Eyeing 2014, Democrats Take Aim at Gender Gap Again
Why the gender gap is so important for Democrats
If you want to know why the Obama White House today is holding another round of events focused on women and equal pay, its this important reminder: Female voters have been the difference between Democrats winning and losing elections. In 2012, President Obama won female voters by 11 points (55%-44%), while Mitt Romney won among men by just seven points (52%-45%). And last November, Democrat Terry McAuliffe won the female vote by nine points (51%-42%) in his victorious gubernatorial campaign. By contrast, Republicans had the narrow edge among women in the 2010 House vote (51%-49%), and Republican Bob McDonnell won female voters by eight points (54%-46%) in his blowout gubernatorial win in 2009. Heres another example: In 2010, Democrats narrowly won Colorados Senate race by winning the female vote by a whopping 17 points (56%-39%), but it lost Missouris Senate race by losing the female vote by five points (50%-45%). Bottom line: The secret to Democratic electoral success is directly through female voters. They know it, and they plan to try to expand that potential advantage via any issue they can (from the economy and health care to contraception). Today, the focus is on the pay gap. And its not just women voters who are going to be the difference between Democrats keeping or losing control of the Senate. Democrats chances here will run through female candidates -- whether its incumbents like Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Kay Hagan (D-NC) and Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), or challengers like Alison Grimes in Kentucky and Michelle Nunn in Georgia.
Todays White House programming and the GOPs counter-programming
At 11:45 am ET from the White House, Obama will mark Equal Pay Day by announcing his signing of an executive order banning federal contractors for retaliating against employees who discuss their pay, USA Today writes. (The logic is that such retaliation makes it more difficult for females to make as much male colleagues performing the same job.) He also will sign a presidential memo instructing Labor Secretary Tom Perez to require federal contractors to disclose payment data (like by sex and race) to the federal government. Republicans are countering Obamas event by pointing out a study from the conservative American Enterprise Institute that female White House staffers make, on average, 88 cents for every dollar a male White House staffer makes (though thats better than the national average of 77 cents to the dollar, but still an embarrassing talking point for the White House). Republicans also have issued a memo arguing that todays White House event is a stunt to distract from other issues. [Democrats] have no credible ideas to ensure women have the opportunity to secure high-paying jobs, and the Democrat Senate has refused to pass any of the 40 jobs bills the Republican House has sent them. ObamaCare is deeply unpopular, and they dont want to talk about how policy cancellations are hurting women, or about how women are losing access to the doctors of their choice, or about how its meant smaller paychecks for working women (and men). As for the issue itself, whats the bigger problem -- the pay gap or the opportunity gap when it comes to women having a fair shot at the same job?
Hayden vs. DiFi: Speaking about gender politics
In the coming weeks, one of the more explosive political issues will be the release of the Senate Intelligence Committees report on CIA interrogation techniques during the Bush administration. Was torture committed? If so, who was responsible? But also explosive was how former Bush CIA head Michael Hayden described Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Dianne Feinsteins (D-CA) work to release the report. That sense that the motivation for the report may show deep emotional feeling on the part of [Feinstein], but I dont think it leads you to an objective report, Hayden told Fox on Sunday. Democrats pounced on Haydens emotional comment. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid called it condescending, NBCs Kasie Hunt reported. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) added, per NBCs Kelly ODonnell: "Gen. Hayden's suggestion that Chairman Feinstein was motivated by 'emotion' rather than a focus on the facts is simply outrageous. And whats bizarre here is that Feinstein is hardly a dove on national security issues; no one initially was a bigger defender of the NSA surveillance program than Feinstein. But the Hayden-vs.-DiFi split reveals a food fight between the old guard of the CIA (you can add current CIA Director Brennan here) and those trying to reform the agency.
A reminder: The Russia-Ukraine story still isnt resolved
Turning to foreign affairs, its worth pointing out that the Russia-Ukraine story is far from resolved. The Washington Post: Police began removing the pro-Russian demonstrators occupying eastern Ukrainian government buildings early Tuesday after a tense night of confrontation that officials here accused Moscow of provoking to seek a pretext for invasion. Protesters were cleared from the regional administration in Kharkiv, Ukrainian Interior Minister Arsen Avakov said, although they remained entrenched Tuesday in similar government offices in Donetsk, where protesters erected a barricade of tires and barbed wire. The Russians are warning of a civil war in Ukraine, which begs the question: How can an OUTSIDE country threaten a civil war? The minute they become involved, is it really an internal war in Ukraine? The White House continues to accuse Russia of making the internal situation worse.
Rise of the Oligarchs
Last week, the NBC News Political Unit launched a new series -- Rise of the Oligarchs -- observing that wealthy Americans are playing a more powerful role in U.S. politics than at any other time in the last several decades. On Monday, we profiled four such oligarchs representing all parts of the political spectrum: Sheldon Adelson, Charles and David Koch, Michael Bloomberg, and Tom Steyer. From the article: If you care about politics, its a good time to be a billionaire. American elections have never exactly been an bargain-basement business, but theres no question that more money is flowing from wealthy donors pockets into campaign coffers and television ads than ever before. Since the seminal 2010 Citizens United ruling by the Supreme Court, political spending from outside groups many of them either created or bankrolled by American billionaires has skyrocketed from $193 million in 2004 and $338 million in 2008 to a whopping $1 billion in 2012. Our next installment of the series will note this important reminder when it comes to money in politics: Money doesnt always buy you victory.
Follow this link: