than just immigrants. Their No. 1 issue: jobs. Polling and focus groups by the University of Texas political scientist Daron Shaw suggest that economic themes — including education and entrepreneurship — may draw Hispanics to vote in greater numbers…

As Parker concludes, “It has been 36 years since the Democrats last captured Texas in a presidential election. It could well happen again. But to make it happen, they have to look beyond demographics and start focusing on the hard, long road of party building first.”
It can be argued that North Carolina, where Obama got 48.35 percent of the vote and Romney got 50.39 percent (Obama’s narrowest loss), or even Georgia, which gave Obama 45.48 percent of the statewide vote, are better bets for allocating Democratic resources for party-building.
But Texas has 38 electoral votes, compared to North Carolina’s 15 ev’s and Georgia’s 16. Only California has more electoral votes, And the Texas Republican Party has had a pretty easy ride in presidential elections in recent years, owing to limp turnout of Latino voters as much as anything else. That luck can’t last much longer, especially if the state Democratic party gets its act together, and does more to register and educate Hispanic voters, recruit and train more Latino candidates and do a better job of branding the GOP as the party of immigrant-bashing.

Taegan Goddard explains why “Why Democrats think they can retake the House in 2014,” based on this cheery assessment by Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Steve Israel (D-N.Y.): “Redistricting has empowered the worst elements of the Republican Party, amplifying the extremist echo chamber and making the tea party Republican congress toxic to voters. Republicans redrew already-safe members into even more Republican districts, driving control of their party more to their base, forcing more primaries, and making it less likely that they can put forward a party agenda that appeals to Independents.”
Larry J. Sabato, Kyle Kondik and Geoffrey Skelley preview “2014 Senate Ratings: Red Alert” at Crystal Ball, with a state-by-state rundown of raises as they stand now, noting “The seven most imperiled seats in the whole country are all currently held by Democrats.”
CNN Politics’s Ted Barrett and Tom Cohen mull over Democratic strategy for addressing the sequester cuts in light of Republican opposition to any revenue-raising.
In his column, “The G.O.P.’s Nasty Newcomer,” the NYT’s Frank Bruni has a pretty good capsule summation of why Sen. Ted Cruz is not going to be the GOP’s Great Latino Hope : “He’s an ornery, swaggering piece of work. Just six weeks since his arrival on Capitol Hill, he’s already known for his naysaying, his nit-picking and his itch to upbraid lawmakers who are vastly senior to him…Republicans who look to him and see any kind of savior overlook much of what drags the party down, which isn’t merely or even principally the genealogy of their candidates. It’s the intransigent social conservatism, the whiff of meanness and the showy eruptions.”
Also at The Times, Trip Gabriel has an update on Ashley Judd’s prospects for running and whipping Mitch McConnell in the KY Senate race.
Ronald Brownstein discusses President Obama’s strategy for “Courting the Twenty-Somethings.” Among Brownstein’s observations: “The most striking aspect of Obama’s remarks was how unreservedly he articulated the views of the coalition that reelected him, and how little need he felt to qualify those views for fear of alienating voters beyond it. There was a confidence bordering on swagger in his call for action on immigration reform, climate change, and gun control–issues that he almost entirely sublimated through his first term–and his unwavering defense of collective action through government…That edge reflects the Obama team’s assessment of the political landscape after he survived the headwind of 7.8 percent unemployment to become only the third Democrat ever to win a majority of the popular vote twice. Obama crossed that threshold despite historically weak numbers among the older and blue-collar whites who traditionally anchored the conservative end of the Democratic coalition. He did so with strong support from the growing groups at the center of the Democrats’ new national coalition: minorities; socially liberal, college-educated whites (especially women); and the millennials.”
The National Journal’s Beth Reinhard reports on “The Democrat’s War to Win Women Voters”
For those who were wondering which major corporations are providing political dark money for Republican causes through the State Government Leadership Foundation, Justin Elliot of ProPublica has some answers: “Exxon, Pfizer, Time Warner, and other corporations put up at least 85 percent of the $1.3 million the foundation raised in the first year and a half of its existence, starting in 2003.” Elliot’s article sheds light on how the organization serves as a conduit for funneling big corporate money to GOP causes.
Congratulations to David Corn, Mother Jones D.C. Bureau Chief, on winning the George Polk Award, one of journalism’s top prizes, for his report “exposing Romney’s infamous remarks at a fundraiser about “47 percent” of Americans who receive entitlements.”
At Campaigns & Elections, Bryan Merica explores some of the hot social media tools in politics: “Tracx is another monitoring and engagement platform in our team’s arsenal that any political communications junkie ought to look into. It contains in-depth metrics to help gauge the size and velocity of a conversation on social media–digging down so far as to show you on a map where sentiment is spiking…The toolset that shows the most promise is now calling itself Zignal Labs. During the 2012 cycle, it was deployed in beta format on a number of campaigns as “Politear.” Its developers have the right idea: use algorithms to determine how quickly and broadly a particular story or sentiment is being spread across social networks.”

