Thread: Say It Ain't So, Tingles! MSNBC's Matthews Says Dems Could Lose 10 Senate Seats In Th

Human Events

Democrats enter panic mode - and Hollywood steps up it's political game.



Hollywood A-listers trying to keep Senate full of Dems | Human Events
The Hill reports today that moviestars including Leonardo DiCaprio, Gwyneth...
humanevents.com

Hollywood A-listers trying to keep Senate full of Dems

By: Human Events
8/13/2014 10:08 AM

Hollywood Liberals Forking Over Big Bucks For Wendy Davis

Video at the page link:



The Hill reports today that moviestars including Leonardo DiCaprio, Gwyneth Paltrow, Julia Louis-Dreyfus, and Barbra Streisand are pumping thousands of dollars into Democratic campaigns in an attempt to salvage the midterm elections for a swing left:

Streisand, a longtime Democratic donor, opened her checkbook in several competitive Senate races, according to Federal Election Commission data collected and analyzed by The Hill.

In addition to a $10,000 donation to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and $2,600 to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Streisand gave $1,000 to the campaigns of Democratic Sens. Mark Udall (Colo.), Jeanne Shaheen (N.H.), Jeff Merkley, (Ore.) and Mark Begich (Alaska), all top GOP targets.

One of the biggest recipients of the entertainment industry’s dollars is Kentucky Democrat Alison Lundergan Grimes, who is in a tight battle against Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R).

Her donor list reads like a who’s who of Tinseltown: producer J.J. Abrams, Ben Affleck, comedian Jack Black, “Avatar” director James Cameron, Nicolas Cage, Danny DeVito, Cameron Diaz, DiCaprio, Jennifer Garner, director Steven Spielberg, Tom Hanks, Jerry Seinfeld, Mike Myers and “Mad Men’s” Jon Hamm, all giving $5,200 each, the maximum amount an individual can give to a single candidate in a two-year election cycle.

For more on candidates receiving Hollywood cash, read here.

http://humanevents.com/2014/08/13/ho...paign=heupdate

AP

Hollywood In Panic Over Midterms, Start Pumping In $$$ To Worried Dems

By Judy Kurtz, The Hill
Video at the page link:

Hollywood is pouring money into the midterm elections, with A-listers such as Leonardo DiCaprio, Gwyneth Paltrow, Julia Louis-Dreyfus and Barbra Streisand all coughing up blockbuster bucks.

The donations are largely aimed at keeping the Senate in Democratic hands. Republicans, who have the political winds at their backs, need to pick up six seats to win control of the upper chamber.

Streisand, a longtime Democratic donor, opened her checkbook in several competitive Senate races, according to Federal Election Commission data collected and analyzed by The Hill.

http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/08/13...g-worried-dems

Hollywood pumps cash to save Senate majority for Democrats

By Judy Kurtz - 08/13/14 06:00 AM EDT

Video at the page link:

Hollywood is pouring money into the midterm elections, with A-listers such as Leonardo DiCaprio, Gwyneth Paltrow, Julia Louis-Dreyfus and Barbra Streisand all coughing up blockbuster bucks.
The donations are largely aimed at keeping the Senate in Democratic hands. Republicans, who have the political winds at their backs, need to pick up six seats to win control of the upper chamber.
Streisand, a longtime Democratic donor, opened her checkbook in several competitive Senate races, according to Federal Election Commission data collected and analyzed by The Hill. In addition to a $10,000 donation to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and $2,600 to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Streisand gave $1,000 to the campaigns of Democratic Sens. Mark Udall (Colo.), Jeanne Shaheen (N.H.), Jeff Merkley, (Ore.) and Mark Begich (Alaska), all top GOP targets.
One of the biggest recipients of the entertainment industry’s dollars is Kentucky Democrat Alison Lundergan Grimes, whose is in a tight battle against Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R).
Her donor list reads like a who’s who of Tinseltown: producer J.J. Abrams, Ben Affleck, comedian Jack Black, “Avatar” director James Cameron, Nicolas Cage, Danny DeVito, Cameron Diaz, DiCaprio, Jennifer Garner, director Steven Spielberg, Tom Hanks, Jerry Seinfeld, Mike Myers, and “Mad Men’s” Jon Hamm all giving $5,200 each, the maximum amount an individual can give to a single candidate in a two-year election cycle.
Other Grimes donors include DreamWorks CEO Jeffrey Katzenberg, Woody Allen, Ted Danson, America Ferrera, Leonard Nimoy, Streisand, “West Wing” writer Aaron Sorkin, Ben Stiller and Chris Rock.
While the Bluegrass State race has attracted lots of attention, less-headline-making political matchups also caught the eye of some famous names. Louis-Dreyfus, who plays a fictional vice president on HBO’s “Veep,” waded into the real-life political world with a $2,600 donation to Rep. Lois Capps’s (D-Calif.) campaign coffers.



