Greg Sargent’s Plum Line post “How to win the war over Obamacare” explains why ‘mend it, don’t end it’ is the most viable strategy for Dems contesting the estimated 35 house seats that are in play next year.
Keith Griffin writes in his Facing South post, “in the Deep South and Florida, Republican governors and state legislatures have turned down the funding, citing cost concerns and philosophical opposition to the safety net insurance program, which was signed into law on July 30, 1965. In Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina and Florida, the move will exclude 2.7 million low-income residents from Medicaid eligibility, according to the Urban Institute.” If that doesn’t give Dems some leverage with southern voters, what will?
Democrats, do you know what your charge card is doing while you are asleep?
Odd that this Gallup Poll of Immigrant and U.S.-Born Hispanics did not factor in citizenship or RV’s among the variables. Good, nonetheless, that “Hispanics in the U.S. identify with or lean toward the Democratic Party over the Republican Party by about a 2-to-1 margin, regardless of whether they were U.S.-born.”
This Fox News Poll, conducted though it was by both Democratic and Republican pollsters, strikes me as biased towards Republicans, with 38% of respondents who “think of yourself” as a Democrat, vs. 37% Republicans. But the questions about attitudes toward recipients of public assistance are nonetheless interesting. For example, 94 percent of respondents said they are “Okay” with “a laid-off worker who wants a job and doesn’t have the money to feed his family” receiving food stamps.
At last, some very good news for the AFL-CIO.
At the Washington Monthly, Ed Kilgore addresses growing evidence that senior voters are getting fed up with the GOP: “If the trend holds, this is a very big deal, folks, not just in the long term but in the immediate future. It’s the grip the GOP had on white seniors that made the 2010 GOP landslide possible, and which had convinced most attentive observers that Republicans possessed a big advantage going into 2014 no matter what was going on across the issue landscape, given the disproportionate turnout of seniors in midterms.”
David Brooks makes a case for some, gasp, “modest paternalism.” Expect splenetic denunciations from Rand Paul, Ted Cruz.
Another great Krugman column, with a clear prescription for Democratic messaging: “…What we’re looking at…is the normal aftermath of a debt-fueled asset bubble; the sluggish U.S. recovery since 2009 is more or less in line with many historical examples, running all the way back to the Panic of 1893. Furthermore, the recovery has been hobbled by spending cuts — cuts that were motivated by what we now know was completely wrongheaded deficit panic. …We need to stop talking about spending cuts and start talking about job-creating spending increases instead. Yes, I know that the politics of doing the right thing will be very hard. But, as far as the economics goes, the only thing we have to fear is fear-mongering itself.
Always thought Santorum was a little weird, But this remark is bizarre.

So what are the political ramifications, if any, of Jeff Bezos’s purchase of he Washington Post? Dave Weigel addresses the question directly in his Slate.com post, “Jeff Bezos, Inscrutable Libertarian Democrat“:

.. Bezos’s investments in political and ideological causes are eclipsed many times over by that of the Kochs, or the Scaifes, or the Soros, etc. But he’s earned a reputation as a libertarian with a targeted style of giving. He’s donated to the Reason Foundation, which publishes the first magazine that hired me, Reason. He gave $100,000 to the campaign to beat an income tax in his own Washington state — and he won.
Sure, his candidate giving record is more mixed. In 1998, he gave $2000 to Sen. Patrick Leahy’s smooth re-election bid. In 2000, he spread $1000 to Rep. John Conyers, $1000 to Sen. Spencer Abraham, and $1000 to Washington Sen. Slade Gorton — one Democrat, two Republicans. Right after Gorton was felled by Sen. Maria Cantwell, he gave $2000 to the Democrat. He gave $4200 more to Cantwell as she put together her 2006 re-election, and he’s given to both of Sen. Patty Murray’s campaigns since he made his fortune: $2000 in 2003, $4800 in 2010. That’s $15,000 over a decade, a fraction of what he gave in order to stop an income tax.
What explains the Democratic tilt? Bezos doesn’t give many interviews about his politics, but turn your eyes to the donation he gave to the successful 2012 campaign to legalize gay marriage in Washington. Bezos and his wife gave $2.5 million. Nothing we know about Bezos suggests that he differs much from the coastal/Acela policy consensus — which is to say he doesn’t differ much from the editorial board of the paper he owns now.