At Wonkblog, Evan Soltas has “A policy primer for the 2013 SOTU,” including a good collection of quotes from the top rags, including this from Colleen McCain and Peter Nicholas at The Wall Street Journal: “Mr. Obama’s speech on Tuesday before a national audience and both houses of Congress will keep a sharp focus on job creation, a White House aide said. Hoping to boost the economy and shore up the nation’s middle class, he will lay out initiatives in energy, education, manufacturing and the nation’s network of aging roads, bridges and ports.”
Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich has some salient suggestions for President Obama’s SOTU address.
A new Quinnipiac University poll finds that 47 percent of respondents trusted President Obama more to “handle the economy,” vs. 41 percent favoring congressional Republicans.
When even George Will agrees with Sen. Sherrod Brown that it is time to break up the big banks, it’s time.
If the president is looking for support for a little more balance in our economic policy toward China, Mike Hall’s “New Report: End China Currency Manipulation, Create Jobs” at AFL-CIO Now is a good place to begin.
The Big Dog warns Dems not to rely on negative attacks vs. Republicans going forward toward the mid terms. “Make no mistake, the Republicans are going to try very hard to make it not as easy for you to win [on negativity] … we are now going to have to have an affirmative agenda for jobs and innovation.” Clinton also underscored the importance of Dems being boldy pro-reform to reduce gun violence: “I see this whole gun issue as an opportunity and not a toxic landmine. But it really depends on how you do it…It’s important not to give up on anybody, to talk to them. The worst thing that can happen is they can see we’re not crazy,”
Kos highlights a worthy cause for all Americans who want stronger opposition to the NRA — electing Robin Kelly as a congresswoman from Chicago. From his recent e-blast: “Two of the three top candidates in this race have received “A” ratings from the NRA. They filled out questionnaires in 2010 pledging to stand in the way of sensible reform, from banning high-capacity magazines, to requiring background checks for all gun sales…Chicago and our nation deserve better, which is why we’re blessed to have Robin Kelly in the race. Not only is she a great progressive through and through, but wears her “F” rating from the NRA with the pride it deserves.” Dems who want to support Robin Kelly can do so at her ActBlue web page right here.
The “Buffett Rule” is apparently poised for a comeback as a cornerstone of democratic tax policy, reports Tony Nitti at Forbes.
At Larry J. Sabato’s Crystal Ball, Alan I. Abramowitz, Kyle Kondik and Rhodes Cook assess Democratic prospects for winning House seats in 2014 in separate articles. Abramowitz and Kondik agree that “incremental gains” for Dems are likely but reclaiming a majority is unlikely at this point, given the gerrymandered realities. Cook is only a smidge less pessimistic about Dems’ prospects.
Nate Silver crunches some interesting numbers to arrive at a skeptical conclusion regarding prospects for Karl Rove’s new Super-PAC, which is designed to contain the crazier tea party candidates with more “electable” Republicans. “Mr. Rove’s efforts could backfire, therefore, if they result in the insurgent candidate receiving more sympathetic treatment through these channels; the amount of so-called “earned media” that the insurgent receives could outweigh the extra advertisements that the establishment candidate is able to afford.”