Gwyneth Paltrow gave $1,500 to Rep. Tim Bishop (D-N.Y.), a perennial GOP target.
Several “Saturday Night Live” alumni donated to former fellow “SNL” cast member Sen. Al Franken’s (D-Minn.) reelection campaign. Steve Martin donated $5,200 to the comedian-turned-lawmaker and Emmy Award winner Jane Curtin gave $4,600. Franken, who faces a potentially tough showdown against Republican businessman Mike McFadden in November, also got a fundraising boost from “West Wing” actor Bradley Whitford, singer Jason Mraz and Carl Reiner.
Meanwhile, Diane Lane, “The Office’s” Rainn Wilson, comedienne Lily Tomlin, and Eva Longoria were just a few of the celebs to dish out money to author Marianne Williamson’s failed California House bid. Despite the household names backing the independent’s run to replace the retiring Rep. Henry Waxman (D), Williamson came in fourth in the June primary.
“In general, midterm elections do not bring a lot of celebrity donations,” Steven J. Ross, a history professor at the University of Southern California said. The author of the Pulitzer Prize-nominated, “Hollywood Left and Right: How Movie Stars Shaped American Politics,” says midterm elections are considered “less glamorous” to stars. “I think if they give, they want to give in a celebrity context, which means the presidential election.”
Democrats, including President Obama, have expressed concern about turnout in 2014.
Earlier this year, Obama told donors, “We know how to win national elections. But all too often it's during these midterms where we end up getting ourselves into trouble because, I guess we don't think it's sexy enough.”
Many stars were more than happy to give to Sen. Cory Booker. The New Jersey Democrat, who ran for the Senate seat that was vacated upon the death of former Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D), won an October special election. Booker’s campaign counted Matt Damon and Affleck (who together hosted a fundraiser for him), Garner, fashion designer Tommy Hilfiger, “The Hunger Games” screenwriter Billy Ray, Streisand and Ron Howard among its donors.


Republican candidates were far less likely to feel the love from Hollywood. Tony Strickland, a Republican running for an open House seat in California to succeed the retiring Rep. Buck McKeon (R), received a $500 donation in May from “Charles in Charge’s” Scott Baio.
Former Denver Broncos quarterback John Elway threw $1,000 at Rep. Mike Coffman’s (R-Colo.) campaign, while the Broncos’ current quarterback and former University of Tennessee star Peyton Manning gave $5,200 to Sen. Lamar Alexander’s (R-Tenn.) reelection bid, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
Business mogul and “Celebrity Apprentice” host Donald Trump also fired up another Republican lawmaker’s Senate reelection bid with a $2,500 donation to Sen. John Cornyn’s (Texas) campaign.
All this partisan giving could come at a price for celebrities who crave mass appeal at the box office. But veteran Hollywood publicist and author Michael Levine says unless one of his clients is donating to someone “tremendously controversial,” he wouldn’t necessarily advise against it.
“I think it’s completely dependent on their long term agenda,” Levine says of celebrities. “If their long-term agenda is to be a political, cultural force in America, then making donations is fine. If having access to politicians and leaders is important to them, then I think it’s fine.”
“The politics aspect is more personal — that’s something that an artist or celebrity themselves just believe in,” platinum-selling hip hop star Akon recently told The Hill when asked if celebrities are concerned about alienating their fan base when making political donations.
The “I Wanna Love You” singer said, “Most celebrities they always go after what they believe in, whether it’s political, non-political, whatever the case may be. It’s just a sense of passion they just want to fill.”

