Subject: Correct The Record Wednesday November 5, 2014 Morning Roundup
From: Burns Strider <[email-masked]>
To: CTRFriendsFamily <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2014 08:31:26 -0500
List-Id: <CTRFriendsFamily.americanbridge.org>

*​**Correct The Record Wednesday November 5, 2014 Morning Roundup:*

*Headlines:*

*Yahoo: “How Hillary Clinton won the 2014 midterms”
<http://news.yahoo.com/how-hillary-clinton-won-the-2014-midterms-075943434.html>*

“Take a closer look at demography, geography and the road ahead for the
parties, and it’s clear that the long-term winner of the 2014 midterms
wasn’t the GOP at all. The long-term winner, in fact, wasn’t even on the
ballot this year. Her name is Hillary Clinton.”

*Politico: “After drubbing, all eyes on Hillary Clinton”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/hillary-clinton-112568.html>*

“For the Democratic Party, Tuesday night was brutal. For Hillary Clinton’s
future, however, there were many silver linings.”

*CBS News: “How Obama and Clinton candidates fared on Election Day”
<http://www.cbsnews.com/news/2014-midterm-elections-how-did-obama-and-clintons-candidates-fare-on-election-day/>*

“Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did 45 events for 26 candidates
in the two months before Election Day. Her win record was ever so slightly
better than Mr. Obama's: 11 of the candidates won, 13 lost, one (Louisiana
Sen. Mary Landrieu) is headed for a runoff, and another (Colorado Gov. John
Hickenlooper) was still locked in a toss-up race early Wednesday morning.”

*Associated Press: “GOP's big election night fuels shift toward 2016”
<http://bigstory.ap.org/article/9a07aeaa7fb949b391188de104abd981/gops-big-election-night-fuels-shift-toward-2016>*

“In a difficult year for Democrats, some of the former first lady's allies
prevailed, including Tom Wolf in Pennsylvania, who defeated Republican Gov.
Tom Corbett, and Sen. Jeanne Shaheen and Gov. Maggie Hassan in New
Hampshire, who received help from Clinton during the campaign's final
weekend. But Tuesday belonged to the GOP.”

*Washington Post: “As midterms pass, the 2016 presidential race is about to
hit high speed”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/as-midterms-pass-the-2016-presidential-race-is-about-to-hit-high-speed/2014/11/04/d6ea5b38-636b-11e4-836c-83bc4f26eb67_story.html>*

“Any conversation about what the race to replace Barack Obama will look
like has to begin with the woman he defeated in the 2008 Democratic
presidential primary: Hillary Rodham Clinton.”

*Politico Magazine: “Whose Economy Will It Be in 2016?”
<http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/11/2016-elections-economy-obama-112500.html?ml=m_u1_1#.VFlzF_nF98E>*

“Tuesday’s elections showed that, for the moment, the economy and public
discontent have fueled the GOP. No matter what President Barack Obama and
his party argue right now, voters on the whole don’t feel very good about
their economic condition. Yet slowly but surely trend lines are emerging
that could very easily turn this into the Democrats’ economy—and perhaps
Hillary Clinton’s—by 2016.”

*Associated Press: “Analysis: Wins give GOP wider Washington influence”
<http://bigstory.ap.org/article/bc30205292284363822709961fcbe9ec/analysis-wins-give-gop-wider-washington-influence>*

“An announcement from Hillary Rodham Clinton, the political juggernaut who
appears poised to run to replace Obama, is expected around the end of the
year.”

*ABC News: “Midterm Elections 2014: How Clinton-Backed Candidates Fared”
<http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/midterm-elections-2014-clinton-backed-candidates-fared/story?id=26694294>*

“Normally, it's the president and first lady who are making the campaign
rounds during the lead up to a Midterm Election. This year, it was a former
president and former first lady taking on the role of party elders. Bill
and Hillary Clinton were aggressive campaigners for Democratic candidates
across the country in the weeks leading up to Election Day.”

*Politico: “How the Clintons’ candidates did (not well)”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/2014-elections-clinton-candidates-112559.html>*

"They flew into red states to stump for vulnerable Democrats, aided
candidates from their home states and campaigned for family friends, former
aides and other longtime confidants."

*The Hill blog: Ballot Box: “Rand Paul mocks 'Hillary's losers'”
<http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/222999-paul-calls-dem-senators-hillarys-losers>*

“Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has branded defeated Democratic Senate candidates
in Tuesday's midterm elections as ‘Hillary's losers.’ On his Facebook page,
Paul posted pictures of Clinton together with Rep. Bruce Braley (Iowa),
Michelle Nunn, Alison Lundergan Grimes, and Sens. Kay Hagan (N.C.), Mark
Udall (Colo.) and Mark Pryor (Ark.).”

*Politico: “Rand Paul: Alison Lundergan Grimes' loss a ‘repudiation’ of
Hillary Clinton”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/rand-paul-alison-lundergan-grimes-hillary-clinton-election-results-112528.html>*

“Republican Sen. Rand Paul on Tuesday called Democratic losses in Kentucky
and Arkansas a “repudiation” of Hillary Clinton.”

*The Hill blog: Ballot Box: “Paul: Hillary Clinton 'soundly rejected'”
<http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/222889-rand-paul-hillary-clinton-soundly-rejected>*

“Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Tuesday portrayed the early Senate results as a
repudiation of Hillary Clinton, a possible 2016 presidential rival.”

*Articles:*

*Yahoo: “How Hillary Clinton won the 2014 midterms”
<http://news.yahoo.com/how-hillary-clinton-won-the-2014-midterms-075943434.html>*

By Andrew Romano

November 5, 2014

[Subtitle:] The GOP had a good night. But the map, the math and the reality
of Washington dysfunction favor the presumptive Democratic nominee in 2016

The day has finally come. The ballots have finally been cast. And the votes
— at least most of them — have finally been counted.

So who won the 2014 midterm elections?

The easy answer is the Republican Party.

On election night, the party managed to seize control of the Senate by
picking up at least seven seats previously held by Democrats, a goal that
has eluded Republicans since 2006.

The GOP also captured at least 13 House races, expanding its already
sizable majority to at least 241 seats — the most it's claimed since
Herbert Hoover was president.

While a dizzying 14 gubernatorial races were tossups heading into Nov. 4,
almost all of them broke toward the GOP — meaning that Republican governors
will still vastly outnumber Democratic governors on Inauguration Day.

And Americans are plainly disillusioned with President Barack Obama;
according to the exit polls, a full 54 percent of voters disapprove of his
performance as president, and 65 percent say the country is headed in the
wrong direction.

There was good reason, in other words, for conservative journalist Philip
Klein to crow on Twitter that “this is what a wave feels like” — because it
is.

But here’s the thing: In politics, the easy answer isn’t always the only
answer, and the winner of an election isn’t always the one who benefits
most. Take a closer look at demography, geography and the road ahead for
the parties, and it’s clear that the long-term winner of the 2014 midterms
wasn’t the GOP at all. The long-term winner, in fact, wasn’t even on the
ballot this year.

Her name is Hillary Clinton.

Of course the GOP is celebrating right now, as it should. Any election that
ends up putting Republicans into the governors’ mansions in Illinois and
Maryland is worth getting worked up about. But under the surface, almost
everything about last night’s midterm results — and the map, the math and
the legislative morass that lies ahead in the run-up to 2016 — suggests
that the former first lady and secretary of state will have a better next
two years than the party currently guzzling champagne.

Which is not to say that Clinton herself will necessarily be an unbeatable
candidate. She spent the past two months holding 45 campaign events in 18
hard-fought states, but almost all the big candidates she stumped for lost,
from Alison Lundergan Grimes in Kentucky to Bruce Braley in Iowa. Many will
say her campaign skills are still rusty — and she certainly won’t be
heading into 2016 with many chits to cash in. But that doesn’t change one
simple fact: Even a huge GOP victory shows how much catching up the
Republican have to do if they want to defeat Hillary in 2016.

Let’s start with the map. Sure, the GOP won a remarkable number of races
last night. But take another look. How many purple states did Republicans
actually pick up? There was Cory Gardner’s victory in Colorado — more on
that later. There was Joni Ernst’s victory in Iowa. And there was Thom
Tillis’s victory in North Carolina. The rest of the GOP’s Senate flips
(Montana, South Dakota, Arkansas, West Virginia) and gubernatorial flips
(Arkansas, Maryland, Illinois, Massachusetts) were in states that won’t
really be contested in 2016. The Democrats flipped the governorship of
Pennsylvania as well.