The squeeze is on, as President Obama meets with Democratic leaders today to hash out strategy on the budget sequestration, gun violence, immigration and other items of the national legislative agenda. The NYT’s Jonathan Weisman and Elisabeth Bumiller report on the Democrats’ top priority — finding the best strategy to secure a temporary fix to prevent $1 trillion in scheduled budget cuts.
At TPM, Brian Beutler’s “Armed Service Republicans Reveal Unsustainable GOP Position On Sequestration” probes the GOP strategy for negotiating a deal on cuts and spending and the dilemma they face with respect to defense cuts and raising revenues.
Obama’s wunderkind speechwriter Jon Favreau is leaving to write movies. Cody Keenan will take the lead on SOTU, reports Christi Parsons, of the L.A. Times D.C. Bureau.
Nicole Flatow’s “Blacks, Hispanics Waited Almost Twice As Long To Vote As Whites In 2012” at Think Progress reports that an M.I.T. analysis indicates ” that white voters waited an average of 12.7 minutes, while Black and Hispanic voters waited an average of 20.2 minutes… the longest lines were in Florida, where another recent study estimated that at least 201,000 people may have been deterred from voting by lines that were hours long. This was in no small part due to Gov. Rick Scott’s (R) elimination of 6 early voting days in the state and other voter suppression initiatives that several top Republicans later admitted were intended to keep Democrats from the polls.”
Meanwhile, Aliyah Frumin reports at msnbc.com: “Determined to avoid a repeat of the GOP’s 2012 voter-suppression efforts, New York Sen. Kristen Gillibrand and Assistant Democratic House leader James Clyburn are pushing for the “Voter Empowerment Act,” which requires electronic voting machines to produce paper receipts, allows for voter registration on election days, creates a new national voter hotline, and criminalizes voter intimidation practices.”
Despite Gov. Christie’s popularity, Dems are expected to hold the state legislature, reports Terrence Dopp at Bloomberg.
In NC, the state Obama lost by the closest margin, however, the Raleigh News Observer’s Jim Jenkins paints a disturbing portrait of state Democratic Party disarray.
It’s war in Missouri, where Republican supermajorities in the state legislature are trying to ram through tougher voter i.d. laws, but meeting “fierce resistance” from state progressives, reports Jason Hancock of the Kansas City Star.
Chris Cillizza crowns Sen. Marco Rubio the GOP’s new prince in a softball profile. Time Magazine concurs.
For some laughs and an informative look at what pulls Sen. John McCain’s chain, read Paul Slansky’s “Who the Hell Are You? The John McCain news quiz” at The New Republic.

Michael Lind, author of “Land of Promise: An Economic History of the United States” and co-founder of the New America Foundation has a post up at Salon.com, “The white South’s last defeat: Hysteria, aggression and gerrymandering are a fading demographic’s last hope to maintain political control.” The gist, in excerpts:

In understanding the polarization and paralysis that afflict national politics in the United States, it is a mistake to think in terms of left and right. The appropriate directions are North and South. To be specific, the long, drawn-out, agonizing identity crisis of white Southerners is having effects that reverberate throughout our federal union. The transmission mechanism is the Republican Party, an originally Northern party that has now replaced the Southern wing of the Democratic Party as the vehicle for the dwindling white Southern tribe.
…The white Southern narrative — at least in the dominant Southern conservative version — is one of defeat after defeat. First the attempt of white Southerners to create a new nation in which they can be the majority was defeated by the U.S. Army during the Civil War. Doomed to be a perpetual minority in a continental American nation-state, white Southerners managed for a century to create their own state-within-a-state, in which they could collectively lord it over the other major group in the region, African-Americans. But Southern apartheid was shattered by the second defeat, the Civil Rights revolution, which like the Civil War and Reconstruction was symbolized by the dispatching of federal troops to the South. The American patriotism of the white Southerner is therefore deeply problematic….
…many white Southerners do not think of themselves as having any “ethnicity” at all. Others — German-Americans, Irish-Americans, Italian-Americans, Jewish-Americans, Mexican-Americans, Chinese-Americans — are hyphenated Americans. White Southerners tend to see themselves as “pure” Americans, “real” Americans, “normal” Americans. Long after Mayflower descendants were submerged by waves of European migration in New England, large regions of the white South remain the last places in the country where local majorities can trace their family ancestry back to before 1776 in British America.
…the old-stock Yankees in the Northeast and Midwest did not accept their diminished status in their own regions without decades of hysteria and aggression and political gerrymandering. The third and final defeat of the white South, its demographic defeat, is likely to be equally prolonged and turbulent. Fasten your seat belts.