But he’s not used to owning a media corporation with a strong union culture, like the guild at the Post. That’s the first clash I’m interested in.

At The Nation, however, John Nichols thinks the Bezos buy is more of a yawner, at least compared to other recent developments concerning media and politics. As he writes in his post, “Big Media Story Isn’t Bezos and the Post, It’s the RNC Threatening CNN, NBC“:

Partnerships between the networks and the major political parties are a far greater concern than the ownership of newspapers by new generations of rich people. By cutting deals with the parties to host “exclusive” primary debates, and by accepting the parameters established by the two major parties for fall debates, the networks defer to the political establishment in the worst of ways.
It’s time for the networks, wealthy and powerful entities that they are, to declare independence from the major parties. If they want to partner with the League of Women Voters, which remains honorably committed to fairness and openness, that’s great. If they want to work with groups such as Common Cause, or state-based good government organizations and, yes, newspapers, that’s terrific.
But the network partnerships with the parties reinforce the worst status quo instincts–in our media and our politics. Americans should be interested in who owns newspapers, but they should be indignant about an arrangement that has television news operations negotiating with, partnering with and being threatened by political parties.

Me, I’m still trying to wrap my mind around the fact that you can buy one of the most influential newspapers on the planet for a paltry $250 mill — less than the cost of a single B-1B bomber.

There is comcern about implementation of the Affordable Care Act in both parties, report Scott Bauer and Thomas Beaumont at the Associated Press. But some Republican governors, Like Indiana’s Terry Branstad, are beginning to get real. As Maryland’s Democratic Governor Martin O’Malley is quoted it in the article, “Nothing could be more complicated than doing what we were doing before, which was to throw away more and more money on more expensive care for worse results.”
In his WaPo column, “Religion challenges left and right,” E. J. Dionne, Jr. argues that Dems may be missing a significant opportunity by not paying attention to the growing number of religious people who are embracing progressive values, as well as the progressive economics of the new pope.
At the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, Craig Gilbert discusses the political implications of the dramatic increase in one-party states — to 37 from 19 a decade ago — in context of the gridlock on congress. “Half the states now have veto-proof legislative super-majorities for one side,” say the authors. “This is a striking new landscape in state politics. It stands in sharp contrast to a national government often paralyzed by partisan discord. And it coincides with a burst of ambitious, partisan policy-making in which red and blue states are governing in increasingly divergent and often controversial ways.” If the gridlock continues unabated at the federal level, expect to see an increasing percentage of the resources of the two political parties directed toward state races. The GOP has one-party control of 23 states, compared to 14 for Dems.
Share this story about senior citizens getting busted for singing in Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s police state with any senior voters you know. Do check out the two videos with the story.
The Atlanta Constitution’s Jay Bookman has a few choice words about the integrity of House majority Leader Eric Cantor, who is trying to convince people that the Affordable Care Act will compromise their medical privacy by giving confidential information to the I.R.S.: “It is also a bald-faced, blatant lie, a lie that exposes the moral bankruptcy of the case that Cantor and others are attempting to make. There is no conceivable means under federal law for the IRS to access “the American people’s protected health care information,” and he knows it. His intent is to foster paranoia and distrust in the government, and if he can’t make that argument by telling the truth, he is perfectly willing to make it by telling falsehoods.”
Patricia Borns’s “Florida health care reform informers organize” at The Bradenton Herald provides an inkling of the kind of constructive activism that is needed at the state level to get consumers educated about taking advantage of Obamacare:”Seventy-eight percent of Americans have no idea there’s a health marketplace,” Enroll America State Director Nick Duran said. Team members, many hired within the past two weeks, must be ready to recruit and train volunteers, bring local partner organizations on board, and start knocking on doors by the statewide “weekend of action” event starting July 27…Florida Blue plans more than 3,000 seminars to demystify the new health reform guidelines…Nationally, Enroll America is funded by Kaiser Permanente, Families USA and other top donors to President Barack Obama’s 2012 campaign.”
Michael Tomasky gives former Obama re-election campaign manager Jim Messina a richly-deserved skewering for selling out to Britain’s tories.
