Mediaboss Marketing

Democrats fighting to retain control of the U.S. Senate know their success could hinge on motivating women supporters to vote in the November election.

To that end, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is teeing up a slate of measures designed to appeal to women voters and to cast Republican candidates as insensitive -- or even hostile -- to them. The effort will ramp up next week with legislation aimed at closing the gender wage gap.

We know that when women vote, we win, said Senator Patty Murray of Washington, a member of the Democratic leadership who led her partys 2012 Senate campaign effort.

Republicans need a net gain of six seats in the midterm election to take the Senate majority, something that analysts say looks increasingly possible -- especially as Democrats are defending 21 seats compared with 15 for Republicans.

Democrats are trying to avoid a repeat of the 2010 midterms, in which Republicans capitalized on sentiment against President Barack Obama and the health-care law passed that year to win control of the House and additional seats in the Senate.

That year, 51 percent of women voters supported a Republican House candidate, the first time that proportion surpassed 50 percent since exit polls began measuring backing for congressional candidates in 1982. Political experts attributed the shift to unusually low turnout among women voters, especially single women.

The 2010 midterms were a sharp departure from 2008 and 2012 when Obama was on the ballot and Democratic candidates benefited from his campaigns voter-mobilization efforts. With women voters nationwide, Democratic House candidates registered a 14-point edge in 2008 and an 11-point advantage four years later, according to exit polls.

Given the importance of womens votes, the Democrats strategy makes perfect sense, said Jennifer Duffy, who tracks Senate races for the nonpartisan Cook Political Report in Washington.

There are a lot of women up, there are a number of prominent women candidates, Duffy said, adding that Democrats also need to change the subject from the botched health-care law rollout.

North Carolina Senator Kay Hagan, one of the chambers most vulnerable incumbents on the ballot this year, said a measure strengthening rules that employers show that wage disparity is based on job performance and not gender is certainly an issue that would help get women to the polls.

Read this article:

Paycheck Issues Top Senate Agenda in Bid for Womens Vote

Couple receives voter card pre-marked for Democrats from Obamacare site
A California couple phoned ABC10 news when they received an envelope from Covered California, the state #39;s Obamacare website, with a voter registration card p...

By: CAF Warroom

Original post:

Couple receives voter card pre-marked for Democrats from Obamacare site - Video

AP: Its Political Suicide for Democrats to Run On Obamacare in 2014

By: Washington Free Beacon

The rest is here:

AP: Its Political Suicide for Democrats to Run On Obamacare in 2014 - Video

Democratic lawmakers and campaign finance reform advocates quickly bashed Wednesdays Supreme Court decision to strike down total limits on individual campaign contributions, warning of future corruption in elections.

Meanwhile, Republicans largely cheered the ruling from the narrowly divided court, which found it unconstitutional to impose caps on the aggregate amounts that one person can donate to campaigns, parties and political action committees.

Calling himself all for freedom, Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) on Wednesday commended the ruling, saying donors ought to have the freedom to give what they want to give. And Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who had filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case, also praised the decision.

(Also on POLITICO: Supreme Court strikes down aggregate campaign giving limits)

Let me be clear for all those who would criticize the decision: It does not permit one more dime to be given to an individual candidate or a party, McConnell said Wednesday. It just respects the constitutional rights of individuals to decide how many to support.

Senate Democrats, who control the chamber, are already planning to respond. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) said he will hold a hearing on the impact of the McCutcheon decision and other rulings from the high court that he says have eviscerated our campaign finance laws.

Meanwhile, Maine Sen. Angus King, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, said he introduced legislation intended to make donations more transparent by requiring all contributions of $1,000 or more to be disclosed to the Federal Election Commission within 48 hours. A campaign bill in the House will be introduced by Rep. Beto ORourke (D-Texas).

(Also on POLITICO: Dems lead Twitter charge against ruling)

New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, the third-ranking Senate Democrat who also chairs the Rules Committee, said the panel will hold hearings on the ruling and that leadership will explore what can be done legislatively. A Constitutional amendment proposed by Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), which would explicitly give Congress the power to regulate campaign finance for federal races, is a more attractive option since the court ruling was made on First Amendment grounds, Schumer said.