While many white southern progressives, me included, will recognize the stereotype Lind projects so broadly on whites in the region, his “prolonged and turbulent” prediction may be overstated. Yes, the GOP will pitch a prolonged hissy fit to aggravate racial animosities and the more gullible white southerners will buy into it. But the more numerous white conservatives, particularly in the middle-class suburbs, are less likely to wholeheartedly embrace the reactionary fortress mentality Lind describes in the years ahead, as the Republican brand becomes increasingly contaminated.
Living standards under southern governors and state legislatures have not improved, and in some case have gotten worse. In December for example, Public Policy Polling reported that “Georgia Governor Nathan Deal could be vulnerable in 2014, given the right Democratic opponent. Only 37% of voters in the state approve of the job he’s doing to 40% who disapprove.” Looking further south,

PPP’s first Florida poll of 2013 finds Rick Scott’s approval numbers on the decline and Democrats warming up to Charlie Crist, setting the stage for Florida to possibly elect its first Democratic Governor in 20 years next fall…Scott’s approval rating is just 33%, with 57% of voters disapproving of him.

Every day in today’s southern suburbs, northerners are migrating in and more southern whites are working along side African and Latino Americans and socializing with them as neighbors. A more likely scenario is that the rigid white southern tribalism of earlier decades will soon begin melting like the polar ice caps.

In his New York Times column, Thomas B. Edsall has a data-rich take-down of the Republican myth “that life for the poor and the middle class is better than it seems.”
Despite good reasons for optimism about prospects for immigration reform, Dems should make themselves aware of the opposition’s strategy. Benjy Sarlin’s Talking Points Memo post, “Meet The Conservatives Trying To Stop Immigration Reform” is a good place to begin.
The Times has an editorial, “Political Power Needs to Be Used,” arguing that Democrats have been unnecessarily fear-driven in recent years: “If ever there were a moment for Democrats to press their political advantage, this is it. Their message on many of the biggest national issues — taxes, guns, education spending, financial regulation — has widespread support, and they have increased their numbers in both houses of Congress. But after years of being out-yelled by strident right-wing ideologues, too many in the Democratic Party still have a case of nerves, afraid of bold action and forthright principles.”
Commenting on the Obama-Clinton 60 Minutes interview, Michael Tomasky sees a transition benefiting Dems: “We have thus passed an important portal in American politics: Democrats are now the regular guys. Conservatives are the weirdos.”
U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky sinks the Republican meme that the American middle class is prospering, which is often used to justify cuts in social spending.
Opposition to the Affordable Care Act seems to have leveled off and begun to decline, in part because major benefits are starting to kick in. H.E.W. Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has a HuffPo update: “We’re starting an important countdown, first to October 1, 2013, when many of you will be able to begin to shop for health insurance that meets your needs at the new Health Insurance Marketplace at HealthCare.gov. The countdown continues on to January 1, 2014, the start of new health insurance coverage for millions of Americans…This is an historic time for those Americans who never had health insurance, who had to go without insurance after losing a job or becoming sick, or who had been turned down because of a pre-existing condition. Because of these new marketplaces established under the Affordable Care Act, millions of Americans will have new access to affordable health insurance coverage.”
A lot is riding on how user-friendly the aforementioned website will prove to be as a cornerstone of Obamacare. At WaPo’s Wonkblog Sarah Kliff’s “Buying health coverage is insanely confusing. Can Obamacare fix that?” explores some of the challenges consumers face in sorting out all of the data associated with evaluating and selecting health insurers.
Demos President Miles Rapaport does a good job of criticizing right-to-work laws and explaining the importance of unions for creating a healthy economy on this union-hostile Fox program.
In her Daily Beast post, “How Obama and the Democrats Could Win on Gun Control–by Losing” Eleanor Clift quotes TDS co-founding editor William Galston: “I confidently predict that a lot of red-state Democrats [in the Senate] will vote in favor of expanded background checks and against an assault weapons ban. That’s the political sweet spot, and that’s where they’ll be–and they don’t think that will hurt them,” says Galston. Testifying before the Senate committee Wednesday, NRA head Wayne LaPierre said his organization would oppose universal background checks. “That’s an insane move,” says Galston, calling the NRA “a front organization for the gun manufacturers.”
Michael Grunwald’s “What’s Wrong With the Republican Party?” at Time Swampland sums it up well: “I’ve often banged my spoon on my high chair about the reality-defying extremism and chronic obstructionism and borderline surrealism of the modern Republican Party. Its journey to wackadoodleland is, in my view, the most important political story of the last two decades…”
Dems who have been wondering if Clare McCaskill’s successful re-election strategy of getting involved in the GOP state primary could be replicated with positive results elsewhere should read Nate Silver’s “High-Risk Primaries Could Cost Republicans in 2014.”