Sam Hananel’s “Reinventing unions: Labor leaders get creative to halt decline in membership” at the Daytona beach News-Journal provides an excellent update on the new strategies being deployed in re-invigorate the labor movement. Notes Hananel: “Unions are helping non-union fast food workers around the country hold strikes to protest low wages and poor working conditions. They are trying to organize home day care workers, university graduate students and even newly legalized marijuana dealers. Members of a “shadow union” at Wal-Mart hold regular protests at the giant retailer, which long has been resistant to organizing…The actions in New York, Chicago, Detroit and other cities are being coordinated by local worker centers, nonprofit organizations made up of unions, clergy and other advocacy groups. While not technically labor groups, they receive generous financial support and training staff from the Service Employees International Union and other unions.”
It’s official. Chris Cillizza points out in this video that this is the least productive House of Reps, ever, or at least since they started counting bills passed. Under Boehner’s leadership only 22 bills have passed the House during this session.
Jonathan Bernstein talks sense at Salon.com in his post ” All the pundits are wrong: Conventional wisdom says the GOP has a grip on the House, but can’t win the White House. Here’s why both are wrong.” Bernstein explains: “…It’s not far-fetched to imagine a relatively good year for Democrats in 2014, breaking even or losing a handful of seats, followed by a Democratic presidential landslide in 2016. Or, even more plausibly: Republicans reclaim the White House in 2016, but prove as unable to govern as they were the last time they tried, yielding a Democratic landslide in 2018. Indeed, it’s not hard at all to imagine a relatively weak economy producing a GOP sweep in 2016, a Republican imposition of strict austerity in 2017, and the economic collapse that goes with austerity soon afterward.” Unfortunately, argues Bernstein, the presidency can also be up for grabs.

At The Hill, Russell Berman and Erik Wasson report on signs of (gasp) bipartisanship emerging within the GOP, or at least from House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers. Wasson and Berman note that “Rogers called for a bipartisan deal that would replace the unpopular sequester with something bridging the gap between the House budget and Senate spending measures he said were too costly to pass the lower chamber.”
Greg Sargent argues the latest round of GOP attacks against Obamacare could be the dying gasps of a doomed campaign. “By holding countless repeal votes, and by continuing to insist Republicans will continue targeting the law for elimination, Boehner and other GOP leaders are only keeping alive the hope that Obamacare will be destroyed before it becomes part of the American landscape…They’ve been feeding the repeal monster for literally years now. Even if a government shutdown does happen, of course, Obamacare won’t be defunded. But plenty of other damage will be done in the process. If GOP leaders can’t control this monster, it’s on them.”
Dem digerati should read Beth Reinhard’s National Journal post, “Why Democrats Are Laughing at the Republican Digital Strategy — And Why They Shouldn’t Be.” Reinhard reports that the new GOP system “can merge different campaign spreadsheets on one data platform. That means canvassing lists, phone banks, fundraising reports, event sign-in sheets and social networks are all integrated with outside data for highly detailed profiles of voters and supporters.”
Reinhard has another good article at the National Journal, “Democrats Using Voting Rights Issues to Protect Senate Majority,” which observes “Jotaka Eaddy, senior director of voting rights at the NAACP, said the backlash against voter ID laws nationwide was one reason turnout among black voters topped white turnout for the first time in 2012, 66.2 to 64.1 percent…”It’s important that we move our outrage into action, and I expect to see a similar impact on the 2013 and 2014 elections,” Eaddy said. “A lot of people will go to the polls with this issue in the forefront of their minds, and if Congress fails to act there will be serious repercussions.”
This new PPP poll should have Mitch McConnell worried.
At The Guardian, Harry J. Enten reports that “Felon voting rights have a bigger impact on elections than voter ID laws.” Enten explains, “A study of felon voting patterns (pdf) from 1972 to 2000 found on average 30% of felons and ex-felons would vote if given the chance, and about three out of four would vote for the Democratic nominee for president. This would have doubled Al Gore’s margin in the national vote…In terms of pure numbers, 137,478 of African-Americans in Alabama, 107,758 in Mississippi, and 145,943 in Tennessee are kept from voting.”
On the same topic, see Josh Israel’s “Felon Voting Restrictions Disenfranchise More Minority Voters Than Voter ID Laws” at Think Progress.
Shanta N. Covington explores an important distinction in the debate about voter suppression, “The difference between ‘impact’ and ‘intent’ on your right to vote” at MSNBC.com.