Vivian Hughbanks, Tomas Navia, Quin LaCapra and Jessica Taylor contributed.

Tags: Mark Udall, Alison Lundergan Grimes, Barbara Streisand, J.J. Abrams, Leonardo DiCaprio, Politics, Entertainment, Hollywood


Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook


http://thehill.com/news/campaign/214...enate-for-dems

Drudge Report

HILLARY'S HORRIBLE SUMMER



WASHINGTON: Clinton’s lead over GOP candidates shrinking | National Politics | News Democrat
Potential Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s lead over a crowded...
bnd.com

Hillary Clinton’s lead over GOP candidates shrinks

By William Douglas
McClatchy Washington Bureau
August 13, 2014
2014-08-14T22:11:34Z
By William Douglas McClatchy_Newspapers


New Jersey Republican Gov. Chris Christie speaks at the 2014 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) at the Gaylord Resort in Oxon Hill, MD. (Pete Marovich/MCT) PETE MAROVICH — Pete Marovich/MCT

WASHINGTON — Potential Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s lead over a crowded prospective Republican field has narrowed and her support has slipped below 50 percent, according to a new McClatchy-Marist poll.
Clinton remains ahead of potential Republican rivals including Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, former Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida and Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky. But recent gaffes by the former secretary of state have helped close the gap.
For example, Clinton leads Christie 47 percent to 41 percent with 12 percent of voters undecided. In April, she led 53-42 with 5 percent undecided, and in February she enjoyed a 58-37 lead against the governor with 6 percent undecided.
She’s seen her cushion against Bush, brother of former President George W. Bush, erode to 48 percent to 41 percent with 10 percent undecided. That’s down from 55-39 with 6 percent undecided in April.
And against Paul, her lead has shrunk to 48 percent to 42 percent with 10 percent undecided from 54-40 and 6 percent undecided in April.
Lee Miringoff, the director of the Marist Institute for Public Opinion in New York, which conducted the survey, attributed the slippage to Clinton’s increased visibility in promoting her new book, “Hard Choices,” and some recent gaffes.
Clinton caused a stir in June when she said that she and former President Bill Clinton left the White House in 2001 “dead broke” and in debt, a statement many potential voters found hard to accept given that both Clintons received millions of dollars in book deal advances and commanded six figures on the speech circuit.
She later said she regretted the comment, calling it “inartful” in an interview.
“Misstatements, starting with we left the White House broke, aren’t headline grabbers, but they’re noticeable,” Miringoff, said. “With Hillary Clinton, there’s no preseason. She needs a Super Bowl-like performance from start to finish.”
Meanwhile, the potential Republican White House aspirants are struggling to get separation from each other in the early maneuvering for their party’s nomination.
Bush and Christie are tied at 13 percent among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents in the Marist survey; Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas came in at 10 percent; Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida and Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, both at 9 percent; Paul and Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, 7 percent each; Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin, 4 percent; former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, 3 percent; and Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, 2 percent.
“It’s a jump ball,” Miringoff said.
The field is so tight that “Undecided” leads among self-identified strong Republicans at 24 percent, with Bush in second at 19 percent. Every other Republican registers single digits.