The GOP’s relative underperformance in swing states is a problem going
forward because the 2016 landscape is a lot less favorable for Republicans
than the 2014 landscape was. Sixteen of this year’s 20 contested Senate
seats were held by Democrats heading into the election — and six of those
Democrats were from states that Obama lost in 2012. This gave Republicans a
huge advantage. The map was already red.

But that map will be upended in 2016, when 23 of the 33 seats at stake will
be held by Republicans. Six of them will be in states that Obama won in
2008 and 2012 (Illinois, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida and
Wisconsin). Two will be in states Obama won in 2008 (Indiana, North
Carolina). Two are held by senators who may be retiring (John McCain in
Arizona, Chuck Grassley in Iowa). And two are held by senators who may be
running for president, which means they can’t run for re-election (Marco
Rubio in Florida, Rand Paul in Kentucky).

In other words, for every Senate seat that Republicans flipped in 2014,
there’s one — or more — that’s likely to flip back to the Democrats in
2016. The chances that the GOP will still control the upper chamber of
Congress after 2016 are slim.

How does this help Clinton? By giving her an added boost on an electoral
playing field that already favors a Democratic presidential nominee. In the
last six elections, 18 states (plus Washington, D.C.) have voted for the
Democratic candidate every single time.

This means that Clinton, assuming she’s the nominee, will start out with
242 electoral votes in 2016; she’ll need only 28 of the remaining 183
tossups to win the election. To defeat her, the Republican candidate will
basically have to run the table in the purple states — “not a game plan
with a high probability of success,” according to Republican pollsters Glen
Bolger and Neil Newhouse. Making matters worse is the fact that Republican
senators will already be playing defense in several of these states,
attracting additional Democratic attention and resources that will
ultimately bolster the candidate at the top of the ticket as well.

The math is just as bad for Republicans — and just as good for Clinton. In
2012, Mitt Romney won 59 percent of white voters, a higher share than
Ronald Reagan's in 1980 and George W. Bush's in 2004. But Romney still lost
to Obama. Why? Because America’s minority electorate is growing every year.
To hit 50.1 percent in 2016, the Republican nominee will have to win a
whopping 64 percent of the white vote on Election Day — or significantly
improve the party’s standing among nonwhite voters, especially Hispanics.
Otherwise, he or she will lose just like Romney.

For all the justifiable ecstasy among Republicans right now, there’s little
evidence that their next presidential nominee will be able to accomplish
this death-defying feat. In fact, much the opposite. According to the
national exit polls, Republicans won 60 percent of white voters this year —
only 1 percentage point better than Romney’s finish in 2012 and 4 points
shy of their 2016 target.

The GOP’s performance among Latinos yesterday (35 percent) wasn’t
significantly better than John McCain’s performance among Latinos in the
2008 presidential contest, either. It was also worse than the party’s
performance among Latinos in 2010. That year, Republicans won 38 percent of
the Latino vote. Then their Latino backing fell to an abysmal 27 percent in
2012. Republican support among Latinos tends to peak in midterms and
plummet in presidential elections. There’s no reason to think it won’t
follow the same pattern in 2016.

In short, it’s one thing to win an election in a nonpresidential year, when
minorities and young people stay home and older, whiter voters make up a
disproportionate share of the electorate. It’s another thing to win when a
Democratic presidential candidate is luring the party’s base back to the
polls — especially when that candidate is Hillary Clinton, the most popular
Democrat in America.

The question facing Republicans as they assume control of both houses of
Congress is whether they’re willing — or, more accurately, able — to do
anything to weaken Clinton’s advantage heading into 2016. Fifty-four
percent of Americans may disapprove of Obama’s performance, but 56 percent
have an unfavorable view of the Republican Party, and 61 percent are
dissatisfied or even angry with the GOP leaders in Congress.

More of the same — more gridlock, more obstructionism, more kneejerk
opposition — won't cut it; voters expect the newly empowered GOP to work
with Obama and govern. But while Kentucky Republican Mitch McConnell, the
incoming Senate majority leader, says he wants to compromise with
Democrats, it’s hard to imagine that he’ll be able to control his party’s
vehement Just Say No caucus for long. If he fails, Clinton may be able to
run as the solution to D.C. dysfunction — and the GOP’s 2016 nominee may
suffer, especially if he’s a senator such as Rand Paul or Ted Cruz.

That’s why, when the bright lights of election night fade and the
chattering class calms down, the GOP’s substantial new Senate majority and
surprising gubernatorial rout may no longer seem like the most important
things that happened on Nov. 4, 2014. As 2016 approaches, one election in
particular — the election of Sen. Cory Gardner — could begin to loom larger.

In Colorado, pot is legal. Young coastal types, especially Californians,
are flocking to the Denver metro area. The Latino population is surging. As
a result, Republicans haven’t won a top-line election there since 2004.

Until last night. Gardner isn’t a moderate; he’s a pro-life Republican who
ranked as the 10th most conservative House member in 2012. He has opposed
Republican immigration reform efforts, voted to shut down the government
unless Planned Parenthood was defunded and supported Cruz’s efforts to gut
Obamacare.

But over the course of the campaign, the polished, chipper Gardner
repackaged himself for a changing Colorado. He emphasized compromise and
displayed a remarkable, Bill Clintonesque talent for triangulation on
immigration, abortion and birth control. In the process, Gardner may have
provided the GOP with its biggest lesson of the night: A Republican can
still win in a purple state — if he’s the right kind of Republican.

It’s a lesson Gardner’s GOP colleagues would be wise to learn before 2016.
Otherwise, they may never catch Clinton.

*Politico: “After drubbing, all eyes on Hillary Clinton”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/hillary-clinton-112568.html>*

By Maggie Haberman

November 5, 2014, 4:00 a.m. EST

For the Democratic Party, Tuesday night was brutal. For Hillary Clinton’s
future, however, there were many silver linings.

As Democrats wake up this morning reeling from an electoral spanking, the
2016 presidential race will unofficially begin — with the main focus on the
woman who is all but certain to seek her party’s nomination a second time.

With that in mind, here are POLITICO’s takeaways on what the midterm
drubbing means for Clinton and the Democrats heading into the next White
House race.

*Clinton will face enormous pressure to declare – and fast*

Even before networks officially declared a Republican majority in the
Senate, Democrats were openly saying they hope Clinton will declare for
2016 soon after Election Day.

That sentiment is about to become overwhelming, as the party tries to
recover from an election night hangover that’s worse than most operatives
on either side had anticipated. The evening, almost entirely devoid of
bright spots for Democrats, was a shellacking for President Barack Obama.
It will only accelerate the party’s look ahead to its next leader,
especially among donors, who want someone to rally around.

Clinton has spent two years as the prohibitive Democratic frontrunner in
the polls despite keeping politics largely at arm’s length until the end of
the midterms. Some of her advisers have suggested opening an exploratory
committee this year to allow her to raise money sooner, while others are
adamant that she should wait until next year.

Some Democrats said Tuesday night that Clinton will want to wait a bit to
let the 2014 midterms pass, and to get some distance between herself and a
bloodbath for her party. She also genuinely doesn’t seem ready to flip a
switch on a campaign: A number of decisions still remain about staffing
and, more importantly, messaging.

But others believe Clinton can’t afford to be coy about her intentions
beyond the next few weeks, and forming an exploratory committee without an
official announcement will not satisfy some donors and activists.

*She can run against Washington more easily now*

Clinton’s major problem was always going to be running as the candidate of
the two-term party in power. Separating from Obama poses major risks for a
Democrat who had trouble with portions of the base in 2008 and who served
in the administration for four years.

The fact that Tuesday’s election that was seen largely as a statement
against Obama may give Clinton some wiggle room with her own base to create
distance from him. But a newly-minted Republican Senate helps her to solve
the problem of how to run against Washington.

Regardless of whether Senate moderates try to keep tea party officials and
potential presidential hopefuls like Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) in line,
Democrats are cheering on a fight on that side of the aisle. A GOP-held
Senate gives her a clear point of contrast to run against. Democrats are
banking on Republicans getting mired in intra-party gridlock amid a
still-unresolved civil war between conservatives and the establishment.

Even if that doesn’t happen, Clinton is certain to campaign as if it will.
Leading into Tuesday, some Clinton allies were predicting a miserable night
for Democrats – and saying it would ultimately benefit her.

The bigger problem for Clinton? The election results signal a restless
country that dislikes both parties but badly wants leadership. That gives
her an opportunity to run as an experienced, Margaret Thatcher-type fighter
who can govern in an ungovernable moment – but that also means suppressing
the caution that Democrats say has hobbled her in the past.

Exit polls showed voters are anxious about the economy, meaning Clinton
will need to formulate a broad economic message that appeals to the
Democratic base without turning off independents who’ve backed her before.

*A Clinton ally has a tougher hill to climb*

Anthony Brown’s loss in the Maryland governor’s race has serious
implications for the outgoing governor, Martin O’Malley, who has been
laying the groundwork for a presidential race of his own for months.

Brown, O’Malley’s lieutenant governor, was favored to win for months. His
victory was expected to be an affirmation of the O’Malley record, a
decidedly progressive checklist of passing the DREAM Act and legislation
allowing same-sex marriage.

But O’Malley’s numbers in his own state have faltered, and Brown’s loss was
widely seen as a serious setback for a governor who had planned to sell his
brand of leadership.

A source close to O’Malley said the outgoing governor had sounded “alarm”
bells about the Brown campaign strategy many weeks ago, amid a sense that
the candidate was trying to glide to a win despite running a
“poorly-exeucted campaign that deviated from O’Malley’s winning strategies
in the past two elections.” O’Malley never ran on social issues, the source
said, winning twice in a row and doubling his margin the second time, while
Brown focused heavily on them.

O’Malley urged Brown’s team to change strategy, the source said, but he
never did. Nonetheless, Brown has now gone from being a sought-after ally
to an albatross for O’Malley’s national ambitions.

*Florida comes with pain*

The Clintons campaigned in a number of states where Democrats went down,
earning chits for loyalty despite a tough climate. The fact that Arkansas
has turned back to red is a point of personal pain for Bill Clinton in
particular. And Republicans are already gleefully painting the night as a
clear problem for the Clintons, tethering them to Obama in painting them
all as responsible for the losses.

In reality, it was a wave election. But the loss by Charlie Crist in the
Florida governor’s race was the worst of the night in terms of Hillary
Clinton’s future.

The Clintons campaigned hard for Crist, beginning with Bill Clinton months
ago. Crist, a party flipper who trashed Bill Clinton during the impeachment
days in the late 1990s, became a Democrat to run for his old seat. But Bill
Clinton decided to back Crist, appearing in Florida for him down to the
wire this week. Hillary Clinton kept a bit more distance, raising money for
him at a private event.

But Rick Scott, the Republican incumbent, held onto the seat in a state
that will play a critical role in deciding the next president. It means, as
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie recently put it, that the GOP will control
the “voting mechanisms” in a state where that mattered in a recent
presidential election (looking at you, 2000 White House race).

To that end, Christie had a strong night – riding the wave as head of the
Republican Governors Association and going three-for-three in Florida,
Michigan and Wisconsin. Even though Christie’s own problems as a candidate
remain, he will be a loud critic of Clinton heading into next year – and is
certain to take a very long victory lap in the coming days.

*Joni Ernst is a Hawkeye State headache*

One of the draws of competing hard in Iowa in 2016, unlike when she ran in
2008, was that she would have a rallying cry heading into the caucuses —
Iowa had never elected a woman statewide.

Until last night.

In a cycle in which Democrats focused heavily on turning out women, Joni
Ernst, a former soldier who gained traction after cutting an ad in which
she boasted about castrating hogs, won a seat held by Democrat Tom Harkin
for nearly three decades.

That makes Ernst the first woman elected statewide in Iowa, eliminating a
milestone for Clinton. It also elevates her as a Republican surrogate
within the state, who can be helpful taking swings at Clinton.

The flip side of that? If Democrats want to stop Clinton, it will have to
be in Iowa. The results in New Hampshire, where Gov. Maggie Hassan easily
won re-election and where Sen. Jeanne Shaheen squeaked by, provide a
bulkhead where women hold statewide office. Clinton won there in 2008, and
her support remains strong.

*Minimum wage ballot initiatives will be back*

Among the only bright spots for Democrats were the success of minimum wage
ballot initiatives in two red states, Arkansas and Nebraska.

Hillary Clinton talked about raising the minimum wage in every stump speech
she gave over the past two months, and it’s become a touchstone of new
Democratic populism.

The success of the ballot initiatives in two red states, including one in
which Democrats took a major thumping, ensure that the Democratic Party
will seek such measures in as many states as possible in 2016.

The initiatives boost turnout – but for Clinton, they will also ground her
in an economic fairness argument that she will need to sharpen into a broad
message if she runs.

*Virginia is for Clinton lovers*

As of 1 a.m., the race between Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) and challenger Ed
Gillespie hadn’t been called. Warner was expected to ultimately be declared
the winner, but by a stunningly small margin.

Even if Warner wins, his political clout has been badly eroded after this
race, which Gillespie made closer than anyone anticipated.

Warner has long been a thorn in Hillary Clinton’s side – he made noise
about running against her in 2008 before ultimately taking a pass, but his
political brand has remained strong. He’ll emerge from Tuesday evening
deflated, and the state’s governor, Terry McAuliffe, will unequivocally be
the top Democrat in Virginia.

That’s good news for Clinton, both because a close ally is stronger, and
because Virginia is another purple state that’s critical in a presidential
race.

*Anti-immigration groups lost in New Hampshire*

To the extent that immigration was used as an issue by Republicans in
statewide races, New Hampshire was their Waterloo.

Scott Brown was the first candidate to air an ad focusing on the border
crisis over the summer, and it helped him gain traction. Groups opposing
immigration reform planted a flag in New Hampshire and vowed to push Brown
over the finish line.

That didn’t happen, although they came close. The Mark Zuckerberg-funded
group FWD.us sent out an email to reporters saying, “In High-Stakes NH-Sen,
Anti-Immigrant Rhetoric Loses Big.”

Democrats are banking on Republicans fighting each other over immigration
in the primaries, and the border crisis proved it’s still a base motivator
for Republicans.

But until the White House takes executive action on immigration reform,
both Obama and Clinton will be the targets of activists.

*CBS News: “How Obama and Clinton candidates fared on Election Day”
<http://www.cbsnews.com/news/2014-midterm-elections-how-did-obama-and-clintons-candidates-fare-on-election-day/>*

By Rebecca Kaplan

November 5, 2014, 5:34 a.m. EST

Wary of President Obama's low approval ratings heading into the midterm
elections, the White House limited his exposure on the campaign trail.
Steering clear of the many Democratic Senate candidates running in red
states where the president was particularly unpopular, Mr. Obama stuck to
only blue states where he was more likely to help rather than hurt.

Did the president ultimately hurt the nine candidates he campaigned with in
the lead-up to Election Day? That's hard to say. He certainly didn't help
much: Five of the nine candidates lost their races, and that number could
rise to six if Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy does not eke out a
last-minute win in his re-election race.

Plus, all the time he spent fundraising for Democrats did not result in
their maintaining Senate control. The upper chamber is now firmly in the
grasp of Republicans.

Of course, the president wasn't the only high-profile Democratic surrogate
who came out to help those in his party. Former Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton did 45 events for 26 candidates in the two months before Election
Day. Her win record was ever so slightly better than Mr. Obama's: 11 of the
candidates won, 13 lost, one (Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu) is headed for a
runoff, and another (Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper) was still locked in a
toss-up race early Wednesday morning.

One Republican in particular was not about to let Clinton get away with
such an unsuccessful record in the 2014 elections. Sen. Rand Paul,
R-Kentucky, made it personal when he tweeted, "You didnt think it could get
worse than your book tour? It did. Courtesy of the U.S. voters." He linked
to a Facebook page that shows Clinton campaigning for and sometimes arm and
arm with six Democratic Senate candidates and incumbents who lost on
Tuesday, with the damning hashtag, "HillarysLosers."

Paul, one of the several Republicans who has already begun trying to tear
Clinton down before there are any official candidates in the 2016 election,
is unlikely to let the meme go in the coming months.

Mr. Obama only ventured out of Washington in the final weeks of
campaigning. On the stump, he would argue the economy was faring better
under his and other Democrats' leadership and that only Democratic
candidates would look out for all Americans by working to pass legislation
to raise the minimum wage and ensure equal pay for men and women.

"Mary Burke doesn't believe that the minimum wage 'serves no purpose' -- as
one Republican said. She knows the difference it can make to some
hardworking mom who's working already and having to take care of her kids.
And she's trying to make ends meet. That makes a difference to her," Obama
said last week at a rally for Burke, the Democrat who was running to
replace Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, a Republican who had already survived
a recall election in 2010 following his initial election in 2010.

Burke ended up losing to Walker by about 8 percent.

Mr. Obama also made a trip to heavily Democratic Maryland, where he won
nearly 62 percent of the vote in 2012, to help Democrat Anthony Brown in
his surprisingly tight re-election bid.

Despite Mr. Obama telling voters that Brown had "devoted his entire career
to fighting for you," Brown got clobbered in the governor's race by
Republican Larry Hogan, who was winning by nine points early Wednesday
morning.

Mr. Obama's effect on the election was mixed. Just under half of voters (46
percent) said the president was not factor in the vote they cast for House
candidates, according to CBS News exit polls, compared to 39 percent who
said President George W. Bush was not a factor in their votes in 2006. But
those who were voting based on their feelings for Mr. Obama were far more
likely to cast their ballot as a negative statement than a positive one:
One-third of voters said their vote was in opposition to the president, and
only 20 percent said their vote was in part to show support of the
president. Mr. Bush's numbers were 36 percent and 22 percent respectively
in 2006.

*Associated Press: “GOP's big election night fuels shift toward 2016”
<http://bigstory.ap.org/article/9a07aeaa7fb949b391188de104abd981/gops-big-election-night-fuels-shift-toward-2016>*

By Steve Peoples and Will Weissert

November 5, 2014, 3:08 a.m. EST

Even before the polls had closed on Election Day, Republicans had shifted
their focus to 2016 and the party's top target: Hillary Rodham Clinton. And
by the end of the night, the GOP had claimed victories in Senate contests
and governor races that will serve as a White House launch pad for the
party's most ambitious.

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who has acknowledged presidential aspirations,
won his third election in four years, while Ohio Gov. John Kasich and
Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder earned second terms amidst White House whispers
of their own.

The governors and their Senate allies won with the backing of high-profile
Republicans thinking about the next election: New Jersey Gov. Chris
Christie, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul.

And lest there be any doubt what those Republicans were thinking about on
this Election Day, Paul offered an analysis that pointed firmly to the next.

"Tonight was really a referendum not only on the president's policies, but
really a referendum on Hillary Clinton," Paul said in an interview with The
Associated Press. The Democrats' midterm struggles, he said, represent "an
epic failure of the Clintons."

Paul is among several leading Republicans who have spent months laying the
groundwork for presidential campaigns, often while also helping GOP
colleagues campaign in the midterms. But in the crowded Republican field,
party insiders believe as many as three candidates may form presidential
exploratory committees by the end of January — with several more joining
them in the subsequent months.

"They're going to need to get out there quickly," said Republican National
Committee chief of staff Mike Shields, predicting a rash of presidential
activity in November, December and January as candidates compete for the
same pool of staff and donors. The RNC, he said, already has eight to 10
staffers focused exclusively on weakening Clinton's potential candidacy.

The overwhelming Democratic frontrunner should she run, Clinton is expected
to announce her decision around the end of the year. The former secretary
of state did not appear publicly Tuesday, but spent recent weeks
campaigning extensively for Democrats in competitive races for Senate and
governor, appearing at 45 political events during a two-month run through
19 states.

Republicans noted Clinton's ties to two of the biggest defeats for the
party — Arkansas Sen. Mark Pryor's loss to Republican Rep. Tom Cotton and
Alison Lundergan Grimes' defeat to Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell in
Kentucky. Clinton headlined fundraisers for both and made appearances in
Kentucky for Grimes.

In a difficult year for Democrats, some of the former first lady's allies
prevailed, including Tom Wolf in Pennsylvania, who defeated Republican Gov.
Tom Corbett, and Sen. Jeanne Shaheen and Gov. Maggie Hassan in New
Hampshire, who received help from Clinton during the campaign's final
weekend.

But Tuesday belonged to the GOP.

"It will be beneficial not just to Republicans, it will be beneficial to
the country," said Kansas Republican Sen. Jerry Moran, who leads the Senate
GOP campaign arm. "But it also sets the stage to demonstrate that
Republicans can be trusted to be elected to the presidency in 2016."

Walker told The Associated Press minutes after his race was called that any
decision about whether he will run for president "will have to wait long
after" he works with Wisconsin lawmakers to pass the next state budget.

"The bottom line is people elected me to get the job done in Wisconsin," he
said.

In Texas, three prospective presidential candidates gathered at a
Republican celebration in downtown Austin.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who is weighing a second presidential bid, joined
former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush as his eldest son, George P. Bush, was elected
Texas land commissioner. The elder Bush, a leading contender should he run,
did not speak publicly Tuesday night. At the same event, Cruz said the 2016
field would begin forming as soon as January.

"In all likelihood we will see a crowded field next year. And that's a good
and healthy thing," Cruz said. "The test that I think Republican primary
voters should apply is who is standing up and leading."

New Jersey Gov. Christie spent much of the last year helping to reelect GOP
governors — while courting donors and key activists — as chairman of the
Republican Governors Association. His organization had a big night, winning
seats previously held by Democrats in Maryland, Massachusetts, Arkansas and
Illinois.

Christie's midterm effort, he said, "helps to get me and Mary Pat and our
children used to what it would be like to be on the road so much. And
that's a huge part of deciding whether you want to run for president or not
— it's the effect it has on your family."

"I know people don't believe this, but we have not had the time, been
together enough, to talk about it in any kind of serious way," Christie
said while campaigning Monday in New Hampshire. "But we will."

*Washington Post: “As midterms pass, the 2016 presidential race is about to
hit high speed”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/as-midterms-pass-the-2016-presidential-race-is-about-to-hit-high-speed/2014/11/04/d6ea5b38-636b-11e4-836c-83bc4f26eb67_story.html>*

By Chris Cillizza

November 4, 2014, 7:24 p.m. EST

The 2016 election is only 734 days away!

That might seem like a very long time from now. And that might seem like a
very good thing for those of you in Florida, North Carolina, Iowa and New
Hampshire who have seen enough 2014 election ads to last a lifetime.

But the reality of modern-day politics is that the race to be the next
president began long before a single ballot was cast in the midterm
elections. Now that the midterms are over, what was largely
behind-the-scenes maneuvering will go public. And quickly.

Any conversation about what the race to replace Barack Obama will look like
has to begin with the woman he defeated in the 2008 Democratic presidential
primary: Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Clinton’s travel schedule — she did 45 events in 54 days — is indicative of
how she has approached the intense speculation about 2016. No, no I haven’t
made up my mind yet, Clinton says, while throwing a symbolic wink with her
actions to assure supporters that, yeah, she’s going to do it.

There is already a virtual campaign-in-waiting for Clinton, an effort that
has grown larger and more active as she has given us every reason to
believe she’s running. Priorities USA, a super PAC formed to support
President Obama’s reelection in 2012, is now working in service of Clinton.
Correct the Record, another super PAC, works as a rapid-response mechanism
to push back against Republican attacks against Clinton. (Yes, Republicans
have an opposition-research operation — called America Rising — that is
heavily focused on Clinton.) Ready for Hillary, yet another super PAC, is
organizing grass-roots support for Clinton in early-voting states.

One look at polling in the 2016 Democratic presidential primary and you see
why so much attention is being paid to Clinton. In the most recent
Washington Post-ABC News poll from October, Clinton takes 65 percent of the
vote to Vice President Biden’s 13 percent. Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth
Warren, who has said she won’t run and has endorsed Clinton’s potential
bid, takes 10 percent. No other candidates break into double digits.

