* Yet another survey shows a significant reduction in the uninsured thanks to the Affordable Care Act. To understand what’s happening here, read Jonathan Cohn on why there are going to be a lot of confusing numbers about health care being released in the coming days.

* Jeffrey Young also has a piece explaining the big drop and what it means, and he sums up the findings in one tweet:

On Obamacare and the uninsured, we keep asking the same question and getting the same answer.

* Remember GOP Rep. Joe Wilson’s “you lie” outburst? As Sahil Kapur points out, the substantive assertion underneath the shouting, such as it was, has now been debunked by reality. — gs

* If Democrat Chad Taylor is taken off the ballot in the Kansas Senate race, there’s a strong chance GOP Senator Pat Roberts will lose to independent candidate Greg Orman — a potential boost for Dem chances of keeping the Senate. And so, as Dylan Scott reports, it’s significant that in a hearing before the Kansas Supreme Court, the lawyer for the GOP secretary of state who wants to keep Taylor on the ballot got raked over the coals pretty good today.

* The latest PPP poll of North Carolina shows Kay Hagan hanging on to a four-point lead over Thom Tillis, which is close to her three-point lead in the HuffPo average.

* Here’s an ad from the DSCC hitting Iowa Republican Joni Ernst for advocating eliminating the Department of Education, another suggestion education is playing a surprising role in this year’s Senate races (the other key example is North Carolina).

* And Igor Bopic reports that Dems are seizing on the fact that trade associations opposed to a minimum wage hike feted Ernst, who has emerged as one of the most diehard opponents of a raise of the cycle. — gs

* A Dem Super PAC is up with a new ad slamming Scott Brown as something like the second coming of Mitt Romney, but not in a good way. Dems apparently don’t want to take any chances after that CNN poll showing the New Hampshire race a dead heat.

* Matea Gold has a nice look at the Democratic group, run by former Harry Reid staffers, behind those ads, with a dive into what it says about big money influence over our politics.

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has pledged to pour $60 million into a voter identification and turnout operation dubbed the “Bannock Street Project,” named after the field headquarters in Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet’s successful 2010 campaign, from which the sophisticated effort draws its inspiration. That money will pay for 4,000 staffers in battleground states. It’s unprecedented, more than twice what the DSCC spent in 2012.

Both parties say before every election that their turnout effort is going to be awesome. But this time Dems seem to be taking their “midterm dropoff problem” very seriously indeed.

* The Daily Beast has a nice introduction to the methods of Princeton’s Sam Wang, whose election predictions were extraordinarily accurate in 2012, and whose current prediction that Dems will hold the Senate is at odds with other number-crunchers.

* Jonathan Bernstein with a nice overview of all of the different possible outcomes on election night, and an explanation for why maximum, protracted uncertainty is very likely. — gs

* Media Matters for America, which does things like count segments on Fox News, has a new report on Fox coverage of a certain city in Libya:

During the period of the study, Fox News’ evening lineup aired a total of 1,098 segments featuring significant discussion of Benghazi, an average of about 13 segments per week. Special Report with Bret Baier, the network’s flagship news program, led the charge with 382 individual segments. Hannity and On the Record with Greta Van Susteren followed in distant second and third, with 220 and 214 segments, respectively. The O’Reilly Factor aired 181 segments, and The Five aired 101.

Just 13 segments per week? They’re really dropping the ball on this one.

* Joy-Ann Reid has a good piece arguing that the “reformicons” are largely silent on race, and that this is why much of their agenda for a new, middle-class-friendly conservatism could fail:

Bringing the “Reagan Democrats” into the conservative political coalition was not accomplished without social casualties. Reagan appealed to white working-class Americans in part by serving up a set of scapegoats for their economic ills (black “welfare queens” and the lazy, itinerant poor) and for their sense of social alienation (gays, feminists, and the Hollywood left).
That sociopolitical alienation — fueled by serial economic crises, the upheavals of the civil rights era, and, in its aftermath, the perceived zero-sum battles over busing, housing, and jobs — is rarely addressed by the reformicons. But it is so encoded in the DNA of the modern Republican Party that reformists can scarcely hope to get a hearing on any policy prescription that’s seen as expanding government’s ability to give “handouts” to minorities and “illegal immigrants.” Reformists will find it hard to compete, through their publications and think tanks, with the much louder voices of the conservative media complex, which feeds on that alienation day in and day out.

This is just one of many factors that will make it extraordinarily difficult for the reformicons to win converts within the GOP.

* And some Republicans — even some who seem otherwise sane enough to function in society — actually believe that ISIS is going to send terrorists to Mexico so they can sneak into America by wading through the Rio Grande. But why haven’t we addressed the danger posed by terror blimps? You could float those things right over on the tradewinds.