Still, the poll’s numbers show the possibilities and possible pitfalls for some of the Republican candidates. Christie shows as a contender, despite the controversy over whether his aides orchestrated major traffic jams on the New Jersey-New York George Washington Bridge last year as political payback against the Democratic mayor of Fort Lee, N.J., not endorsing Christie’s re-election bid.
“He’s still visible and he’s creating distance between himself and the bridge closing,” Miringoff said. “He does best among independent-leaning Republicans and not as well among the tea party.”
At 15 percent, Cruz tops Republicans among tea party supporters, a subgroup in the survey, followed by Bush at 13 percent, Ryan and Rubio at 10 percent, and Christie and Paul at 7 percent. However, Christie has the edge among non-tea party supporters at 17 percent.
Cruz’s and Paul’s tea party numbers represent a dramatic reversal of fortunes from April, when Cruz’s support from that voting bloc was 6 percent and Paul’s stood at 20 percent.
Paul’s support has taken a hit as he’s sought to broaden his voter appeal. He’s spoken at historically black colleges and universities; introduced a bill to restore federal voting rights to nonviolent felons, a disproportionally minority population; advocated reclassifying some federal drug felonies as misdemeanors; and has tried to reshape the image of him as a foreign policy isolationist.
“He’s been getting a lot of attention for trying to moderate his views – and that may come at some cost,” Miringoff said. “As a national candidate, you do that at some risk.”

Email: wdouglas@mcclatchydc.com; Twitter: @williamgdouglas.

http://www.bnd.com/2014/08/13/334921...andidates.html

Human Events

Nancy Pelosi tells Democrats to "kiss all hope goodbye"....



Gloomy, frantic Dems plead for more money | Human Events
It's going to be a very long fall.
humanevents.com

Gloomy, frantic Dems plead for more money


By: Byron York
8/19/2014 11:36 AM

I’ve been getting a lot of email from Democratic fundraisers lately. They seem very worried about November’s elections.
First came the highly publicized “Impeachment Red Alert” campaign, in which the Democratic congressional committee warned that Republicans will impeach President Obama if they win control of the House and Senate. Though much ridiculed, the “Impeachment Red Alert” effort was a big winner, pulling in $2.1 million in small donations in a single weekend.
Despite that success, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s mood seemed to blacken in subsequent days as she asked for more and more money. The subject line of Pelosi’s next appeal was “Kiss all hope goodbye.” Her message was that all will be lost for the remainder of Obama’s term if Republican House Speaker John Boehner remains in power.
Then came a missive with the subject line “Byron, I’m pleading,” in which Pelosi pronounced herself “disgusted” by the prospect of Republicans “dragging the president’s good name through the mud.”
Later came “I’m pleading (again)” and “Bad news to share” and “Please, Byron.” More than a little desperation had crept into Pelosi’s tone. Each message noted that I hadn’t sent any money, and the minority leader’s disappointment seemed to deepen by the day.
Vice President Joe Biden got in the game with a few emails, although he didn’t grovel like Pelosi. Finally, Obama himself began emailing. With everything the president of the United States has on his plate right now, you’d think he’d have more pressing things to do. Apparently not.
The president’s role is to apply a little discipline to uncooperative prospective donors like me. “Nancy Pelosi has emailed you,” Obama wrote. “Joe Biden has emailed you. And now I’ve emailed you. We wouldn’t all be asking if it wasn’t so important.” The message was clear: Get off your butt and give us some money.
Twenty years ago, just before the Republicans’ stunning victory in the 1994 Clinton midterms, I also received a string of increasingly desperate-sounding mail — the paper kind — from the Democratic Party. Curious to see how the party was treating small donors, I contributed $10. After that, I got a series of progressively worried entreaties; by October 1994, Democratic fundraisers sounded as if they knew disaster was on the way. Turned out it was.
That was my last political contribution until this week, when, hoping to get a better look at Democrats’ small-donor technique, I finally clicked the $5 contribution box on President Obama’s email.
You’d think that would have made them happy. But no — they immediately wanted more.
First they tried to get me to increase my contribution. I declined. Then they asked that I make my contribution an automatic monthly donation. I declined. And then, when it looked like $5 was all they would get, they asked for a “tip” for the pro-Democratic fundraising group ActBlue.
“We’re building an army of small dollar donors to defeat the Koch brothers and their fat checkbooks,” they said. “Your tip of 10 percent or more will help us build the next generation of our tools so the Kochs don’t have the final say.”
I still said no, but at the end of all the hectoring, I hit “contribute” to send the $5.
One might think, given the begging involved, that just a little expression of thanks would have been in order. Instead, I received a message saying my contribution had been “flagged … as requiring additional oversight.” An ActBlue staffer would review it to “ensure that it is accurate and meets our high safety standards.” That seemed odd, given reports of low safety standards and alleged fraud in the Obama campaign’s handling of small donors in 2008 and 2012.
A few minutes later, I learned my contribution had been accepted. Then came a “priorities survey,” in which Democrats wanted to know whether I thought the most compelling reason to remove Republicans from power was 1) They shut down the government; 2) They gave tax breaks to the Koch brothers; or 3) They voted to defund Planned Parenthood. I didn’t answer.
At the very least, I thought my $5 would buy a tiny respite from the crush of email. It did not. About an hour later came a note from Pelosi with the subject line “Must Read (DON’T DELETE).”
“President Obama wouldn’t have emailed you earlier if we didn’t need your help,” Pelosi wrote, apparently trying to suggest that Daddy would be angry with me if I didn’t give more.
Can this continue until November? Yes, it can. But if Democrats already sound this frantic in August, it’s going to be a very long fall.

