Yeah, I know. Fine: replace 'NRSC' with 'Moe Lane' and pretend that I asked the original question. Because I'd like to know the answer, too:
The NRSC pulled the official payroll records for Democrat Senator offices and calculated the average pay for men and women for the most recent 6 month period available. Here's what we found:
· Mark Udall pays women 91 cents for every dollar that a man makes.
· Mary Landrieu pays women 88 cents for every dollar that a man makes.
· Mark Begich pays women 82 cents for every dollar that a man makes.
· Mark Warner pays women 75 cents for every dollar that a man makes.
· Gary Peters pays women 67 cents for every dollar that a man makes.
On average, these five Democrats on the ballot in battleground states pay women in their office 80 cents for every dollar made by a male employee.
Two things about this, by the way: one, the NRSC is of the opinion that CO, MI, and VA are in play (I'm inclined to agree). Two: the 'pay gap' for the District of Columbia happens to be 95 cents on the dollar. Which means that Democrats aren't just failing to live up to the standards of their own propaganda, when it comes to 'equal pay': they can't even match the expectations and practices of the freaking Imperial Capital.
Didn't anybody in the Democratic party sit down and think about any of this beforehand? I mean, I'm glad that they didn't, but...
Moe Lane (crosspost)
PS: Yes, I am aware that there are a whole host of legitimate reasons for pay differences. The problem here is that either the Democratic party leadership was not aware of said reasons, or else they thought that nobody would call them on the Democrats' plan to say one thing and do another. If the Democrats didn't want to be judged by this standard, then they shouldn't have tried to impose it in the first place.