Clinton is a far-stronger front-runner than she was eight years ago, when
it was clear from early polling that while she started ahead, her path to
the nomination would not be without challenges. This time around, it’s
difficult to see a serious challenge to Clinton emerging.

That doesn’t mean, of course, that other people won’t run. (Remember that
not everyone runs for president with the expectation or even the goal of
winning.)

Outgoing Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) is likely to run, having spent
much of the past two years staking out a liberal agenda in his home state
while traveling relentlessly to Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.
Socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who caucuses with Democrats in
Congress, is also likely to run as a populist alternative — with a heavy
emphasis on the issue of campaign finance reform — to Clinton. Biden seems
likely to stay on the sidelines if Clinton runs, although he has been
aggressive about insisting she won’t push him out.

If the Democratic race looks like a coronation, the Republican field is
more like an episode of “Game of Thrones,” with a panoply of ambitious
aspirants falling all over one another to claim the crown.

The best-known potential candidate is former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, the son
and brother of past presidents. Bush has been mum about his plans, although
his own son, George P., suggested late last month that his dad was more
likely than not to run.

Polling suggests Bush would be the narrowest of front-runners in the GOP
field, but his support of Common Core, a nationalized standard of student
testing, and his backing of comprehensive immigration reform put him on the
wrong side of the party’s base on two issues likely to be hotly debated in
the primary process.

In contrast to Bush’s reticence about his interest in the race is Kentucky
Sen. Rand Paul, who has been saying and doing all of the sorts of things
you do when you are running for president.

Paul has sought to build bridges with the establishment wing of the party,
running ads in support of people such as Sens. Mitch McConnell (Ky.) and
Pat Roberts (Kan.) and meeting with major donors across the country to talk
about his coming candidacy. He is also trying to show that he is willing
and able to expand the Republican party’s reach — courting black voters and
younger voters, two groups that have moved heavily away from Republicans.

Paul’s Senate colleague Ted Cruz (Tex.) is also very likely to run,
emphasizing his doesn’t-play-well-with-others status in the Senate as a
sign of how he represents the grass roots of the party. Cruz is also likely
to cast himself as the most electable social conservative in the race,
although 2012 candidate Rick Santorum might have something to say about
that.

Aside from Jeb Bush, the candidates likely to duke it out for the mantle of
establishment favorite include Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.), Gov. Chris Christie
(N.J.), Gov. John Kasich (Ohio), Sen. Rob Portman (Ohio) and Gov. Scott
Walker (Wis.).

*Politico Magazine: “Whose Economy Will It Be in 2016?”
<http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/11/2016-elections-economy-obama-112500.html?ml=m_u1_1#.VFlzF_nF98E>*

By Zachary Karabell

November 4, 2014

[Subtitle:] The next election might hinge on whether voters can start to
believe the good news.

The ugly midterm campaign season provided one area of common ground:
Americans and their candidates were almost universal in their disdain for
the country’s economic performance over the past six years. Democrats have
learned the hard way this election that if you have to give speeches to
convince people that things are going well, then things aren’t going well.
The funny thing, though, is that nearly all the data show that the economy
is, in fact, doing well, even while the Democrats aren’t.

Tuesday’s elections showed that, for the moment, the economy and public
discontent have fueled the GOP. No matter what President Barack Obama and
his party argue right now, voters on the whole don’t feel very good about
their economic condition. Yet slowly but surely trend lines are emerging
that could very easily turn this into the Democrats’ economy—and perhaps
Hillary Clinton’s—by 2016.

This year’s campaign proved the degree to which our big-picture economic
indicators simply fail to capture the multifaceted realities of a country
with 320 million souls and nearly as many distinct individual experiences.
As much as we rely on those indicators to frame our discussion,
one-size-fits-all economic numbers simply cannot capture the disparity of
experiences that see a metropolis such as Detroit imploding (and perhaps
reinventing itself) and other communities, ranging from Silicon Valley to
Nebraska, enjoying multiyear boom times.

Still, how that “big picture” economic sentiment develops over the next two
years will, in ways big and small, shape the narrative of the 2016
presidential race, and looming big question looms: Will the Democratic
nominee, whether it’s Hillary Clinton or someone else, be boosted or
punished by what is widely perceived as Barack Obama’s economy?

In a midterm campaign season with precious few signs of common ground,
Americans and their candidates were almost universal in their disdain for
the country’s economic performance over the past six years. Even as Obama
made an effort this fall to defend the economic record of his
administration, few seem persuaded.

Gallup’s weekly poll of economic conditions continues to show that more
than half of those surveyed reject the notion that economic trends are
improving. In fact, according to Rasmussen, 44 percent of Americans still
think that we are in a recession. In state after state, race after race,
candidates ran on a promise that they would do everything possible to
reverse the decline of the American middle class, address the problem of
stagnant wages, and, above all, depart from economic policies that enjoy
bipartisan scorn for failing the middle class.

Yet there is an almost inverse relationship between the political narrative
and the actual numbers. Almost every single piece of data that we
collectively use to gauge “the economy” has pointed consistently and
steadily up, not just recently but steadily over recent years. Unemployment
is at its lowest level, statistically, in many years. GDP growth might be
unexciting, but it has been steady and consistent at about 2.5 percent
annually. Inflation, statistically speaking, is nonexistent. Housing prices
have recovered much of their 2008-09 collapse.

None of this has dented public anger, and the primary explanation is that
wage growth has been unimpressive. The ancillary explanation is that the
story of unimpressive wage growth has been loudly and consistently told,
along with an emphasis on underemployment, long-term unemployment and
millions of workers unable to find meaningful jobs.

This election cycle has feasted on public discontent. The question for the
next two years heading into the presidential election is: How long will
public sentiment remain grimly negative about all things economy?

If a majority of Americans continue to view the economic landscape through
dark-tinted glasses, it hardly bodes well for Hillary Clinton or anyone
associated with what so many deem “failed” policies. The Republican
narrative is that big government policies epitomized by Obamacare have
crippled the middle class, to which Democrats respond somewhat defensively
that things are improving under their watch and that better policies are
needed to allow those gains to be shared more widely.

They have a tough sell. No one who is anxious about the morphing employment
trends or changing wage landscape is likely to be swayed by a good GDP
report, or by a politician or pundit telling them that “the economy” is
doing better. If a plurality of voters is still convinced two years from
now that “the economy” is getting worse, an entire smorgasbord of economic
indicators isn’t going to convince them otherwise. After all, if you’re
staring down looming bills and fears about your retirement savings, how
comforting is it to know that the nation’s “total seasonally adjusted
nonfarm payroll employment” has risen steadily over the past 52 months?

***

This yawning gap between what our numbers say and what most people feel is
both extreme and increasingly unprecedented. For much of the 20th century,
when the lattice of economic numbers painted a positive picture, that was
reflected in how most people viewed their present and future—not because
the numbers shaped their experience, but because the numbers represented it.

The crisis of 2008-09 was sufficiently jarring that it’s understandable
that it will take a long time before a majority of the populace feels
secure about its economic future. While many people still believe the
economy is headed south, fewer people believe it than did last year or the
year before or the year before. The gap might still yawn wide between
economic perception and statistical reality, but it is slowly narrowing.

But will the lines cross before 2016? Will more people at the end of next
year think that the American system is thriving? And what will that do to
the election narrative? How does that affect the primaries in the first
half of the year, and the general election in November? What happens if
those lines cross sometime between when people vote for the nominees and
when they vote in the general election?

By about this time next year, the various contenders for the presidency
will each begin to develop a story about the economy. Yes, other issues
will matter, as they do now. But unless Ebola becomes a domestic contagion,
or the Islamic State overruns Iraq, or there is some dramatic domestic
terrorism incident, national security is likely to be trumped by the
economy. Social issues also appear to loom less large on the national
stage, simmering tensions over race, reproductive rights and the definition
of marriage notwithstanding. That leaves the economy.

It wasn’t always so. Bill Clinton may famously have won on the slogan,
“It’s the economy, stupid,” but that was remarkable in part because it
departed from the previous post-World War II elections, few of which hinged
in any material way on “the economy.” Even Jimmy Carter’s defeat in 1980 to
Ronald Reagan, when the United States was mired in stagflation and malaise,
rested as much on the feeling that America was slipping in the Cold War and
was being humiliated by a hostage-taking, embassy-seizing Iran.