Here’s a hopeful note, from Deborah Foster’s PoliticusUSA post, “Can Government Pick Up Where Unions Left Off?“:”Across the country, municipalities, counties, and increasingly some states have passed worker-friendly laws like living wages, paid sick leave, expanded family leave acts, bereavement leave bills, and pregnancy disability provisions. At a time when unions are increasingly neutered, workers should turn their attention to local government to put in place rights already enjoyed in most other Western democratic nations. One way to strengthen this process is to identify the grassroots victories in these local communities as steps in an overall movement with its own identity, not unlike the grassroots movement to gain same sex marriage rights by chipping away at the discriminatory laws that blanket the country. The distance to the goal always seem formidable at the start, but as progress is made here and there across the country, soon we could have a groundswell that gives us national remedies.”
You go, guys.

Chris Matthews raised some eyebrows on MSNBC last night, when he accused Sen. Ted Cruz of “political terrorism,” provoking an argument with McCain’s senior campaign strategist Steve Schmidt, who said, in essence, it’s a term that should be reserved for those who actually try to kill their adversaries. Schmidt preferred “demagogue” and “irresponsible.”
In my view they were both right. Matthews was correct in saying that much of the behavior of key GOP leaders is intentionally destructive and designed to paralyze government into dysfunction and chaos. That meets some of the requirements of terrorism. But Schmidt is also right in saying that applying the inflammatory term to political dialogue implicitly trivializes the damage that murderous political terrorists have done worldwide.
Credit Matthews with a perceptive observation. Current Republican strategy does have significant sociopathic elements, which should be condemned by all responsible citizens, not just us partisan Democrats. But to most people, I would guess that using the term “political terrorism” to describe Republican legislative obstructionism is rhetorical overkill which demonizes adversaries. You never help your case by overstating descriptions of your opponent’s behavior.
When rising Democratic star Rep. Alan Grayson called his Republican opponent, Daniel Webster, ‘Taliban Dan,’ in the 2010 congressional race, Grayson apparently hurt his own cred with a number of voters. Sure he had a point, in that his opponent urged making divorce illegal and forcing abused women to remain in their marriages, not so unlike Taliban policy towards women. But using the term may have contributed to Grayson’s defeat in that election. Thankfully, Grayson was elected in 2012 to a different district, proving that you can recover from verbal blunders, if you learn the lesson.
In his Washington Monthly post, “Nihilism or Principle,” Ed Kilgore notes that top journalists including James Fallows and Jonathan Chait may have strayed into rhetorical overkill territory in describing the behavior of GOP leaders as “nihilism.” The term sort of fits much recent Republican behavior, particularly the knee-jerk opposition to anything Obama, regardless of the consequences. But nihilism, as Kilgore observes, entails an absence of ideology, while the GOP is heavily laden with extremist ideologues, with Cruz as exhibit A.
It’s not all that hard to visualize McConnell and Boehner being portrayed in an SNL skit as the nihilists in “The Big Lebowski.” Boehner does seem to relish with nihilistic gusto his recent anointing as the least productive Speaker, maybe ever. If Republicans have not quite earned the “nihilist” designation, some of them seem to be dabbling in the nihilist spectrum.
Nor is it too much of a stretch to argue that Republicans are flirting with both “political terrorism” and “nihilism.” But I don’t think there is much benefit in pushing the terms as memes, and Dems can hurt their cause by doing so. It’s quite enough that the GOP richly deserves the “obstructionist” designation, which even its defenders sometimes affirm. The term resonates well because it is wholly, not partially accurate.
With respect to Dems calling out Republicans for “sabotage,” however, we are on very safe ground. You would be hard-pressed to find a more accurate one-word term to describe the current strategy of Republican congressional leaders. The GOP’s proclivity for sabotage is unprecedented in scale, beyond blocking the progress of legislation. They are now into preventing the implementation of duly-enacted laws at every opportunity, consciously thumbing their noses at the Democratic process and the American people. That may not literally be anarchy, political terrorism or nihilism. But the trend is disturbingly in that direction.
For now, however, the wisest course would be to pass on attacking Republicans with terms that don’t quite fully apply and which sound like unjustified ad hominem attacks. Better, Democrats continue to call out Republicans for gridlock, obstruction, paralysis and sabotage (GOPS), terms which resonate with more accuracy every day.