While many commentators have written about the Republican campaign to rig the electoral college vote in key states, The Nation’s John Nichols has come up with a credible strategy for preventing it. if you are a Democrat in one of these states under Republican siege, print, clip and stick Nichols’ post, “Three Strategies to Block the Gerrymandering of the Electoral College” on the fridge. It will likely come in handy on the road to 2016.
The three strategies Nichols suggests include:

1. “NAME AND SHAME” THOSE WHO WOULD RIG ELECTIONS
2. ENGAGE IN THE DEBATE AND OFFER A POPULAR-VOTE ALTERNATIVE
3. MAKE GERRYMANDERING AN ISSUE

As regards point #1, many would say “But they have no shame.” It’s not hard to cite numerous instances of Republican shamelessness on a broad range of topics. Nonetheless, there are memes they don’t want to get stuck with. As Nichols explains:

When The Nation began writing several weeks ago about the Priebus plan, and specific efforts in swing states, the stories went viral. Social media matters in this struggle. So, too, does the attention coming from television and radio hosts such as MSNBC’s Ed Schultz, Democracy Now!’s Amy Goodman and Thom Hartmann.
The attention “names and shames” Republicans who are implementing the Priebus plan in states such as Virginia. But it also puts pressure on Republicans who are considering doing so. Significantly, when Florida legislative leaders were asked by The Miami Herald about the proposal, the biggest swing state’s most powerful Republicans scrambled to distance themselves from the anti-democratic initiative. Florida House Speaker Will Weatherford said, “To me, that’s like saying in a football game, ‘We should have only three quarters, because we were winning after three quarters and the beat us in the fourth. I don’t think we need to change the rules of the game, I think we need to get better.”

Progressives often flunk when it comes to “naming and shaming.” The progressive blogosphere generally does its part creating national buzz calling attention to injustices. But this doesn’t help enough to generate local coverage confronting electoral vote-suppressing perps on camera. It’s also about local protestors confronting these Republicans wherever they appear, again and again, until they renounce the project. That’s the job of Democratic activists. Nichols adds that an important part of “shaming” is to ferret out Republicans who have a conscience and who are willing to publicly denounce electoral vote suppression as morally repulsive.
With respect to Nichols’ second strategy, he elaborates:

…The right response is to highlight the anti-democratic character of the Electoral College and to push for a national popular vote. This will require a constitutional amendment. That takes work. But the process is in play. States across the country have endorsed plans to respect the popular vote that are advanced by FairVote: The Center for Voting and Democracy.
“The very fact that a scenario [in which a rigged Electoral College allows a popular-vote loser to become president] is even legally possible should give us all pause,” argues FairVote’s Rob Richie. “Election of the president should be a fair process where all American voters should have an equal ability to hold their president accountable. It’s time for the nation to embrace one-person, one-vote elections and the ‘fair fight’ represented by a national popular vote. Let’s forever dismiss the potential of such electoral hooliganism and finally do what the overwhelming majorities of Americans have consistently preferred: make every vote equal with a national popular vote for president.”
Understanding, talking about and promoting the National Popular Vote campaign is an essential response to every proposal to rig the Electoral College. It pulls the debate out of the weeds of partisanship and appeals to a sense of fairness in Democrats, independents and responsible Republicans.

