I think the comment refers to the bill being revenue neutral at the federal level.
IOW, 80% are going to see tax cuts, but offsetting features in the legislation mean there’s no actual reduction in revenue flowing to Washington D.C.
Had you wanted to see actual Democrat opposition in full-throated cry, the bill would have actually cut federal revenues, as well. You know — had the bill not lived up to that vaunted establishment notion of “having to pay for” tax cuts.
When have tax cuts not increased revenue to the treasury?