“Republicans Sabotaging, Not Governing. This Is Who They Are Now” by Dave Johnson at Campaign for America’s Future blog says it clear and simple: “This is who they are now. This is who the Republican Party is now. It is RedState, Limbaugh, Coulter, Drudge Report, etc. It is not Bob Dole or John McCain or even Ronald Reagan. It is not Ronald Reagan playing poker with Tip O’Neill…Ronald Reagan would be primaried out as a “RINO” in today’s Republican Party…If you don’t get it yet, let this sink in: Mitch McConnell is being primaried for being “a big government guy” and too “progressive” and working with Democrats. Mitch McConnell!”
“I don’t know enough. I’m sorry. I haven’t read that portion of the bill,” says N.C. Gov. McCrory of the voter suppression package he is about to sign. The bill is “being called the most suppressive voting law in the nation.”
This idea probably won’t get much traction. Meanwhile Dems couldn’t ask for a better poster boy for crude nativism and outright bigotry than Republican Rep. Steve King, who has driven a deep spike into the heart of his party’s already limp efforts to win Latino votes in 2014.
Todd Leopold’s post, “The Republicans of the future?” at CNN Politics reads more like an exercise in wishful thinking than a harbinger of things to come. Don’t be too surprised if many of the young Republicans quoted in this post end up bailing out of the GOP and joining the Libertarian Party out of frustration — and embarrassment about bigoted bomb-throwers like Rep. Steve King.
Kyle Kondik’s Crystal Ball post on “Senate 2014 and Beyond” sees GOP Senate gains next year, but stops short of predicting a Republican takeover.
Michael Langenmayr, campaign director of Daily Kos, reports in an e-blast that the Koch brothers are trying to recall two of the best Democratic state legislators in the country, Colorado Democrats John Morse and Angela Giron, whose leadership was instrumental in enacting “a slew of new good government and progressive laws this year–background checks, civil unions, online voter registration, and more.” Langenmayr urges Democrats to contribute to protecting Morse and Giron, to help offset the big money right-wingers are dumping into defeating them, and you can do that right here.
Paul Waldman’s American Prospect post, “GOP Circular Firing Squad Locked and Loaded” is chicken soup for the Democratic Soul.
At Politico James Hohman reports “A statewide survey by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, shared first with POLITICO, focused on which messages might get women who voted in the 2008 or 2012 presidential elections, but not for governor in 2009, to show up…They found that statements about Cuccinelli’s position on abortion had a bigger effect among this group than any other issue in generating both the level of support and intensity for Democratic candidate Terry McAuliffe. “Protecting a woman’s right to choose” trumped health care, guns, transportation, spending and college affordability. This held true in each of Virginia’s three-biggest media markets.”
Dan Balz’s WaPo post “How the Obama campaign won the race for voter data” illuminates the data driven method used to get to 270 ev’s.
Copycats. Not sure this is going to work out all that well for them, since their grass roots activists are increasingly detached from reality.

This is really great news for Democrats. the highly-regarded and well-connected Michelle Nunn is running for the Senate seat now held by Republican Saxby Chambliss, giving Dems their best hope for a 2014 pick-up — likely a marquee Senate race.
A new USA TODAY/Bipartisan Policy Center poll has some interesting findings beyond the headline, including that 22% of men, but just 8% of women have considered running for office, as have 17% of whites, but just 8% of African Americans. But the survey indicates that the main reasons most don’t end up running for office include money, time and the nastiness of it all. The poll also cites “a close split, 42%-38%, on whether they see the government as an advocate or an adversary for them and their families. (The partisan divide: Republicans and independents view the federal government as an adversary while Democrats see it as an advocate.)”
Little Cheney is apparently flunking the carpetbagger test big time. I guess it was too much to hope she would get traction and divide the state GOP.
Dems face a very tough challenge in terms of holding their U.S. Senate majority in 2014, but there are some grounds for hope, as Jessica Taylor writes at MSNBC: “Republicans inherited a very friendly map, but they have failed to put any blue or purple states into play. Even in the red states, Republicans are mired in divisive primaries that pit Tea Party conservatives against establishment Republicans favored by the Washington elite. The party has failed to unite behind a candidate in any of the most competitive states they cite,” said Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee communications director Matt Canter. “Democrats have had tremendous recruiting success in Iowa and Michigan, where Democrats now are the undisputed favorites. Grimes’ candidacy fundamentally changes the map, forcing Republicans to spend millions playing defense, and Democrats are confident that she can defeat McConnell. Democrats also believe that a Todd Akin conservative will emerge in Georgia and provide a pick up opportunity for the right moderate Democrat with an independent Georgia brand.”
Chris Matthews asks a good question: “Forty-one states had voter suppression bills introduced by Republicans last year. Do you think people are going to forget which party wanted them to be shut out from their democratic rights?”
This Pew Research Center study presents a number of important findings for Democrats, including: “Our research has also found a correlation between the amount of time Hispanic immigrants (regardless of legal status) spend in the United States and the share that identifies with a political party. While nearly two-thirds (63%) of Hispanic immigrants who have been in the U.S. at least 15 years identify with one of the two major parties, that share falls to 38% among those who have been in the U.S. for fewer than 15 years.”
Give it up for NC progressives, who are writing a new book on how to raise consciousness and fight Republican suppression. Partricia Murphy reports at the Daily Beast, and the photo accompanying her article reflects the growing spirit of resistance taking root in this key swing state.
Here’s one theory about why Nate Silver is leaving the New York Times for ESPN: “His entire probability-based way of looking at politics ran against the kind of political journalism that The Times specializes in: polling, the horse race, campaign coverage, analysis based on campaign-trail observation, and opinion writing, or “punditry,” as he put it, famously describing it as “fundamentally useless.” Of course, The Times is equally known for its in-depth and investigative reporting on politics.”
Tamara Keith’s “How Floor Charts Became Stars Of Congress” provides an interesting take on the increasing use of a new tool for political education: “Watch C-SPAN long enough, and you’ll see members of Congress using visual aids: big, brightly colored poster boards, known on Capitol Hill as floor charts…When you are in the minority, you have to find ways to get your message across because there’s no other way. You don’t have a bill that they’re going to hear. There’s no committee that will receive your suggestions,” [Florida Democrat Frederica] Wilson says.”
Well-intentioned that it is “middle-out” doesn’t exactly inspire a lot of excitement as a Democratic catch-phrase heading towards 2014.

At Bloomberg, Michael C. Bender reports on what may be a crack the the GOP’s wall of voter suppression. GOP Rep. James Sensenbrenner criticizes the high court decision gutting the Voting Rights Act, arguing that the majority ignored the Act’s provision exempting state and local jurisdictions from oversight if they comply with anti-discrimination rules. The fact that jurisdictions covered by the Act failed to qualify for that provision “is evidence that the VRA’s extraordinary measures are still necessary,” said Sensenbrenner, 70, who was House Judiciary Committee chairman in 2006, when Congress reauthorized the law.
Michael Tomasky has the skinny on the tanking of the phony I.R.S. “scandal,” which got bumped off the headlines by the Trayvon Martin verdict. But the really big implosion of the GOP’s manufactured scandal starts today, when Russell George, the Treasury Department inspector general who produced the original report at Darrell Issa’s request returns for a proper grilling by Rep. Elijah Cummings, who has new evidence. Expect evasive sputtering.
The Fix’s Chris Cillizza notes that “the 112th Congress passed just 561 bills, the lowest number since they began keeping these stats way back in 1947,” with the usual false equivalency explanation for gridlock. How about an comparison showing which party’s members vote with the other party more in the house and senate votes? Don’t hold your breath waiting for those numbers.
It’s not just the Liz Cheney thing, notes John Whitesides in his Reuters.com post “Analysis: Republicans could see more bruising Senate primaries.”
Larry J. Sabato, Kyle Kondik and Geoffrey Skelley have a fun post up at The Crystal Ball, “Rinse and Repeat: 10 classic political ads that 2014 candidates should (or shouldn’t) copy.”
Also at The Crystal Ball, Sean Trende, Senior Elections Analyst for RealClearPolitics, responds to a post by TDS co-founding editor Ruy Teixeira and Crystal Ball senior columnist Alan Abramowitz criticizing Trende’s argument that Republicans can offset demographic trends favoring Democrats by appealing to white voters who are increasingly disenchanted with Dems.
