Celinda Lake, Daniel Gotoff, and Alex Dunn have completed a strategic analysis of a new George Washington University Battleground poll of likely voters. Among their conclusions:

With the 2014 elections just over six months away, the midterms remain very tightly matched. In this most recent Battleground poll, Democrats have closed January’s 2 ‐ point deficit on the generic congressional ballot, and are now running neck and neck with Republican candidates nationally (43% Republican, 43% Democrat, 14% undecided). This dynamic, among other factors, substantiates the argument that the Democrats are competitively positioned for 2014, despite the gloomy conventional wisdom about the Party’s chances. The Democrats enjoy double ‐ digit advantages on key issues, including standing up for the middle class, representing middle class values, Social Security, and Medicare. Voters also see the Democrats as better when it comes to solving problems and the Party remains competitive on jobs, the economy, and even taxes. The data also reinforce the notion that congressional Democrats are making progress shifting out of a defensive posture on health care, both as the White House goes on an aggressive–and so far successful–full court press to encourage new sign ‐ ups, and as Americans increasingly come to see through the Obamacare spin and understand the benefits of the new law. Moreover, we see in this study evidence that Democrats’ efforts to define the elections around populist economic issues–raising the minimum wage, ensuring equal pay for working women, and strengthening the safety net of Social Security and Medicare–are finding traction among the 2014 electorate.

But the authors note that Dems face a formidable challenge:

…Turnout will be a major test for the Democrats. Fully 64% of Republicans are extremely likely to vote compared to 57% of Democrats, and that number falls to 36% among 18 ‐ 29 year olds and 38% among single women.

The authors cite “serious divisions within their ranks” among Republicans. Further, “while “68% of Democrats are happy with the direction of their Party, just 33% of Republicans are happy with the direction of their Party.” Lake, Gotoff and Dunn add that “Even stronger are perceptions that this country’s economic rules favor the rich (64% agree, 34% disagree), and a resounding majority believes the middle class has it the toughest in America (72% agree, 25% disagree)…This basic economic framework…has taken hold as the central narrative for understanding our economy by every major and minor subgroup in the data, with the exception of Republicans (though even 41% of GOPers believe that economic rules favor the rich).” In addition:

“The Battleground data reveal a compelling desire for the government to act in order to reduce the gap between the rich and everyone else (59% agree, 41% strongly ; 38% disagree), a direct rebuttal to Republican claims that the American people are not looking for solutions that create a different kind of economy. This call to action is voiced by 59% of independents, 84% of Democrats, and even 32% of Republicans. In fact, we find striking consensus around the desire–the need–for government to intervene on grounds of economic fairness. Women (+31 agree) and men (+9 agree) want intervention. Every age cohort in this data wants intervention, ranging from voters under 30 (+25) to seniors (+5). The same is true for whites (+11), moderates (+53), independents (+23), and by a whopping 26 ‐ point margin those voters who are undecided in the congressional contests. To say this is not a consensus position would be to ignore bold data to the contrary. …Not only do voters believe that Democrats are the Party more likely to stand up for the middle class (54% Democrats, 36% Republicans), but by similar margins that Democrats more closely represent middle class values (52% Democrats, 39% Republicans). This is no coincidence, of course–we have long found a Democratic advantage on the middle class. But neither are these casual advantages, and they may represent an intensifying effect as congressional Democrats (and the President) make the case for policies that would reduce the gap between the rich and everyone else: raising the minimum wage, investing in basic infrastructure projects designed to put Americans back to work, making college and job training more affordable for America’s youth, putting an end to corporate welfare, and requiring the very wealthy to pay their fair share in taxes.

“The Democrats must pivot from rebutting attacks on the Affordable Care Act to an agenda of bold economic action,” say the authors. “The Congressional Trial Heat and Views of the Parties The last two months have ushered in a number of encouraging signs for Democrats, and