The problem for today’s political cycles is that for all the sophistication
of vote-getting and message-targeting, campaign narratives are not as
fluid, flexible and dynamic as the world itself. In 1991, George H.W. Bush
and his team approached the 1992 election with a sense of confidence born
of high poll numbers for the victory in the first Gulf War, only to be
felled by a rapidly deteriorating economy. What appeared to be a very close
race hinging on character and foreign policy in 2008 turned into a fairly
easy Obama victory in the face of a crumbling financial system.

Given the tenor of the midterms, it’s likely that most candidates will
start gaming out 2016 with the presumption that current economic trends of
decent GDP growth and lousy wage growth will continue, which will mean
little abatement of today’s anger and discontent. That is certainly
possible, especially given that large companies can produce output that
helps boost GDP without needing to hire many workers or invest much
capital. Such is the nature of the efficiency revolution driven by
technology, and the wage revolution driven by globalization. If so, then
the Republicans could have a starting advantage hammering the message that
the Obama administration—even with an oppositional or inert Congress after
2010—has failed the middle class and added layers of government bureaucracy
that have kept us back.

Resting on that argument, however, is probably a mistake. Economic systems
can and do shift rapidly. To wit: There are signs in the past few months
that wages are indeed growing. Consumer confidence, not really a good gauge
of how people behave but a decent snapshot of how they feel, has been
climbing to highs not seen since before the financial crisis. While the
decline of manufacturing jobs in America has been a multidecade phenomenon,
with only about 12 million manufacturing jobs left, the power of that story
is waning. Bluntly, we have already lost most of those jobs, and while that
base might continue to erode slowly, it will be challenging to use that
decline as political fuel. At some point in the 20th century, you could no
longer whip up electoral passions by pointing to the plight of
farmers—there were simply too few left, and agribusiness was producing more
than enough food.

And while it’s true that numbers such as the unemployment rate fail to
account for the millions on disability payments and the millions more who
have simply dropped out of the workforce, the numbers also don’t quite
capture potent trends such as self-employment and entrepreneurial activity.
It’s easy enough to dismiss those trends as marginal, but something is
fueling this stealth recovery, and it isn’t just retailers hiring
part-timers or fast-food restaurants opening more franchises.

If, then, the economic picture a year from now continues to brighten
statistically, it is likely that attitudes will also start to shift, not
toward bushy-tailed optimism but away at least from muttering pessimism and
simmering rage. There will be plenty of that, no doubt, but not enough to
carry a campaign.

It’s also possible, of course, that economic matters unravel, that China
really does implode and brings the world economy down with it, or that the
structural weaknesses of the global financial system are unable to adjust
to a new euro crisis or a debt bubble somewhere. But that too would upset
whatever narrative the contesting campaigns set in place and set the stage
for a scenario similar to 2008, when the year began with the assumption
that the election would be referendum on the national security legacy of
George W. Bush and instead became an election about who could best save the
middle class from a global financial implosion.

What’s most important here is a version of “Stein’s law.” Named (perhaps
erroneously) after economist Herbert Stein, it goes something like this:
“If something cannot go on forever, it will stop.” Republicans might be
confident that two years from now a substantial portion of the electorate
will be just as angry, just as struggling and just as willing to affix
blame on the Democrats. Many Democrats might believe that the surest path
to victory in 2016 lies in channeling that anger and anxiety toward
Republicans.

But already, there are signs that this common and accepted narrative about
the economy is fracturing. It is fracturing because there is no one single
truth here. Unemployment is high; wages are not what people expect; but
multiple regions are flourishing, as are large numbers of people. Looking
ahead to 2016, it will not be a winning formula to run as if everything is
still a mess.

That’s because absent a crisis (always possible and never truly
predictable), everything won’t be. No, we won’t be revisiting the giddy
(and unreasonable) optimism of the 1990s anytime soon, even if the stock
market remains on a startlingly upward path. Yet the crisis atmosphere of
this election cycle cannot be fed endlessly by rhetoric without enough
real-world resonance.

Most likely, heading into 2016 we face an overall economic picture that is
just good enough to counter the message of collapse and crisis, but not
nearly good enough to lead to an era of good feelings. Maybe, and just
maybe, that will offer an opening to someone finally willing to talk not
just of two Americas but of many Americas, some struggling mightily, some
succeeding admirably and multitudes in between. That would be a powerful
message, because it would be real and true. Of that we have had precious
little of late, but it might prove a winning formula for 2016.

*Associated Press: “Analysis: Wins give GOP wider Washington influence”
<http://bigstory.ap.org/article/bc30205292284363822709961fcbe9ec/analysis-wins-give-gop-wider-washington-influence>*

By Julie Pace

November 5, 2014, 5:29 a.m. EST

WASHINGTON (AP) — With sweeping victories that exceeded their own sky-high
expectations, the GOP has dealt President Barack Obama and Democrats the
most devastating electoral defeat of his presidency. Their prize is full
control of Congress, and with it, the power to shape the direction of
America's government in the next two years.

Both parties talked Tuesday about need to compromise, but they will face
tough obstacles in following through. The list is long: the already looming
2016 elections, persistent divisions within the Republican Party, and the
frosty relationship between Obama and Sen. Mitch McConnell, who won
re-election in Kentucky and is likely to ascend to majority leader.

"I don't expect the president to wake up tomorrow and view the world any
differently than he did this morning," McConnell said at his victory party
Tuesday night. "He knows I won't either."

The election puts Republicans back in power in the Senate for the first
time in eight years, and alongside a GOP-led House, the party will set a
legislative agenda unlike anything that would come from Obama's White
House. The president's top advisers have spent weeks planning for how to
deal with a Republican-led Senate, and Obama and congressional leaders plan
to meet Friday at the White House.

In the rosiest of scenarios, McConnell and Obama can look for common ground
in areas where their parties have overlapping interests: overhauling the
nation's complicated tax code, repairing crumbling roads and bridges, and
inking free-trade agreements with the European Union and Asia-Pacific
nations.

"This is a new chapter in the presidency and it doesn't have to be a
defeated one," said Bill Burton, a former Obama White House and campaign
adviser. "We lost in a lot of places, but the truth is this could open up
some real opportunity to actually get some things done."

For Obama, who has grown resentful of his diminished political standing,
the prospect of reaching accords with a GOP-led Congress is a consolation
prize that could help salvage his flailing second term. Republican Senate
leaders may also see something to gain by showing Americans they can govern
effectively, given that voters expressed dissatisfaction with their party
as well with Obama, according to exit polls conducted for The Associated
Press and television networks.

But McConnell and Republicans are likely to have plenty on their to-do list
that doesn't match Obama's plans for his final years in office, including
cutting budget deficits, making changes to Obama's signature health care
law and approving construction of the contentious Keystone XL pipeline from
Canada.

"We will send the president bill after bill until he wearies of it," said
Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul, a tea party favorite and potential 2016
presidential candidate.

That fast-approaching campaign likely leaves McConnell and Obama a short
window in which to make progress on any compromise legislation.

McConnell will be fending off pressure from prospective White House
hopefuls, including Paul and Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, who see little
incentive to compromise with a Democratic White House as they appeal to the
conservative voters who decide GOP primaries. Republican opposition to the
president is likely to only deepen if the president accelerates his use of
executive actions, including presidential directives on immigration that
are expected before the end of the year.

Obama, too, will be battling internal party politics. He may no longer be
able to count on full support from Democrats who are unlikely to want to
help the GOP look effective in governing during the lead-up to a
presidential contest. Tuesday's elections also strip him of some of the
more moderate members of his caucus, such as Sen. Mark Pryor of Arkansas
and Sen. Kay Hagan of North Carolina, leaving him with more liberal members
who have fewer overlapping priorities with Republicans.

The White House was silent as Republicans racked up one win after another
Tuesday and won control of the Senate hours — if not days — before almost
anyone expected. Privately, there was frustration among some advisers that
Democrats wary of being associated with Obama largely sidelined the
increasingly unpopular president throughout the campaign. That strategy did
little to stem losses in places where Obama showed prowess in his runs for
president, including Colorado, Iowa and Florida.