In other words, make Republican advocates of electoral college gerrymandering explain on camera why they won’t support direct popular election of The President — a reform which has broad popular support. Asked “Would you vote for or against a law that would do away with the Electoral College and base the election of the president on the total vote cast throughout the nation?,” 63 percent said yes in a Gallup poll taken Jan. 8-9, with 29 percent opposed.
Nichols’ third strategy, “make gerrymandering an issue,” is a little tricky because it relies on the integrity of the courts. But his reasoning makes sense, and it would be political neglect not to try it:

…When gerrymandering threatens the integrity of national elections and the governing of the country, this opens a new avenue for challenging what remains the most common tool for rigging elections.
It is time for state attorneys general who have track records of supporting democracy initiatives, such as New York’s Eric Schneiderman, and state elections officials, such as Minnesota’s Mark Ritchie, to start looking at legal strategies to challenging the Priebus plan in particular and gerrymandering as it influences national elections. This really is an assault on the one-person, one-vote premise of the American experiment. And retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, among others, is advocating for a renewed push on behalf of fair elections.
“[It] goes back to the fundamental equal protection principle that government has the duty to be impartial. When it’s engaged in districting it should be impartial,” Stevens explained in a recent interview. “Nowadays, the political parties acknowledge that they are deliberately trying to gerrymander the districts in a way that will help the majority.”
This, argues Stevens, is “outrageously unconstitutional in my judgment. The government cannot gerrymander for the purpose of helping the majority party; the government should be redistricting for the purpose of creating appropriate legislative districts. And the government ought to start with the notion that districts should be compact and contiguous as statutes used to require.”
Stevens says the courts, which often intervene on voting rights cases involving minority representation, and in cases where states with divided government cannot settle on new district lines, should engage with the purpose of countering gerrymandering…”If the Court followed neutral principles in whatever rules they adopted, the rules would apply equally to the Republicans and Democrats,” says the retired Justice, a key player on voting and democracy issues during his thirty-five-year tenure on the High Court. “I think that line of cases would generate a body of law such as the one-person, one-vote cases that would be administered in a neutral way. This is one of my major disappointments in my entire career: that I was so totally unsuccessful in persuading the Court on something so obviously correct. Indeed, I think that the Court’s failure to act in this area is one of the things that has contributed to the much greater partisanship in legislative bodies…”
Justice Stevens is right. That partisanship has moved from gerrymandering the state lines and US House lines to gerrymandering the presidential vote. The moment is ripe for a constitutional intervention.

Nichols’ call to arms is right on time at this early stage. Democrats must understand that once battleground state electoral college votes have been rigged to elect Republicans, it will be awfully hard, if not impossible, to undo the travesty. The time to beat back this threat is now.

