Subject: Correct The Record Wednesday November 5, 2014 Afternoon Roundup
From: Burns Strider <[email-masked]>
To: CTRFriendsFamily <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2014 14:02:03 -0500
List-Id: <CTRFriendsFamily.americanbridge.org>

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

*Tweets:*

*Correct The Record’s Burns Strider* @BStrider: .@HillaryClinton
<https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton> campaigned for Dems nationwide because
she believes in building an all-incusive national party
http://correctrecord.org/the-clintons-on-the-campaign-trail/ …
<http://t.co/ScvLzvqZWz> [11/4/14, 3:38 p.m. EST
<https://twitter.com/BStrider/status/529734366822686720>]

*Correct The Record* @CorrectRecord: The Clintons logged more than 50k
miles campaigning for Democrats in 2014. See where they went on our map!
#GoVote <https://twitter.com/hashtag/GoVote?src=hash>
http://correctrecord.org/the-clintons-on-the-campaign-trail/ …
<http://t.co/oamfDnjthg> [11/4/14, 3:57 p.m. EST
<https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/529739169703010305>]

*Correct The Record* @CorrectRecord: .@HillaryClinton
<https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton> campaigned for 10 Senate, 12
gubernatorial, 4 House candidates in 20 states #HRC365
<https://twitter.com/hashtag/HRC365?src=hash>
http://correctrecord.org/the-clintons-on-the-campaign-trail/ …
<http://t.co/oamfDnjthg> [11/4/14, 2:01 p.m. EST
<https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/529709981356916738>]

*Headlines:*

*CNN: “Get ready: 2016 starts now”
<http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/05/politics/2016-starts-now/index.html>*

“The constellation of groups with ties to Clinton-world — the Ready For
Hillary super PAC, Correct The Record, the Center for American Progress,
Priorities USA Action, the super PAC co-chaired by former Obama campaign
manager Jim Messina — appear primed to ramp up for a presidential run now
that the midterms are in the books.”

*BuzzFeed: The 8 Questions Everyone Is Asking About Hillary Clinton
<http://www.buzzfeed.com/rubycramer/the-8-questions-everyone-is-asking-about-hillary-clinton>*

“Correct the Record will be the one to watch as Clinton potentially adds to
her staff, including a possible communications director, ahead of a
campaign.”

*AP via Newsday: “Incumbent Maloney tops GOP's Hayworth for US House”
<http://www.newsday.com/news/region-state/incumbent-maloney-in-close-race-with-gop-hayworth-1.9586166>*

“The national Democratic Party threw its support behind Maloney. Among
those stumping for him was former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham
Clinton. Maloney is a former aide of President Bill Clinton.”

*New York Times: “The Democrats’ Southern Problem Reaches a New Depth”
<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/06/upshot/the-democrats-southern-problem-reaches-a-new-depth.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=1>*

“It raises serious doubts about whether a future Democratic presidential
candidate, like Hillary Clinton, can count on faring better among Southern
white voters than President Obama, as many political analysts have assumed
she might.”

*National Journal: “Christie and Cuomo Won the Midterms. Hillary Clinton,
Joe Biden, and Rand Paul Didn't.”
<http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/christie-and-cuomo-won-the-midterms-hillary-clinton-biden-and-rand-paul-didn-t-20141105>*

“President Obama took a beating Tuesday night, and therefore, so did
Clinton. The midterm results represented a blistering rebuke of Obama, and
it's fantasy to think his former secretary of State and Democratic heir
apparent doesn't feel the second-hand sting.”

*MSNBC: “Midterm voters rate potential 2016 presidential candidates”
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/voters-not-enthusiastic-about-2016-presidential-outlook>*

“Just 43% of midterm voters said Clinton would make a good president.”

*Time: “Rand Paul Says Hillary Clinton Is ‘Yesterday’s News’”
<http://time.com/3558477/rand-paul-hillary-clinton-midterms-2014/>*

“Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky took to the airwaves Tuesday night as the GOP
celebrated its regaining of Senate control, linking Republican victories to
putative dissatisfaction with possible 2016 contender Hillary Clinton.”