The modest 2 ‐ point improvement in the generic congressional ballot obscures more dramatic movement underneath. Moderates have swung toward Democratic candidates in a big way, supporting them over Republicans by more than a two ‐ to ‐ one margin (46% Democrats, 21% Republicans, and 34% undecided). Independents are now closely split in their support: 31% backing the GOP, 29% the Democrats, with a formidable 40% of independents undecided. Seniors, who supported Republicans by seven points in January, now divide their loyalties between Democrats (43%) and Republicans (46%). The gender gap is alive and well, with women supporting the Democrats by a 10 ‐ point margin and men the Republicans by a similarly impressive 12 ‐ point margin. The marital gap is enormous: married men are voting Republican by a 22 ‐ point margin, while married women split (R+1). Single women are voting Democratic by a whopping 36 ‐ point margin, and single men by 13 points….Democrats should also capitalize on several important strengths as they prepare their candidates for November. Voters put their confidence in Democrats over Republicans on key issue dimensions, including standing up for the middle class (D+18), Medicare (D+14), representing middle class values (D+13), and Social Security (D+10). Voters who are undecided in the congressional race follow similar patterns. That the voters trust Democrats to protect Social Security and Medicare is no small token given the advanced age of the electorate in a midterm year; voters 60 and over afford Democrats a 7 ‐ point advantage on Social Security and Medicare

Lake, Gotoff and Dunn avoid making “sweeping predictions for November.” But they urge Democrats to “capitalize on several important strengths” and advocate “a bold economic policy agenda.” It’s an encouraging poll for Democrats, and if it’s on target, 2014 could be a precendent-busting midterm election.

At The National Journal, Alex Seitz-Wald’s “68 Percent More Likely to Turn Out If Measure to Legalize Pot Is on the Ballot” should be of considerable interest to state Democratic parties in their search for strategies to turn out younger voters in November. Seitz-Wald explains:

A new poll, conducted by a Democratic and Republican polling firm in partnership with George Washington University, suggests voters would be overwhelmingly more likely to go to the polls if they could vote on a ballot measure to legalize marijuana, something Democrats may want to keep in mind as they work to boost turnout.
Facing a tough map and perennial low turnout in midterms, Democrats are hoping to minimize losses in this year’s elections by enticing their voters to the polls in any way possible, which in some states includes marijuana liberalization. At least six states are expected to have marijuana questions on the ballot this year.
Colorado and Washington, which each had referenda to legalize the drug on the ballot in 2012, saw the youth share of the vote jump between 5 and 12 percentage points that year over 2008, even as it increased only marginally nationwide.
…The top response: “Much more likely,” an option selected by 39 percent of respondents. The next most popular choice was “somewhat more likely,” which garnered 30 percent of responses. Just 13 percent said they’d be somewhat or much less likely to vote, and 16 percent said it would make no difference.
Together, when rounded, that suggests that 68 percent of likely voters would be more likely to go to the polls if they could vote on a measure to legalize pot.

Further, adds Seitz-Wald, “A breakdown of the numbers provided to National Journal shows liberals are more enthusiastic than moderates or conservatives, with 76 percent saying they would be more likely to vote if marijuana legalization were on the ballot, compared with 64 percent of conservatives and 61 percent of moderates.”
As for caveats, Seitz-Wald notes, “While it worked in Colorado and Washington in 2012, a legalization referendum didn’t seem to help drive youth or liberal turnout in California in 2010. And medical marijuana, as opposed to full legalization, doesn’t seem to have any stimulative effect on youth turnout.”
And it’s not just younger voters, Seitz-Wald explains: “Indeed, the age breakdown on the GW poll found that voters between the ages of 45 and 64 were the most likely to express a strong preference for voting on a legalization ballot measure, although the overall numbers saying they were more likely to vote were roughly even across age ranges, except for those over 65.”
Seitz-Wald notes that there is not much time to get marijuana measures on ballots in November. Wherever it’s still possible, however, it appears that doing so has no down side for Democrats.

The Republicans’ “pity the poor, beleaguered Koch brothers” whine in response to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s calling them out is getting a lot of airplay with the GOP’s lapdog media personalities. It’s highly unlikely, however, that it will get much traction in public opinion polls. Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich does a good job of explaining why in his HuffPo post, “The New Billionaire Political Bosses“:

But in using their vast wealth to change those rules and laws in order to fit their political views, the Koch brothers are undermining our democracy. That’s a betrayal of the most precious thing Americans share.
The Kochs exemplify a new reality that strikes at the heart of America. The vast wealth that has accumulated at the top of the American economy is not itself the problem. The problem is that political power tends to rise to where the money is. And this combination of great wealth with political power leads to greater and greater accumulations and concentrations of both — tilting the playing field in favor of the Kochs and their ilk, and against the rest of us.
America is not yet an oligarchy, but that’s where the Koch’s and a few other billionaires are taking us.