The presidents of three unions, the Teamsters, UFCW and UNITE-HERE have written to Senate Majority Leaders Reid and House Minority Leader Pelosi calling for specific fixes to the Affordable Care Act. They want to eliminate the provision that “creates an incentive for employers to keep employees’ work hours below 30 hours a week” and the provision that makes employees enrolled in non-profit health care plans ineligible for the subsidies grated those in for-profit company health plans. Of course the Republicans are spinning the letter to suggest unions want to repeal Obamacare. But the letter calls for “common-sense corrections that can be made within the existing statute.”
Don’t miss Wonkblog’s Ezra klein and Sarah Kliff excellent report on “Obama’s last campaign: Inside the White House plan to sell Obamacare.” Among the observations: “…the effort will have to go far beyond engineering turnout among key demographics. The administration needs to build more insurance marketplaces than they ever expected, and create an unprecedented IT infrastructure that lets the federal government’s computers seamlessly talk to the (often ancient) systems used in state Medicaid offices. They need to fend off repeal efforts from congressional Republicans — like Wednesday’s vote to delay the individual mandate — and somehow work with red-state bureaucracies that want to see Obamacare fail…”
Meanwhile, David Callahan writes at Demos ‘Policy Shop’ that “Freedom From 9-to-5: Obamacare a Boon to Entrepreneurs.”
Just what the U.S. Senate needs another arrogant theocrat.

Lest we forget, the “stand your ground” law which facilitated the dubious acquittal verdict in the Trayvon Martin case was an NRA and mostly Republican-sponsored law. As Howard Goodman reports for the Florida Center for Investigative Reporting, “As soon as the bill was signed into law in Florida, the NRA’s executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre, said the pro-gun organization would use the victory to promote the law everywhere…Within weeks, a proposed statute with almost the exact wording of the Florida law was adopted by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). That’s a conservative organization that pushes for laws favorable to its patrons, mainly scores of U.S. corporations…ALEC’s method is to hand cookie-cutter “model” bills to sympathetic state lawmakers — mostly conservative Republicans — who then sponsor them in their statehouses.”
Demography is Destiny to a great extent. But Ron Brownstein has a sobering warning for Dems in his National Journal post, “Danger Ahead for Democrats: The Passion Gap: A motivated Republican base could help the party win seats next year, despite long-term demographic trends.”
From Catalina Carnera’s USA Today article, “Poll: Voters blame GOP for gridlock in Washington” : “A new Quinnipiac University poll shows that 64% of voters say Republicans and Democrats are equally to blame for the gridlock…But when asked if the standstill occurs because of the GOP blocking President Obama or whether Obama lacks the skills to bring Congress together, 51% point fingers at Republicans. By comparison, 35% of voters say Obama “lacks the personal skills to convince leaders of Congress to work together.”
Former MT Gov. Brian Schweitzer passes on a run for the U.S. Senate, which is a blow for Dem hopes to hold their majority.
All of the Democrats problems in candidate recruitment notwithstanding, E. J. Dionne’s Sunday column highlights one area where Dems are in excellent shape — plenty of credible women leaders besides Hillary Clinton, who could make a strong run for president or veep.
At The Economist, Lexington offers some insights about “The war of the words: How Republicans and Democrats use language.” Among Lexington’s observations: “Republicans are also better, Democrats fear, at agreeing on a message and sticking to it. Frank Luntz, a Republican consultant, once said: “There’s a simple rule. You say it again, and you say it again, and you say it again, and you say it again, and you say it again, and then again and again and again and again, and about the time that you’re absolutely sick of saying it is about the time that your target audience has heard it for the first time.””
The editors of the NYT’s The Caucus have an updated statistical profile of the “Racial Makeup of Red and Blue America.”
Mark Sappenfield of The Monitor’s ‘DC Decoder’ blog explores a question of increasing interest to Dems, “Texas abortion uproar: Could backlash turn Lone Star State blue?” As Sappenfiled notes, “The demographics of the Lone Star State suggest irresistible change. The 2010 Census showed that 45 percent of Texans are white, 38 percent are Latino, and 11 percent are black, with other ethnic groups making up the remaining 6 percent. A decade before, the white-Latino split was 53 to 32 percent. White Texans, already no longer a majority, will soon no longer even be the plurality.” However, “10 to 15 percent of Texas Latinos are not citizens. The Latino population also trends much younger than the white population, meaning a larger share of Texas Latinos have not yet reached voting age.”
Paul Krugman posts on why “There Is No “True” Unemployment Rate” and discusses the uses of the ‘U3’ and ‘U6″ unemployment rates.