Byron York is chief political correspondent for The Washington Examiner.

http://humanevents.com/2014/08/19/gl...paign=heupdate

Harry Reid: ‘We Are Going to Lose’ in South Dakota



Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) / AP
BY: Washington Free Beacon Staff
August 19, 2014 10:31 am

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) has thrown in the towel in South Dakota, telling reporters on Monday that Democratic candidate Rick Weiland is “going to lose.”
“We are going to lose in South Dakota, more than likely,” Reid said.
Weiland trails Republican Mike Rounds in the state by nearly 15 points, according to a RealClearPolitics average of polls in the state.

(h/t America Rising)

This entry was posted in Politics and tagged 2014 Electiono. Bookmark the permalink.

http://freebeacon.com/politics/harry...-south-dakota/

Republicans gaining momentum in race for control of Senate



By Carl Cameron, Jason Donner
Published August 26, 2014FoxNews.com

Video at the page link:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014...ontrol-senate/

Conservative Lady

Mid-Term Battleground States a ‘No-Fly Zone’ for Obama




Mid-Term Battleground States a ‘No-Fly Zone’ for Obama
Politico brands it
gopthedailydose.com

Mid-Term Battleground States a ‘No-Fly Zone’ for Obama

Posted on 30 August, 2014 by clyde



Politico brands it “Obama’s campaign no-fly zone.”
What it is, is proof of how disastrously low Barack Obama’s ratings are in a number of states crucial for Democrats if they want to hold off the GOP from taking control of the Senate in 2014.
In an election that Republicans want to make all about President Barack Obama, the White House is determined to make him all but disappear in the battleground states that matter.
In 2008, Obama is credited for having helped to elect several Democrats to the Senate. Now, just six years later, as Politico also points out, he’s been reduced to little more than “an attack line.” Between the immigration crisis, a number of foreign policy debacles and a still stagnate economy, Politico dubs him “the last person that many candidates want to be forced to defend on the campaign trail”.
The White House is putting the finishing touches on a post-Labor Day schedule that will send the president to states where he’s still popular, such as: Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Illinois and California, Obama officials and Democratic operatives said this week.
But in the red states that will determine control of the Senate, Obama will remain scarce. That means no personal campaign visits to states like Arkansas, Alaska, Louisiana and North Carolina. He may do some targeted outreach through robocalls, digital ads and conference calls, but the campaign plan is clear: Stay away from candidates he’s already hurting.
He may still be a big draw on the fundraising circuit, but it’s also clear he’s going to have plenty of time for golf as we get closer to November, as “for Democratic incumbents in top-tier Senate races, the Obama association is like a dead weight. His recent trips to states with competitive contests have been fraught with clumsy choreography between the candidates and the White House”.
As surprising as that may seem, what’s perhaps even more surprising is how Politico appears to put an exclamation mark on a politically floundering Obama in this scathing piece.
When Obama arrived in North Carolina on Tuesday to speak at the American Legion’s annual meeting, Democratic Sen. Kay Hagan — along with Republican Sen. Richard Burr — greeted him on the tarmac and gave him a kiss on the cheek.
But by the time Air Force One touched down in Charlotte, she had already pulled up the welcome mat, attacking his management of the Department of Veterans Affairs as a means of differentiate herself from the president. In prepared remarks for her own speech to the convention released ahead of the president’s visit — though she didn’t speak until after him — she added that the administration “has a long road ahead to restore the faith and trust of our veterans.”