Reich, author of Beyond Outrage, has some telling numbers to back up his claim:

So far in the 2014 election cycle, “Americans for Prosperity,” the Koch brother’s political front group, has aired more than 17,000 broadcast TV commercials, compared with only 2,100 aired by Republican Party groups.
“Americans for Prosperity” has also been outspending top Democratic super PACs in nearly all of the Senate races Republicans are targeting this year. In seven of the nine races the difference in total spending is at least two-to-one and Democratic super PACs have had virtually no air presence in five of the nine states.

Unfortunately, it’s not just the Koch Brothers who are leveraging their wealth to support candidates who are committed to voter suppression, destruction of unions, environmental deregulation and a host of other policies opposed by the American people. As Reich writes,

…Billionaire TD Ameritrade founder Joe Ricketts and his son, Todd, co-owner of the Chicago Cubs, have their own $25 million political operation called “Ending Spending.” The group is now investing heavily in TV ads against Republican Representative Walter Jones in a North Carolina primary (they blame Jones for too often voting with Obama).
Their ad attacking Democratic New Hampshire Senator Jeanne Shaheen for supporting Obama’s health-care law has become a template for similar ads funded by the Koch’s “Americans for Prosperity” in Senate races across the country.
When billionaires supplant political parties, candidates are beholden directly to the billionaires. And if and when those candidates win election, the billionaires will be completely in charge.
At this very moment, Casino magnate Sheldon Adelson (worth an estimated $37.9 billion) is busy interviewing potential Republican candidates whom he might fund, in what’s being called the “Sheldon Primary.”
“Certainly the ‘Sheldon Primary’ is an important primary for any Republican running for president,” says Ari Fleischer, former White House press secretary under President George W. Bush. “It goes without saying that anybody running for the Republican nomination would want to have Sheldon at his side.”

Reich acknowledges that Democrats have some support from billionaires like Tom Steyer and Michael Bloomberg. But their contributions are dwarfed by shady, right-wing PAC money funding Republicans.
It’s not surprising that Republicans are upset with Majority Leader Reid calling out the Koch brothers and questioning their patriotism. But they are likely preaching to a small choir of the already converted. More thoughtful voters will credit Reid with a much-needed wake-up call.

For the sharpest analysis of the dust-up about Nate Silver’s “prediction” of a GOP takeover of the U.S. Senate in the November elections, you probably can’t do better than “What’s Being Overlooked About Nate Silver’s Senate Prediction” by Mark Blumenthal and Ariel Edwards-Levy at HuffPo Pollster. Here’s a taste:

‘Is Silver’s prediction an outlier?’ Jonathan Bernstein answers his own question: “Not at all. A toss up with a slight edge to Republicans is right in line with predictions by Sean Trende; the Cook Report’s Jennifer Duffy; the Rothenberg Political Report; political scientists Eric McGhee, Ben Highton and John Sides; and also political scientist Alan Abramowitz. Those forecasters come from different traditions and use different methods, but they all think Senate control is a toss-up, with slight variations about which party is the favorite.” [Bloomberg] DSCC pushes back – Guy Cecil, executive director of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee: “Nate Silver and the staff at FiveThirtyEight are doing groundbreaking work, but, as they have noted, they have to base their forecasts on a scarce supply of public polls. In some cases more than half of these polls come from GOP polling outfits. This was one reason why FiveThirtyEight forecasts in North Dakota and Montana were so far off in 2012. In fact, in August of 2012 Silver forecasted a 61% likelihood that Republicans would pick up enough seats to claim the majority. Three months later Democrats went on to win 55 seats.” [HuffPost] What the reaction overlooks – First, expressing a forecast as a probability does not make it a certainty. If Silver says he is 60 percent certain something will happen, he should be wrong about it 40 percent of the time. As RealClearPolitics’ Sean Trende Tweeted on Monday, in reference to Mercer’s upset victory over Duke in the NCAA March Madness basketball tournament, “Yes, @NateSilver538 said Duke was 93% fave over Mercer, but question is really whether teams he says are 93% faves lose > 7% of the time” [@SeanTrende]

There’s more worth reading in Blumenthal’s and Edwards-Levy’s post. Read it and follow the links they provide, and you’ll have a pretty good sense of the relevance of Silver’s ‘prediction.’ Snapshot analyses may have some value to campaign strategists in suggesting tweaks in resource allocation. But no campaign for a November election should be demoralized or too encouraged by poll analysis provided in March.