I’m still hoping Harry Reid had a well-hidden good reason for the deal he negotiated. But no one has yet provided any plausible explanations. Meanwhile, Jonathan Krohn’s “What the Senate Filibuster Deal Does–and Doesn’t Do” at Mother Jones critiques the deal from a left perspective.
At NBC News Michael Isikoff’s “Obama campaign gives database of millions of supporters to new advocacy group” provides some insight into what’s ahead for Democratic campaign strategy: “Dubbed the “nuclear codes” by campaign aides, the Obama campaign database is widely described as one of the most powerful tools ever developed in American politics. According to published reports, it contains the names of at least 4 million Obama donors – as well as millions of others (the campaign has consistently refused to say how many) compiled from voter registration rolls and other public databases. In addition, the campaign used sophisticated computer programs — with code names like “Narwhal” — to collect information through social media: Anybody who contacted the campaign through Facebook had their friends and “likes” downloaded. If they contacted the campaign website through mobile apps, cellphone numbers and address books were downloaded. Computer “cookies” captured Web browsing and online spending habits.”
Krugman shreds arguments of austerity freaks on Morning Joe.
Richard Benedetto brings President Obama’s 2014 strategy into focus at Real Clear Politics. Calling Obama’s 2nd inaugural address “the first speech of the 2014 congressional campaign,”Benedetto’s post explains: “His apparent two-year strategy is to work hard to help Democrats win back control of the House of Representatives and use his final two years to build the liberal legacy he outlined in his address — a legacy that will be near-impossible to achieve as long as the GOP controls the House…But with Democrats in charge of both chambers of Congress in 2015-16, Obama would be transformed from a lame duck to a soaring eagle…By force-feeding legislation that Republicans are likely to find unpalatable — and portraying that distaste as heartless, mindless, prejudiced and mean-spirited — Obama can shove them back into the role of naysayers and obstructionists, a role that raises voter trepidation, anger and frustration. It could translate into more Democratic votes next election.”
Alex Altman argues persuasively at Time Swampland that the Republicans got creamed in November, not because of their tone, tactics or messaging strategy. It is the substance of their positions on the issues.
ProPublica has a pretty good round-up of “The Best Reporting on What’s Wrong with Congress”
At Wonkblog, Ezra Klein’s “Republicans think the sequester gives them leverage. They’re wrong” offers this interesting observation: “…The sequester doesn’t touch Medicaid, Social Security or Pell grants. It exempts most programs for low-income Americans, like food stamps. Veteran’s benefits are home free, as are federal retirement benefits. Medicare providers see cuts, but Medicare beneficiaries don’t. And fully half of the cuts come from the military — a huge reduction in defense spending that Democrats couldn’t dream about achieving any other way…Given the sequester’s disproportionate focus on the military, it’s even worse for Republicans.”
The Nation’s John Nichols has a must-read for Dems: “Three Strategies to Block the Gerrymandering of the Electoral College”
This one is a great loss for progressives — and an even greater loss for Democrats’ hopes for holding the senate. it also underscores the the critical importance of better Democratic candidate recruitment, training and leadership development to hold seats being vacated by venerable incumbents.
Talk about nerve.

There’s a new wrinkle in Virginia Senate Republicans’ redistricting plan, which is designed to gerrymander a significant number of new congressional districts to favor Republican candidates. Some Republicans now fear the Governor’s transportation bill might now be torpedoed by Democrats angered by the Republican sneak attack that caught VA Dems unprepared. Errin Haines and Laura Vozzella report on the story at the Washington Post.
Dems do have a plan for actual party-building in Texas, as Alexander Burns reports at Politico: “National Democrats are taking steps to create a large-scale independent group aimed at turning traditionally conservative Texas into a prime electoral battleground, crafting a new initiative to identify and mobilize progressive voters in the rapidly-changing state…The organization, dubbed “Battleground Texas,” plans to engage the state’s rapidly growing Latino population, as well as African-American voters and other Democratic-leaning constituencies that have been underrepresented at the ballot box in recent cycles. Two sources said the contemplated budget would run into the tens of millions of dollars over several years – a project Democrats hope has enough heft to help turn what has long been an electoral pipe dream into reality.”
This report on Wisconsin Dems implementing a “72-county strategy” is encouraging.
At WaPo’s Wonkblog, Evan Soltas has a round-up of recent reporets on filibuster reform, including this nugget from Slate’s Dave Weigel, explaining the “flip’ proposal: “Democratic aides tell me that the party is not likely to accept a Reid-McConnell reform deal unless it includes a change that “flips” the filibuster. Instead of the majority requiring 60 votes to block a bill, the minority would need to muster 41 votes to block a bill.”
Steven Greenhouse reports in the New York Times that labor union membership is down nation-wide — about 400,000 workers in one year, according to the Bureau of labor Statistics. But he cites A.F.L.-C.I.O.’s chief economist William Spriggs noting an uptick in union membership in California, Georgia, North Carolina, Oklahoma and Texas and among Latinos and Asian Americans. Greenhouse adds “According to the report, North Carolina has the lowest unionization rate, 2.9 percent, followed by Arkansas, at 3.2 percent. New York had the highest unionization rate, 23.2 percent, with Alaska second, at 22.4 percent.” All this despite a wage differential in median weekly earnings of $201 favoring unionized workers nationwide over non-union employees.
New York Times Opinionator Thomas B. Edsall asks “Can Republicans Change Their Spots?” Edsall explores possible answers and comments on two states that have been gerrymandered to favor Republicans: “In North Carolina, Bloomberg news found that Democrats won 2.22 million votes to 2.14 million cast for Republican candidates, but Republicans won 9 of the state’s 13 House seats. Similarly, in Pennsylvania, Democrats won 2.7 million votes to the Republicans’ 2.6 million, but Democrats ended up with only 5 of the state’s 18 districts.”
At CNN Politics’ Mark Preston writes in “GOP chief plans major overhaul to party” about Reince Priubus’s plans to revamp Republican party structure and operations. The predictable reforms on his agenda — shorten primary season, fewer presidential debates, better data-driven research and stronger messaging — won’t cause Democratic leaders to lose any sleep.
Brian Bennett of The Los Angeles Times addresses whether the “GOP can woo Latino voters with shift on immigration.” Bennett writes, “An estimated 31% of Latino registered voters would be more likely to vote for a Republican if the party took the lead on pushing for immigration reform, according to poll results.” He notes that “Fifty thousand Latino citizens turn 18 and become eligible to vote every month,” according to Professor Gary Segura of Latino Decisions polling firm.
At The Daily Beast however, Micheal Tomasky explains why Republican leaders are going to have a tough time winning many African American and Latino voters. Tomasky notes, for example, “Conservatives always say, “Latinos are conservative; they are our natural allies!” It’s not really true. Exit polls last year found Latinos supporting abortion rights in quite large numbers, and ditto same-sex marriage (to a lesser degree, but still a healthy majority). The conservative misunderstanding, of course, is in assuming that personal conservatism equates with political conservatism. Sometimes it does, but a lot of the time it does not.”
As if.