Breitbart

http://gopthedailydose.com/2014/08/3...ly-zone-obama/

Goodbye, Bro: Democrats Are Hemorrhaging Male Voters


Matt Vespa | Aug 29, 2014



We all know Republicans have a woman problem, but let’s focus on the Democrats’ problem with men, specifically white men. Earlier this month, U.S. News and World Report reported that while women outnumber men and vote more than they do, “in a campaign cycle set to see a handful of margin-of-error races that determine U.S. Senate control, it’s an often overlooked and undervalued element of the election.” The story also says that this male voter deficit with Democrats is “more pronounced” than the Republicans problems with single women voters.
The article noted that in races dependent on turnout, men could be the deciding factor. In North Carolina, Democratic Sen. Kay Hagan, who’s fighting for her political life, has a healthy 8-point lead amongst women, but her Republican opponent, Thom Tillis, is dominating with male voters by a 13-point margin.
But some Democrats are indifferent. Joel Benenson, Obama’s pollster, seems to think that liberal efforts to stop the bleeding amongst male voters is unnecessary since you don’t need them to win. “They won men in the presidential election and they lost,” he says. “They win white voters in the presidential election and they lost. There’s no absolute rule that you have to win this group or that group.”
That pretty much captures how male voters felt in the 1980s, as they felt the Democratic Party abandoned them. Thus, the Reagan Democrats were born. Yet, the bleeding began during the Johnson administration (via NYT) [emphasis mine]:

No Democratic presidential candidate has won a majority of white men since Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964. Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama all prevailed with support of the so-called rising electorate of women, especially single women, and minorities. But fewer of those voters typically participate in midterm elections, making the votes of white men more potent and the struggle of Democrats for 2014 clear.
“Realistically, winning votes from working-class white men has just been a very tough political challenge for Democrats,” said Geoff Garin, a Democratic pollster. With demographic trends favoring Democrats nationally and in many states, strategists say it makes sense to concentrate resources on mobilizing women, young people, Hispanics, blacks and other minority voters.
Democrats generally win the votes of fewer than four in 10 white men. But they win eight of 10 minority voters and a majority of women, who have been a majority of the national electorate since 1984, while white men have shrunk to a third, and are still shrinking.

As the Times noted, Democrats have been able to get some traction with single, gay, nonreligious, and college educated men, whereas the white working class bloc is the hardest to reach, which could spell doom for Democrats this year.
If you look at how the working-class votes over the past decade, you’ll see a trend that’s determined elections consistently in that time period. In a previous post, I mentioned a piece by the Atlantic’s Molly Ball showing how the differences in the the share of the vote Democrats win with Americans making under $50,000 a year has determined where the nation has tilted that year. Given today's political climate, even the AFL-CIO political director is saying that 2014 could be a powerful year for the GOP:

Republicans consistently win voters making $50,000 or more, approximately the U.S. median income. The margin doesn't vary too much: In 2012, Mitt Romney got 53 percent of this group's vote; in 2010, Republican House candidates got 55 percent. And Democrats consistently win voters making less than the median—but the margin varies widely. In fact, whether Democrats win these voters by a 10-point or a 20-point margin tells you who won every national election for the past decade.In 2004, Democrats won the working-class vote by 11 points; George W. Bush was reelected. In 2006, Democrats won the working-class vote by 22 points and took the House and Senate. In 2008, Democrats won by 22 points again, and President Obama was elected. In 2010, the margin narrowed to 11 points, and Republicans took the House back. In 2012, Obama was reelected—on the strength of another 22-point margin among voters making under $50,000.
…
In a new Pew survey released Thursday, 45 percent of Republican voters said they were unusually excited to vote this year, compared to 37 percent of Democratic supporters. Gridlock in Washington prevents Congress from doing anything to help those struggling economically, while giving Republicans more to blame Obama and Democrats for. Similarly, chaos around the world obscures Democrats' economic message while dragging down the president's image.
The Pew report didn't include a breakdown based on the $50,000 threshold, so I asked Pew to crunch the numbers for me. The result: 51 percent of voters making less than $50,000 plan to vote for Democrats, while 40 percent plan to vote Republican. (The rest are undecided, and the GOP wins the more-than-$50,000 vote 49-44.) That's exactly the same 11-point margin that has meant Democratic doom in every election since 2004.