From Donna Cassata’s AP story “Democrats see openings in congressional departures“:

…Republican retirements in a half-dozen swing districts provide Democrats with an opportunity to grab a handful of seats this November. The party has cleared a path for its preferred candidates while the GOP faces some messy primaries that underscore the divide between conservatives and the establishment.
In a Virginia district stretching from wealthy enclaves overlooking the Potomac River to the Shenandoah Valley, Republican Rep. Frank Wolf announced in December that he would step down after 34 years, giving Democrats a shot in a district that Republican Mitt Romney won by just 1 percentage point in the 2012 presidential election.
Democrat John Foust, a Fairfax County supervisor for the past seven years, already had set his sights on the seat, declaring his candidacy days before Wolf’s announcement. Last fall’s 16-day partial government shutdown, felt hard among the tens of thousands of federal employees in the district and outside contractors, was the deciding factor.
“The government shutdown was so indicative of the way Congress is working,” the soft-spoken Foust says in an interview in which he describes himself as mainstream and pragmatic. “The Republicans are willing to sacrifice ordinary people to pursue a partisan agenda. It’s just not acceptable.”

Despite the ‘Dems in Disarray’ squeeky bandwagon MSM pundits seem to be riding at the moment, Republicans are not exactly unified, nor is their party brimming with bright congressional prospects. Further, “Polls numbers are not where we would want them to be, but Republican congressional poll numbers are at an historic low and a fraction of where the president is. So everything is relative,” adds Rep. Steve Israel, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
Cassata continues,

Elsewhere on the political map, Democrats are upbeat about their chances in Iowa’s 3rd Congressional District, where Republican Rep. Tom Latham, a close confidante of House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, made the surprise announcement that he would retire after 10 terms. Obama won the district by 4 percentage points in 2012.
New Jersey, where two-term Republican Rep. Jon Runyan is retiring, offers a chance for Democrat Aimee Belgard, a member of the Burlington County Board of Freeholders, the county’s governing body…Obama won the district by 4 percentage points in 2012. The primary is June 3.
Democrats in the Philadelphia suburbs are counting on Dr. Manan Trivedi, an Iraq War veteran, to flip a seat held by Republican Rep. Jim Gerlach for six terms…
Democrats are all but certain to flip the California seat held by eight-term Republican Rep. Gary Miller, who is retiring. Obama won the district by 16 percentage points in 2012.

There is no question that Dems face a tough 2014 map. But the doomsayer pundits being hustled by the GOP’s echo chamber may have some explaining to do first Tuesday in November.

Eric Brown’s “Blue Georgia: Can Jimmy Carter’s Grandson Turn Georgia Into A 2016 Swing State?” at International Business Times discusses prospects for Michelle Nunn’s Senate campaign and Jason Carter’s bid to win the GA governorship. An excerpt:

…Though, all of Georgia’s U.S. senators and statewide officials, and most of its House delegation, are Republicans, so can Carter and Nunn turn the tide? According to Emory University professor Dr. Alan Abramowitz, who specializes in party realignment in the U.S., Georgia’s demographics are changing enough that if Carter and Nunn can’t do it this year, someone else might soon.
“Georgia is going to be the next purple state. It’s trending the same way Virginia was a few years ago, though it’s not as far along,” Abramowitz said.

Brown adds, “From 2000 to 2010, Georgia’s non-white population increased from 37 percent to 45 percent, putting it on track to becoming a majority-minority state…Given the GOP’s continuing failures at reaching out to minority groups, and rising black voter turnout, the era of conservative domination in Georgia is likely on its way out.”
However, Brown, sees challenges facing Dems in GA before it can be rated as purple as Virginia, “including “a significantly stronger evangelical Protestant base, giving conservative white voters a stronger voice than in many other states.” Further,