Senate leaders have begun meeting on filibuster reform and are expected to decide its fate this week. Alexander Bolton reports at The Hill,

In recent days, Reid has begun to focus on a proposal to tweak the filibuster rule by requiring the minority party to muster 41 votes to stall a bill or nominee. Under current rules, the responsibility is on the majority to round up 60 votes to end a filibuster.
Reid will insist on reducing delays to motions to begin debate on new business and motions to send legislation to conference talks with the House, according to Senate sources.
Democratic proponents of filibuster reform emphasize that Reid does not yet have a final package. They are holding out hope that Reid can be persuaded to include the talking filibuster after a caucus debate.

Reid may or may not present the “constitutional option” or “nuclear option.” he will first try to get Minority Leader McConnell to agree to a bipartisan compromise to their respective caucuses this week.
Reid will have leverage with the Democrats in opposing the ‘Talking Filibuster,” since he is supported by Sens. Dianne Feinstein, Max Baucus, Carl Levin, Joe Manchin and Mark Pryor. Now Sen. Richard Durbin, an astute vote-counter, says there are not enough votes “at this point” to secure a “Talking Filibuster” requirement.
At Huffpo, however, Amanda Terkel reports that Sen. Tammy Baldwin has endorsed the ‘Talking Filibuster” advocates. Terkel adds,

There are two ways the Senate could change the rules: Reid and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) could agree to a deal, or Reid could force a vote on the floor if McConnell refuses to cooperate. Reid has already made McConnell an offer.
“The ball is in McConnell’s court — agree to Reid’s offer, or let’s get it on,” said a top Senate Democratic aide….Filibuster reform advocates need 50 votes plus that of the vice president in order to change the rules of the Senate when the chamber reconvenes on Tuesday. Udall has said he is confident they will have enough votes, and the bill has the strong support of progressive groups.

Any of the aforementioned reforms would be an improvement over the current reality, in which a super-majority is required to do anything significant. If McConnell refuses the compromise, my hope is that Reid will use the ‘constitutional option’ to enact even stronger restrictions on the filibuster. The Republicans need to know that refusing to compromise always has a penalty.