For Democrats, the one silver lining in Tuesday's elections is that they
are now over. Attention can now turn to 2016, when the Senate contests will
largely take place in states that are traditionally more favorable to
Democrats.

And while they may still fret about being saddled with an unpopular
president at their party's helm, many are already prepared to move on. An
announcement from Hillary Rodham Clinton, the political juggernaut who
appears poised to run to replace Obama, is expected around the end of the
year.

*ABC News: “Midterm Elections 2014: How Clinton-Backed Candidates Fared”
<http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/midterm-elections-2014-clinton-backed-candidates-fared/story?id=26694294>*

By Meghan Keneally

November 4, 2014, 11:27 p.m. EST

Normally, it's the president and first lady who are making the campaign
rounds during the lead up to a Midterm Election. This year, it was a former
president and former first lady taking on the role of party elders.

Bill and Hillary Clinton were aggressive campaigners for Democratic
candidates across the country in the weeks leading up to Election Day.

Between President Obama's low approval rating and Hillary Clinton's widely
expected 2016 presidential ambitions, the campaign trail was an open, easy
way for the Clintons to shore up some national goodwill.

Representatives for both the former President and the former Secretary of
State released their respective lists of campaign stops, though there is an
important difference between the two. Bill Clinton's list dates back to
February and Hillary Clinton's list only includes stops she made from Sept.
9 on, in spite of the fact that she was making campaign appearances for
much of the summer.

As such, Hillary Clinton's list includes nearly half as many candidates as
her husband, but all told she did travel to 20 states during the course of
the campaign.

Their makeshift scorecard of how many of their picks did well at the polls
will be updated throughout the night, but they had one notable early upset.
Both Clintons made more than one visit to Kentucky on behalf of Alison
Lundergan Grimes, the Democrat who ran-- and lost-- against Republican Sen.
Mitch McConnell.

The Clintons are known for their long-lasting memories, and they were sure
to help out old friends. New York governor Andrew Cuomo, who was the
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development during President Clinton's term,
was one such pal who received visits from both Clintons.

Here's a running tally of the Clinton's 2014 scorecards, based on the
campaign events released by Bill and Hillary's respective representatives:

Hillary Clinton's scorecard: Alison Lundergan Grimes, KY-Sen: Loss Michelle
Nunn, GA-Sen: Loss. Mark Pryor, AR-Sen: Loss. Al Franken, MN-Sen: Win. Gary
Peters, MI-Sen: Win. Tom Wolf, PA-Gov: Win. Mark Udall, CO-Sen: Loss.
Andrew Cuomo, NY-Gov: Win. Jeanne Shaheen, NH-Rep: Win. Maggie Hassan,
NH-Gov: Win. Mary Landrieu, LA-Sen: Run off. Mark Dayton, MN-Gov: Win. Gina
Raimondo, RI-Gov: Win. Anne Kuster, NH-Rep: Win. Mark Schauer, MI-Gov:
Loss. Nita Lowey, NY-Rep: Win. Bruce Braley, IA-Sen: Loss. Pat Quinn,
IL-Gov: Loss. Carol Shea-Porter, NH-Rep: Loss. Charlie Crist, FL-Gov: Loss.
Kay Hagan, NC-Sen: Loss. Mike Michaud, ME-Gov: Loss. Martha Coakley,
MA-Gov: Loss. Anthony Brown, MD-Gov: Loss.

Bill Clinton's scorecard: Alison Lundergan Grimes, KY-Sen: Loss. Mike Ross,
AR-Gov: Loss. Michelle Nunn, GA-Sen: Loss. Mark Pryor, AR-Sen: Loss. Al
Franken, MN-Sen: Win. Gary Peters, MI-Sen: Win. Mary Burke, WI-Gov: Loss.
Tom Wolf, PA-Gov: Win. Mark Udall, CO-Sen: Loss. Andrew Cuomo, NY-Gov: Win.
Jeanne Shaheen, NH-Rep: Win. Patrick Murphy, FL-Rep: Win. Mary Landrieu,
LA-Sen: Run off. Mark Dayton, MN-Gov: Win. Mark Schauer, MI-Gov: Loss. Fred
DuVal, AZ-Gov: Loss. Bruce Braley, IA-Sen: Loss. James Lee Witt, AR-Rep:
Loss. Bonnie Watson Coleman, NJ-Rep: Win. Tim Bishop, NY-Rep: Loss. Pat
Quinn, IL-Gov: Loss. Charlie Crist, FL-Gov: Loss. Kay Hagan, NC-Sen: Loss.
Erin Bilbray, NV-Rep: Loss. Dan Maffei, NY-Rep: Loss. Mike Michaud, ME-Gov:
Loss. Martha Coakley, MA-Gov: Loss. Gwen Graham, FL-Rep: Win. Dina Titus,
NV-Rep: Win. Andrew Romanoff, CO-Rep: Loss. Anthony Brown, MD-Gov: Loss.
Staci Appel, IA-Rep: Loss.

*Politico: “How the Clintons’ candidates did (not well)”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/2014-elections-clinton-candidates-112559.html>*

By Seung Min Kim

November 5, 2014, 1:11 a.m. EST

Bill and Hillary Clinton were the most sought-after surrogates on the
campaign trail this cycle – criss-crossing the country to stump for
Democrats in places where President Barack Obama couldn’t.

They flew into red states to stump for vulnerable Democrats, aided
candidates from their home states and campaigned for family friends, former
aides and other longtime confidants. Their itineraries included several
stops in the politically significant states of Iowa and New Hampshire for
Democrats in competitive Senate and House races.

But not even the Clinton’s political star power could spare Democrats from
Tuesday’s bloodbath. Just 17 candidates backed by either Clinton won,
compared to 31 who lost. One race will go into a December runoff, and 9
races had yet to be called as of early Wednesday.

While Republicans, including potential 2016 rival Rand Paul, tried to cast
the results as a referendum on the Clintons, the former first couple can’t
defy political gravity. No one expected all — or even most — of their
endorsed candidates to win in such a bad year for Democrats. It’s a safe
bet that the Clintons went in knowing many of them would fall short.

With that in mind, here’s a look at how candidates whom the Clintons went
to bat for fared:

*House races*

The Clintons’ House endorsements were concentrated largely in a handful of
locations – the Northeast, California, and in Arkansas, where Bill served
as governor before heading to the White House.

Their New York allegiances were clear – between them, the Clintons boosted
10 Democratic candidates from the Empire State. Some were longtime
loyalists such as Rep. Nita Lowey and Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney, a senior
adviser to Bill Clinton at the White House.

The former president was also a popular surrogate for Democratic incumbents
who suddenly found themselves in political trouble – such as Rep. Steven
Horsford in Nevada, who hosted Bill Clinton for a get-out-the-vote rally
last week.

The Clintons already began election night with two losses on their midterm
scorecard: In May, Marjorie Margolies, mother-in-law of daughter Chelsea,
fell short in a House Democratic primary in Pennsylvania. And in March,
Bill Clinton recorded a robocall in Florida for Democrat Alex Sink, who
ultimately lost in a special election to Republican David Jolly.

—Pete Aguilar (California): No call

—Aimee Belgard (New Jersey): Loss

—Ami Bera (California):No call

—Erin Bilbray (Nevada): Loss

—Rep. Tim Bishop (New York): Loss

—Julia Brownley (California): No call

—Bonnie Watson Coleman (New Jersey): Win

—Sean Eldridge (New York): Loss

—John Garamendi (California): No call

—Gwen Graham (Florida): Win

—Patrick Henry Hays (Arkansas): Loss

—Rep. Steven Horsford (Nevada): No call

—Mark Lester (Alabama): Loss

—Rep. Annie Kuster (New Hampshire): Win

—Rep. Nita Lowey (New York): Win

—Rep. Dan Maffei (New York): Loss

—Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (New York): No call

—Marjorie Margolies (Pennsylvania): Loss in primary

—Rep. Patrick Murphy (Florida): Win

—Rep. Charlie Rangel (New York): Win

—Domenic Recchia (New York): Loss

—Kathleen Rice (New York): Win

—Martha Robertson (New York): Loss

—Andrew Romanoff (Colorado): Loss

—Rep. Raul Ruiz (California): No call

—Rep. Carol Shea-Porter (New Hampshire): Loss

—Alex Sink (Florida): Loss in March special election

—Rep. Dina Titus (Nevada): Win

—James Lee Witt (Arkansas): Loss

—Aaron Woolf (New York): Loss

*Senate races*

Red-state Democrats fled from Obama, but eagerly counted on Clintons to
come to their rescue.