One of the leading Republicans in the Senate race, Rep. Paul Broun of Athens, is well known for his firm evangelical beliefs. But the increasingly powerful voices of young voters and minorities in Georgia have the power to turn the state into a battleground for coming elections…Carter and Nunn have better chances than any Democrat in the 21st century, but it will still take work to pull off a win.
“For the Democrats to win either election, they need help from the Republicans,” Abramowitz explained. “What I mean is, in the Senate race, Republicans would need to elect someone a little too extreme for most people. If you ask most Democrats who they’d like to run against, they’ll pick Paul Broun. Not just because he’s very conservative, but because he has a knack for saying unusual things.”
.. In 2011, for instance, Broun appeared at a church-sponsored event and claimed that the theories of evolution and the Big Bang were “lies straight from the pit of hell.”…Rhetoric like that might sit well with Broun’s largely rural district, but he’ll have a harder time making a similar case to cosmopolitan Atlanta residents…
Meanwhile, Carter’s greatest chance at a win doesn’t just come from his own experience and endorsements from other politicians, but from weaknesses on his opponent’s part. Since 2010, [GA Gov.] Deal has been the subject of federal probes looking into possibly criminal misuse of his campaign funds during the 2010 gubernatorial election. If anything comes of the probe in the coming months, it could spell disaster for Deal and good news for Carter.
Even if Carter tries and fails against Deal this year, he’ll have positioned himself into a good place for 2018. As a Democrat who gave a good fight to an incumbent Republican, he’ll be able to make a strong case for his nomination once again, and since Georgia only allows two terms per governor, he won’t have to face another incumbent…

“And by then,” concludes Brown, “Carter will have benefited even more from Georgia’s shifting demographics.” Put that together with the fact that African American voters had a higher turnout rate than white voters in GA’s 2010 midterms, and the fact that Obama polled almost 47 percent of GA voters in 2012, and it looks like Dems might make a smart bet on a ‘two-fer’ by investing more substantial resources in turning out their base in GA this year.

Dave Weigel addresses an important question in his Slate.com post “Obamacare’s Next Top Model: Why aren’t Democrats running ads showcasing the people who have been helped by Obamacare?”
We’ve asked versions of this question before. But no one seems to have a good answer. Weigel notes a good pro-Obamacare ad that got a lot of plaudits, featuring a woman, Mary Francis Perkins, who praised the Affordable Care Act for allowing her to get coverage for her Parkinsin’s illness — coverage that was denied to her before the ACA.
Regrettably, however, the ad was an exception, explains Weigel, one buried in Tsunamis of ads designed to discredit the ACA — and elect Republicans. Weigel adds,

The Perkins video appears to be an outlier–the only ad in which Democrats defended the health care law by talking to someone who benefited from it. Steve Spencer, who shot the video, said it was easy to shoot but hard to find a taker for it.
“There are compelling stories out there,” says Spencer, “but who can afford to air enough ads to balance the Koch brothers?”
That’s the irony: Democrats perfected this strategy, and Republicans have turned it against them. Americans for Prosperity, founded and partially funded by David and Charles Koch, has found tremendous success with its sob-story ads. When Democrats or fact-checkers have complained about them, they’ve been accused of bullying “cancer patients,” and the search for victims has proceeded.

While the Republicans and their supporting front groups are highly-organized in seeking testimony for ACA-bashing ads, Dems and progressives are apparently leaving it up to individual campaigns to fend for themselves. It shouldn’t be all that hard, since a quick youtube search turns up lots of positive video testimony.
Weigel says, “Democrats need to find Obamacare success stories when few want to fund the work, during a midterm election when all the key races are on Republican turf, while the donors are already thinking about 2016.” Weigel quotes Democratic strategist Paul Begala:

“There simply is no liberal Koch operation…Rather than a national ad campaign, which is not realistic, Dems should look to smart 2014 candidates to engage this issue along [these] lines. Once someone does it, and it works, others will replicate in their states/districts. Do I think Dems should respond to the Koch ads? Absolutely. But it is going to be a piecemeal response.”

Some observers believe Alex Sink did a fair job of challenging her opponent’s Obamacare bashing, though it fell short. Clearly Republicans and their surrogates are going to increase their attacks against the ACA and Dems who voted for it in the months ahead. A more assertive ad strategy featuring positive testimony about the ACA, whether piecemeal or nation-wide, seems overdue.