There are some silver linings. As Democratic pollster John Anzalone said, “In some ways, men dig in. You see it in the numbers where generically they’re just much more Republican and they dig in.” Women are more open to ideas and exchanges between members from both parties; that means we can be competitive with them if we message our brand correctly. We don’t have to win women, although they should be our mindset, but settling for being competitive is fine with me, as it’ll yield electoral dividends.
Case in point, John Kerry beat George W. Bush amongst women in 2004, but only by 3-points (51/48). Kerry and Bush virtually split down the middle with women who have children (49/50), but 43 dominated, as usual, with married women (55/44) over Kerry. The exit poll lists Kerry and Bush almost virtually tied with “other” women (50/49), I don’t know what other means, but the overall split is something Republicans need to replicate in 2016.
Bush also won a solid 44 percent of the Hispanic vote, but that’s a post for another time.
Democrats have a huge advantage with women voters, who potentially aren’t as reliably Democratic if someone doesn’t come up with something better. Women can become a shiftable voting bloc–we saw this with Bush in 2004–but Republicans need to market themselves without tripping over their shoelaces, which they often do.
With men, they’re not budging towards the Democrats and Republicans have a lock on their votes. Democrats don't seem to have a strategy for stopping the bleeding other than minimum wage hike proposals which polls well with everyone. Even left-leaning think tanks, like John Podesta's Center for American Progress, thinks that the white male deficit shouldn't be ignored even if their share of the vote is declining:

“You can’t just give Republicans a clear field to play for the votes of white working-class men without putting up some sort of a fight because that just allows them to run the table with these voters, thereby potentially offsetting your burgeoning advantage among minorities, single women, millennials,” said Ruy Teixeira, an analyst at the left-leaning Center for American Progress.“I just think Democrats are having a hard time figuring out how to effectively pursue it,” he added.

Demography isn’t destiny. Both sides have talked about permanent majorities in government and got rude awakenings in 2006 and 2010 respectively. Demography isn’t destiny. So, fear not my conservative friends, there are many ways to maneuver through an electorate to win elections.


http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattves...tm_campaign=nl

At Risk In Senate, Democrats Seek To Rally Blacks

Posted on 1 September, 2014 by clyde



With their Senate majority imperiled, Democrats are trying to mobilize African-Americans outraged by the shooting in Ferguson, Mo., to help them retain control of at least one chamber of Congress for President Obama’s final two years in office.
In black churches and on black talk radio, African-American civic leaders have begun invoking the death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, along with conservative calls to impeach Mr. Obama, as they urge black voters to channel their anger by voting Democratic in the midterm elections, in which minority turnout is typically lower.
“Ferguson has made it crystal clear to the African-American community and others that we’ve got to go to the polls,” said Representative John Lewis, Democrat of Georgia and a civil-rights leader. “You participate and vote, and you can have some control over what happens to your child and your country.”
The push is an attempt to counter Republicans’ many advantages in this year’s races, including polls that show Republican voters are much more engaged in the elections at this point — an important predictor of turnout.
Mr. Lewis is headlining efforts to mobilize black voters in several states with competitive Senate races, including Arkansas, Louisiana and North Carolina. The drive is being organized by the Congressional Black Caucus, in coordination with the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Other steps, such as recruiting N.B.A. players to help register more African-Americans, are also underway.

weaselzippers

http://gopthedailydose.com/2014/09/0...-rally-blacks/