May 1

* Sabrina Siddiqui and Sam Stein do a survey of Republican House members’ web sites, and find a lot of them mouthing support for Obamacare’s general goals. As it happens, this is also true of a number of GOP Senate candidates. You’d almost think that the particular things the law does are really popular.

* The administration has released state-by-state numbers on insurance exchange sign-ups, and as Sam Baker and Sophie Novak explain, there’s a huge variation between states. Vermont signed up 85 percent of its eligible residents, while South Dakota signed up only 11 percent.

* If you want to delve deep into the numbers (or actually, have someone else delve deeply and then explain concisely what the numbers mean), Jonathan Cohn is your man.

* On that House GOP finding that only 67 percent have paid for Obamacare, Dylan Scott reports:

“The survey was so incredibly rigged to produce this result, it was a joke,” a source, whose company received it and who provided it to TPM, said. “Everyone who saw it knew exactly what the goal was.”

The survey included language that explicitly left out the fact some people would still have time to pay their premium after April 15, which is when the House Energy and Commerce Committee asked companies to return their answers.

The GOP survey simply asked companies for the number of enrollees who paid their first premium and the number who have not — but it did not account for the fact that some people in the latter group could still pay until at least April 30.

#Oversight — gs

* Jonathan Bernstein has a good piece on the latest iteration of the Post Policy GOP, this time squandering an opportunity to do some actual oversight on Obamacare in order to keep feeding the base’s delusions about it. — gs

*Benjy Sarlin offers an appropriately nuanced piece on how Democrates in red states are actually talking about Obamacare. Warning: This is not the media cartoon version, which holds that Dems are uniformly running from the law in droves. — gs

* Glenn Thrush and Maggie Haberman with a very deep dive into Hillaryland’s longtime troubles with the media, and what that could mean for 2016. — gs

* Sen. Chuck Schumer amplifies a new-ish Democratic message, i.e., that the House GOP, if it punts on immigration reform, will brand itself as the Party of Steve King: “If Republicans continue to kowtow to Steve King on immigration, they’ll resign themselves to being the minority party for the next decade.”

If the tactic works, King will be baited into saying something appalling, which other Republicans will then have to distance themselves from. Alternatively, they could, you know, act on immigration reform.

* Fernando Espuelas says that, yes, Democrats are headed for a loss in November, but if they want to minimize it, mobilizing Latinos to the polls is the way to go.

* Republicans say we need voter ID because of voter fraud, though they’ve had a hard time demonstrating that it ever occurs. So Francis Wilkinson looks at a time when there actually was substantial Democratic voter fraud. In the 1840s.

* In the wake of Oklahoma’s “botched” execution, Jaime Fuller looks back at the history of America’s search for a human killing method.

* Ta-Nehisi Coates explains the distinction between the oafish racism of people like Cliven Bundy, and the far more elegant version that pervades so many areas of American life.

* “The costs of the Pentagon’s major weapons systems have ballooned nearly half a trillion dollars over their initial price tags, and the 80 programs have average schedule delays of more than two years, according to a report released Wednesday.” I trust that the Republicans who say we can’t afford food stamps for the hungry and unemployment insurance for the jobless are going to be all over this one. Right?

* And here’s the Venn Diagram of the Day, courtesy of Atrios. It will explain this whole Benghazi thing to you very quickly.