A new Gallup poll finds that “In U.S., More Relate to Democrats Than GOP on Immigration.” Asked “which political party’s policies on immigration and immigration reform come closer to your own?,” 48 percent chose the Democratic party, with 36 percent picking the Republican party. Further, 41 percent of non-Hispanic whites selected Dems, vs. 42 percent for Republicans. The figures for African Americans were 70 percent for Dems and 14 percent for Republicans, while Latinos chose Dems by a margin of 60-26.

George Wentworth, senior staff attorney for the National Employment Law Project has a perceptive Huffpo post, “How to Disappear the Unemployed (See North Carolina),” which explains the strategy behind a new Republican terminology scam. As Wentworth explains, “in an increasing number of states, the perceived “problem” is no longer “unemployment” — it’s the “unemployed.” And the most convenient and politically facile way to attack the unemployed is to attack unemployment insurance, the New Deal insurance program that provides modest income support to qualifying workers who lose their jobs through no fault of their own.” Wentworth notes that Republican Governor McCrory’s initiative “will cost the state roughly $700 million that would otherwise go to long-term unemployed workers and their families — and directly back into North Carolina’s economy.”
Chris Bowers of Daily Kos has an e-blast urging all progressives to “please join Daily Kos and CREDO by demanding that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senate Democrats pass meaningful filibuster reform that eliminates the filibuster for all presidential nominations, including judges. Click here to sign the petition.”
E. J. Dionne, Jr. challenges Republicans like William Kristol and Rich Lowry to demonstrate their new-found concern for low wages to support a minimum wage hike. “It’s heartwarming to know that the editors of the Weekly Standard and National Review are now worried about depressed wages. In truth, granting immigrants who are here illegally basic labor rights would have a positive effect on wages for all workers. But if Kristol and Lowry are really worried about low-paid workers, let their next literary collaboration be an endorsement of a $9 or $10 hourly minimum wage.”
Ed Kilgore’s Washington Monthly post, “Rand Paul and His Confederate Friends” unmasks the rancid core of Paul’s pitch: “As Jonathan Chait observed yesterday, at some point you have to figure that the chronic association of secessionists and racists with the Paul Revolution (and more generally with libertarianism and “constitutional conservatism”) exists for a reason; it’s not a coincidence or a figment of hostile imaginations.” Kilgore shares Chait’s quote: “The deep connection between the Pauls and the neo-Confederate movement doesn’t discredit their ideas, but it’s also not just an indiscretion. It’s a reflection of the fact that white supremacy is a much more important historical constituency for anti-government ideas than libertarians like to admit.”
At The National Journal, Beth Rheinhard’s “Bob McDonnell’s Growing Scandal Could Spill Over to Ken Cuccinelli” indicates that Dem candidate for VA Governor Terry McAuliffe may have found the edge he needs to defeat his GOP rival. As tea party activist Eric Odom, quoted in the post, puts it: “Right now it’s a case of a terrible optics, and it’s essentially handed a McAuliffe an arsenal of political ammunition. He probably has ten campaign ads against Cuccinelli lined up and ready to go.”
In his ‘The Conscience of a Liberal’ post, “Income, Race and Voting,” Paul Krugman mulls over some exit poll data and observes “Contrary to what some people keep saying, people with higher incomes, other things equal, tend to vote Republican. Cut through the noise and fog, and it is true that Democrats broadly want to redistribute income down, and Republicans want to redistribute income up — and on average, voters get that (which is why “libertarian populism” is hot air).”
Mark Z. Barabak’s L.A. Times article, “Texas Democrats feel a change in the wind” provides an informative update on the political and demographic transformation gaining momentum in the Lone Star state.
in his New York Times Opinionator post, “The Decline of Black Power in the South,” Thomas B. Edsall notes that “Where possible, Republican redistricting strategists have reduced the number of blacks in white Democratic legislative districts in order to render the incumbent vulnerable to Republican challenge. In other areas of the state, where it has not been not possible to “bleach” a district, Republicans have sharply increased the percentage of blacks to over 50 percent in order to encourage a successful black challenge to the white Democratic incumbent.”
The Nation has a worthy action widget, “Thank and Support moral Mondays” — a way progressives can support North Carolina activists in their protests against GOP voter suppression and right-wing extremism in that state.
Earth to Ann Coulter…ahh, never mind.