In “How Democrats can flip the script on Obamacare,” : Greg Sargent shares some insights gleaned from his interview with Democratic strategist Paul Begala:

“We should flip the wording of how we talk about Obamacare,” Begala told me today. “Open on offense, instead of on defense.”
Begala’s advice is rooted in a clear eyed assessment of the real Obamacare problem Dems face. It isn’t just that the law is unpopular with swing voters — yes, disapproval is running high, but repeal is also unpopular, which offers a way to fight disapproval to a draw. The more pressing problem is that Obamacare revs up the GOP base — worsening the “midterm falloff” turnout problem already present in non-presidential years — but it doesn’t excite the Dem base anywhere near enough to offset that problem.
To be clear, that is a very serious issue. But Begala thinks Dems can address it with a simple flipping of the script. Dems now debating how to talk about Obamacare seem to be leading defensively with their willingness to fix the law. Instead, Begala says, they should lead with an attack on Republicans that is framed as a medical rights issue – before pivoting to fixing the law — and then wrap it all up in a larger message about how Republicans have no answers to people’s health care or economic problems.
“We should open by saying, ‘my opponent wants to repeal your rights,'” Begala said. “He wants to take away your right to be protected against discrimination because you have a preexisting condition. He wants to take away your right to be protected against discrimination for being older or being a woman. He wants to take away the closing of the Medicare donut hole for seniors.”
“That’s point one,” he continued. “Then you say, ‘look, I’m open to working with everybody to fix the law. But I’ll never let them go back to the days where insurance companies could send letters saying your coverage has been canceled because you have a preexisting condition.'”

It’s not like Republicans have much of a fallback position, other than demonizing Obamacare. As Begala notes, “Repeal is their whole agenda. They have no ideas for giving you a pay raise. No ideas for raising the minimum wage. No ideas about how to create jobs. No ideas about how to get your kid into pre-K. Their entire agenda as a party is repeal — to take away rights that you have won. I’m not going to let them do that.”…”We can win on Obamacare, but we have to fight.”
Sargent adds that demonizing Obamacare “excites the Republican base far more than the Democratic base, potentially making the “midterm drop-off” even worse.” He argues that Republicans may well double down on the demonization strategy, which invites a Democratic counterattack in a populist context.
Republicans are handicapped by their inability to come up with a comprehensive alternative to Obamacare, Sargent believes. They hope to distract voters with a grab bag of piecemeal alternatives, none of which are particularly compelling. Polls indicate that the public appetite for ‘repeal and replace’ and starting all over again is small and shrinking. Time is not on the ACA demonization strategy’s side. An aggressive counter-attack, reminding voters about the popular provisions of the ACA, while calling out Republicans to flesh out their increasingly vague “alternatives” — just might work.

From Steven Hill’s post in the Nation, “Why Does the US Still Have So Few Women in Office?“, via Moyers & Company:

…Compared to other nations, the United States is losing ground. America now ranks 98th in the world for percentage of women in its national legislature, down from 59th in 1998. That’s embarrassing: just behind Kenya and Indonesia, and barely ahead of the United Arab Emirates. Only five governors are women, including just one Democrat, and 24 states have never had a female governor. The percentage of women holding statewide and state legislative offices is less than 25 percent, barely higher than in 1993. Locally, only 12 of our 100 largest cities have female mayors.

Kind of a pathetic reality for the world’s most prosperous democracy. The numbers alone shame our democracy. From a progressive standpoint, however, it’s clear we pay a high price for our gender oligarchy, as Hill explains:

…In Patterns of Democracy, former American Political Science Association president Arend Lijphart found strong correlations between more women legislators and more progressive policy on issues like the environment, macroeconomic management, comprehensive support for families and individuals, violence prevention and incarceration. Other studies have found that women legislators — both Republican and Democrat — introduce a lot more bills than men in the areas of civil rights and liberties, education, health, labor and more.

So how do they do better in other countries?:

…Leaders in electing women include Sweden (45 percent female representation at the national level), Finland (42.5 percent), Denmark and the Netherlands (39 percent) and Germany (36.5 percent). Most of their political parties prioritize recruitment of female candidates, some even requiring “positive quotas” where half their candidates are women. And their societies have sensible policies in areas like childcare that make it easier for legislators to balance their service with their families.