The specific effect of this decision is not that large because were already awash in money, Schumer told reporters Wednesday. But it shows where the Supreme Court is headed, which is to dismantle other even more significant limits so that any person could write out a check of any size and undisclosed, put it into unlimited numbers of races. And that direction as I said, it would be like the 1890s. Wed go back to the days of the robber barons.

Link:

Democrats bash SCOTUS ruling

Obama offers a blueprint for Democrats to defend health law

President Obamas remarks on Tuesday hailing the 7 million-plus Americans who enrolled in the health-care exchanges were more than a victory lap. They also served as his blueprint to the Democrats running for re-election -- from Mary Landrieu in Louisiana and Kay Hagan in North Carolina, to Mark Udall in Colorado and Gary Peters in Michigan -- on how to defend the law in this tough political environment for their party. The question is whether these Democrats make the same arguments and borrow the same language; many of them would prefer that health care simply fade as an issue. Heres what Obama said:

Because of the Affordable Care Act, 100 million Americans have gained free preventive care, like mammograms and contraceptive care, under their existing plans. Because of this law, nearly 8 million seniors have saved almost $10 billion on their medicine because weve closed a gaping hole in Medicares prescription drug plan And because of this law, a whole lot of families wont be driven into bankruptcy by a serious illness, because the Affordable Care Act prevents your insurer from placing dollar limits on the coverage they provide.

Why are folks working so hard for people not to have health insurance? Why are they so mad about the idea of folks having health insurance?

Those who have based their entire political agenda on repealing it have to explain to the country why Jeanne should go back to being uninsured. They should explain why Sean and his family should go back to paying thousands and thousands of dollars more. Theyve got to explain why Marla doesnt deserve to feel like shes got value.

Nobody remembers well those who stand in the way of Americas progress or our people. And thats what the Affordable Care Act represents. As messy as its been sometimes, as contentious as its been sometimes, it is progress.

Of course, its one thing for the president to say these things; he isn't running for re-election again. He also isn't an asset to red-state Democrats like Mary Landrieu in Louisiana, Mark Pryor in Arkansas, and Mark Begich in Alaska. And with an approval rating in the low- to mid-40s, he also isn't an asset to Mark Udall in Colorado, Gary Peters in Michigan, and Bruce Braley in Iowa. But the way to read Obamas remarks yesterday was essentially this: As someone whos won two presidential elections and run two outstanding campaigns, heres how I would defend the law if I were running again And this isn't really a new way to defend an entitlement program. Its a formula defenders of Medicare and Social Security have used for years -- personalizing the idea of cuts.

*** What does the GOP do now?

The next few months for Republicans will be fascinating, because there are two different viewpoints among conservatives: 1) Lets keep on pushing repeal, and 2) Weve got to deal with a law that isnt going away. Bill Kristol advocates the first viewpoint. Conservative writer Ramesh Ponnuru argues that Republicans need to accept the second viewpoint in a piece entitled, Stop Waiting for Obamacare to Implode. He writes about the 7 million who are now enrolled in the exchanges: Of course, those numbers don't give us any reason to think that the law will do a lot of good at a reasonable price, or that its basic structure can be modified to pass that test. But the supporters are right that meeting the target of 7 million enrollments will make repealing and replacing the law harder. More from Ponnuru: The likelihood of replacement would be higher if there was an alternative that didn't take away people's insurance -- one that promised to cover roughly as many people as Obamacare does, or even more. No doubt, Republicans can paper over their differences through November and essentially avoid dealing with this issue now. But there is this reality staring them in the face: According to the CBO, enrollment in the exchanges is expected to double by next year and quadruple by 2017 -- the earliest date wed see a Republican in the White House when they could actually make any MAJOR changes to the law. It already seems politically hard to figure out how Republicans would sell a repeal and replace that would potentially impact 15 million folks (adding up private/Medicaid and young folks staying on parents policies). By 2017, the number of folks receiving health insurance under this law could be closer to 30 million. Its why were convinced this law is now politically impossible to repeal.

*** Quinnipiac poll: Majority still opposes the health-care law

See the rest here:

Obama Offers a Blueprint for Democrats to Defend Health Law