Democrat Alison Lundergan Grimes in Kentucky – whose father, Jerry
Lundergan, is a Clinton family friend — was an early beneficiary of the
Clintons’ political largesse. As was Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), a
longtime friend whom Bill Clinton hosted a fundraiser for in June.

In the final weeks of the campaign, nearly every endangered Democrat
brought the Clintons along on the stump – from Kay Hagan in North Carolina
to Mary Landrieu in Louisiana, Mark Udall in Colorado to Mark Pryor in
Arkansas. But it was a overwhelming wipeout — of the Clinton-backed
candidates in the closest Senate races, only Shaheen hung on.

—Bruce Braley (Iowa): Loss

—Sen. Dick Durbin (Illinois): Win

—Sen. Al Franken (Minnesota): Win

—Alison Lundergan Grimes (Kentucky): Loss

—Sen. Kay Hagan (North Carolina): Loss

—Sen. Mary Landrieu (Louisiana): Advances to runoff

—Michelle Nunn (Georgia): Loss

—Gary Peters (Michigan): Win

—Sen. Mark Pryor (Arkansas): Loss

—Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (New Hampshire): Win

—Sen. Mark Udall (Colorado): Loss

*Governor races*

The Clintons also doled out their political star power in key gubernatorial
battles nationwide – races that could’ve been the Democrats’ lone bright
spots on Election Night.

Democrat Tom Wolf – who both Clintons campaigned for in October — soundly
defeated sitting Republican Gov. Tom Corbett in Pennsylvania. The Clintons
also rallied on behalf of Democratic candidates in Wisconsin and Florida
who mounted tough challenges to GOP incumbent governors, but ultimately
lost.

Bill Clinton was even the campaign closer for Democrat Charlie Crist in
Florida – appearing at a get-out-the vote rally for him on Monday.

—Anthony Brown (Maryland): Loss

—Mary Burke (Wisconsin): Loss

—Martha Coakley (Massachusetts): Loss

—Charlie Crist (Florida): Loss

—Gov. Andrew Cuomo (New York): Win

—Wendy Davis (Texas): Loss

—Gov. Mark Dayton (Minnesota): Win

—Fred DuVal (Arizona): Loss

—Gov. Maggie Hassan (New Hampshire): Win

—Gov. John Hickenlooper (Colorado): No call

—Gov. Dannel Malloy (Connecticut): No call

—Mike Michaud (Maine): Loss

—Pat Quinn (Illinois): Loss

—Gina Raimondo (Rhode Island): Win

—Mike Ross (Arkansas): Loss

—Mark Schauer (Michigan): Loss

—Tom Wolf (Pennsylvania): Win

*The Hill blog: Ballot Box: “Rand Paul mocks 'Hillary's losers'”
<http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/222999-paul-calls-dem-senators-hillarys-losers>*

By Peter Sullivan

November 5, 2014, 2:45 a.m. EST

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has branded defeated Democratic Senate candidates in
Tuesday's midterm elections as "Hillary's losers."

On his Facebook page, Paul posted pictures of Clinton together with Rep.
Bruce Braley (Iowa), Michelle Nunn, Alison Lundergan Grimes, and Sens. Kay
Hagan (N.C.), Mark Udall (Colo.) and Mark Pryor (Ark.).

Over each photo is the tag #Hillaryslosers.

Clinton had campaigned across the country for Democratic Senate candidates,
and Paul is arguing their losses are a referendum on Clinton, a possible
2016 presidential rival.

"Today, voters sent a message to President Obama and Hillary Clinton,
rejecting their policies and many of their candidates," the post says.

*Politico: “Rand Paul: Alison Lundergan Grimes' loss a ‘repudiation’ of
Hillary Clinton”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/rand-paul-alison-lundergan-grimes-hillary-clinton-election-results-112528.html>*

By Lucy McCalmont

November 4, 2014, 10:23 p.m. EST

Republican Sen. Rand Paul on Tuesday called Democratic losses in Kentucky
and Arkansas a “repudiation” of Hillary Clinton.

“I think here in Kentucky I think it was a referendum, not only on the
president, but on Hillary Clinton,” Paul (R-Ky.) said on Fox News after
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell easily won reelection against
Democrat challenger Alison Lundergan Grimes.

“Mrs. Grimes ran as a Clinton Democrat, she tried to disassociate herself
from the president, so she tried to attach herself to Hillary Clinton. But
turns out, Hillary Clinton doesn’t have many coattails in Kentucky,” said
Paul, who is widely considered a possible 2016 presidential candidate for
the GOP.

Hillary Clinton, also expected to run for the Democratic nomination in
2016, campaigned for Grimes as did Bill Clinton. Both of the Clintons are
good friends with Grimes’ father, prominent Democrat Jerry Lundergan.

However, despite the Clinton star power in the Bluegrass State, McConnell
led Grimes 55 percent to 41 percent with over 90 percent of precincts in,
according to The Associated Press.

Paul predicted further Senate wins for Republicans on Tuesday and took
another jab at the Clintons, who he said were “soundly rejected” in
Kentucky.

“I think it is a repudiation basically of the president’s policies, but
also of Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton have been all
over the place, they’re trying to make it out as if they’re somehow better
for Democrats, well in Kentucky, they were soundly rejected.”

*The Hill blog: Ballot Box: “Paul: Hillary Clinton 'soundly rejected'”
<http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/222889-rand-paul-hillary-clinton-soundly-rejected>*

By Peter Sullivan

November 4, 2014, 9:15 p.m. EST

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Tuesday portrayed the early Senate results as a
repudiation of Hillary Clinton, a possible 2016 presidential rival.

"I think we’re going to pick up enough [seats] to take over the Senate, and
I think it is a repudiation basically of the president's policies, but also
Hillary Clinton," Paul said on Fox News Tuesday night.

"Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton have been all over the place. They’re
trying to make out as if they’re somehow better for Democrats, but in
Kentucky they were soundly rejected."

As President Obama stayed away from the Senate campaign trail, both Hillary
and former President Bill Clinton campaigned hard, particularly in Kentucky
and Arkansas. But both Democratic Senate candidates are projected to lose
in those states. Paul also pointed to Iowa, a key presidential state.

"They campaigned in Kentucky very heavily, and in Arkansas, and in Iowa, so
I think the facts are the facts," he said on Fox News Tuesday night. "Did
the Clintons help their ticket? So far, I don’t think they have."

Paul also criticized Kentucky Democrat Alison Lundergan Grimes for linking
herself to Clinton.

"It turns out Hillary Clinton doesn’t have too many coattails in Kentucky,"
he said.

*Calendar:*

*Sec. Clinton's upcoming appearances as reported online. Not an official
schedule.*

·  November 14  – Little Rock, AR:  Sec. Clinton attends picnic for
10thAnniversary
of the Clinton Center (NYT
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2014/10/17/?entry=2674&_php=true&_type=blogs&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0>
)

·  November 15  – Little Rock, AR: Sec. Clinton hosts No Ceilings event (NYT
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2014/10/17/?entry=2674&_php=true&_type=blogs&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0>
)

·  November 21  – New York, NY: Sec. Clinton presides over meeting of the
Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves (Bloomberg
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2014-11-02/clinton-aides-resist-calls-to-jump-early-into-2016-race>
)

·  November 21  – New York, NY: Sec. Clinton is honored by the New York
Historical Society (Bloomberg
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2014-11-02/clinton-aides-resist-calls-to-jump-early-into-2016-race>
)

·  December 1 – New York, NY: Sec. Clinton keynotes a League of
Conservation Voters dinner (Politico
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/hillary-clinton-green-groups-las-vegas-111430.html?hp=l11>
)

·  December 4 – Boston, MA: Sec. Clinton speaks at the Massachusetts
Conference for Women (MCFW <http://www.maconferenceforwomen.org/speakers/>)

·  December 16 – New York, NY: Sec. Clinton honored by Robert F. Kennedy
Center for Justice and Human Rights (Politico
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/hillary-clinton-ripple-of-hope-award-112478.html>
)