That should be a no-brainer. Hill sees another reason that would require major electoral reform:

…The research of representation experts like the late Professor Wilma Rule has shown that, in addition to these positive quotas, the biggest reason for female candidates’ success in these advanced democracies is the use of “fair representation” electoral systems, also known as proportional representation.
These methods use multi-seat districts, rather than one-seat districts, where political parties (or, in a nonpartisan election, groupings of like-minded voters, i.e. liberals, conservatives, progressives) win seats in proportion to their vote share. If like-minded voters have 20 percent of the vote in a 10-seat district, its candidates win two of ten seats, instead of none; 40 percent wins four seats, and 60 percent wins six seats.
Such rules create multi-party democracy, since a political party can earn a fair share of representation with well under 50 percent of the vote. That in turn fosters greater accountability for major parties, as minor parties offer voters other viable choices. Facing real competition, major parties look to nominate candidates that broaden their appeal, including a lot more women. The German Green Party has never won over 11 percent of the national vote, yet for three decades has consistently won seats and promoted women’s leadership by having a 50-50 rule for female/male candidates, prodding other major parties to nominate more women.
How important is the electoral system to women’s success? A real-world test is provided by nations that use both fair representation electoral systems and US-style one-seat districts to elect their national legislatures. We can observe the same voters, the same attitudes, expressing themselves through two different electoral methods. The result? In Germany and New Zealand, women win a lot more seats chosen by the fair representation method than in those chosen in one-seat districts — twice as many seats in Germany.
American women also do better in multi-seat districts, even if proportional representation rules aren’t used. As FairVote’s report shows, women hold an average of 31 percent of state legislative seats elected in multi-seat districts, compared to only 23 percent elected in one-seat districts. Vermont’s state legislature has 41 percent women, elected in districts with anywhere from one to six legislators per district. Even a strongly conservative state like Arizona has 36 percent women in its state house, elected from two-seat districts.

Hill goes on to note that there is nothing in the Constitution that requires “single-seat districts,” but Congress did pass a law in 1967 to require single seats. And, “Public financing of campaigns also would help, since most women don’t have access to the good ol’ boy networks that primarily fund political campaigns.”
By all means, Democrats should give more support to such reforms to facilitate gender parity, even though they will take a long time under the most optimistic scenarios. Making recruitment, training and support for more women candidates a more urgent priority, however, is something Dems should do right now.

The following article is by Stan Greenberg of DCorps:
James Carville called me early this morning to talk about the new ABC News/Washington Post poll, reported under the banner, “Poll: Democrats’ advantage on key issues is not translating to a midterm-election edge.”
The headline writers must have worked overtime to get to the interpretation that Democrats cannot translate the current mood into election gains.
This is probably the worst example yet of the official narrative requiring great contortions to get to the conclusion that this will be a Republican year.
Their whole interpretation of the 2014 midterms and trends is based on the U.S. Senate preference of about half the sampled respondents who will choose senators in this off year. They show the Democrats trailing by 8 points, but that is less interesting or surprising when you note — as Kyle Kondik did for Sabato’s Crystal Ball — that the Republican presidential candidates won these states by 7 points on average since 2000.
With that digression, the Washington Post minimized the following results:
Two-thirds of respondents said they will not re-elect their member of Congress — up 5 points in a month. And as we know, the majority of voters think Republicans are in control of the whole business.
On how issues will affect their vote, let’s start with the new health care law — the centerpiece of the GOP strategy. On the question of whether a candidate’s position on the Affordable Care Act would affect the vote of those surveyed, the Republicans have only a 2-point advantage (36 percent say they are less likely to vote for a member who supports the ACA, and 34 percent say they are more likely to vote for someone who supports the law). Just four months ago this same poll showed Republicans with a 16-point advantage on a slightly different ABC News/Washington Post question. Furthermore, by 44 to 36 percent, voters favor Democrats to handle health care in general.
By the way, if you want to see an issue that matters, check out their results on the minimum wage. That issue helps Democrats by 50 to 19 percent — respondents are a net 31 points more likely to vote for a candidate who supports raising the minimum wage.
The Republicans have lost ground in particular on handling the economy, budget deficits, and immigration. Would that be every issue getting public attention?
Their poll is most stunning on the question they ask about each of the players: Are they “in touch with the concerns of most people in the United States today or out of touch”? Nearly half, 48 percent, say both the president and the Democrats are in touch — an astonishing 20 points higher than the number saying that about the Republicans.
The pundits insist this is a Republican year. We doubt it.
Look at the Virginia gubernatorial election and the two state senate elections. And let’s see what happens in Florida on Tuesday.