*Articles:*

*CNN: “Get ready: 2016 starts now”
<http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/05/politics/2016-starts-now/index.html>*

By Peter Hamby

November 5, 2014, 12:50 p.m. EST

Attention Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush, Rand Paul, Chris Christie, Marco
Rubio, Ted Cruz and everyone else "seriously considering" a run for
president.

You can stop pretending now.

The midterm elections, which traditionally double as the unofficial
starting gun for the next presidential race, are finally over. But the
truth is that the 2016 campaign has been underway for two years.

It started the moment President Barack Obama vanquished Mitt Romney two
Novembers ago, when a multitude of Republicans began assigning blame for
the loss and not-so-subtly offering themselves up as the future of the
party. And Democrats started looking toward Hillary Clinton, the party's
presumed standard-bearer, who was just months away from stepping down as
secretary of state and wading back into the churn of the political world.

In a broad sense, the basic contours of the race have changed little since
then. The choice in 2016 continues to look like a clash between Clinton and
whichever Republican can emerge from a huge pack of ideologically diverse
candidates.

But the internal dynamics of the Democratic and Republican races are
shifting dramatically.

For Clinton, a two-year run on the lucrative paid-speaking circuit and a
rocky national book tour renewed questions about her political instincts,
and provided new ammo to Republicans eager to raise fresh questions about a
historic political figure whose reputation is fairly well baked in to the
public consciousness. But only a handful of Democrats seem willing to
challenge her for the nomination, and none of them boast the kind of star
power that Obama tapped to overcome the Clinton juggernaut in 2008.

Republicans, meanwhile, are still figuring out how to communicate with a
changing electorate that — even after the Republican tsunami on Tuesday —
still favors Democrats in presidential years. The party is bracing for an
electoral free-for-all, the likes of which it has not seen since 1964 when
conservative Barry Goldwater emerged from the Republican convention in San
Francisco as the nominee. Unlike recent cycles, there is no de-facto
frontrunner — and even Romney has seen his name floated by Republicans
anxious about a presidential field that is as unpredictable today as it was
two years ago.

'Wide open' field

"The Republican field is wide open but a little more competitive than last
time," said former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, a GOP candidate in 2012.
"While the Republican field was big last time, a lot of the folks running
didn't have all the tools in the toolbox to put together a successful
campaign. That's in contrast to this cycle, where the people being
mentioned today have an existing reputation, can raise an incredible amount
of money, and have more serious public policy credentials and positions."

Though the Republican names being tossed around have more prestige and
thicker resumes than the GOP cast of characters in 2012, the party has also
endured scandals and stumbles over the last two years that have tarnished
some of their brightest hopes.

One early golden boy, Christie, was sullied by the "Bridgegate" scandal in
New Jersey and political compromises, like the New Jersey DREAM Act, that
scored points with the public at large but rankled activists on the right.
His sinking reputation opened the door for Bush to fill the space as the
preferred choice of the Republican establishment, especially its powerful
donor class.

Still, as chairman of the Republican Governors Association, Christie
regained some political mojo this week after helping lift GOP governors to
impressive wins in blue states like Maryland and Illinois.

Another young star, Rubio, a Cuban-American senator from Florida, saw his
luster fade after he introduced an immigration bill that landed with a
resounding thud on the right. Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, an
Indian-American Rhodes scholar, is a health care policy specialist who
chided the GOP after the 2012 race as "the stupid party." But he undercut
his thinking-man brand by diving headfirst into hot-button cultural fights
— Google "Jindal" and "Duck Dynasty" — that seem more fit for cable news
than the executive mansion.

There's Paul, rooted in controversial libertarian politics, who emerged in
the Senate as one of the more thought-provoking public figures in recent
memory, with calls to expand to the party's reach to younger people and
minorities. His biggest asset — a sometimes undisciplined
shoot-from-the-hip authenticity — might also be his biggest liability.

Cruz, a Harvard-educated conservative legal mind, captured the hearts of
social conservatives and tea party activists, but earned the enmity of
Republican leadership in Washington by becoming the face of the government
shutdown.

Those are just a few of the Republican faces vying for spots on the
national stage with 15 months until the Iowa caucuses — and none of them
have a lock on the nomination.

"We are going to have a very large field, and there won't be a true
frontrunner," said Haley Barbour, the former Mississippi governor and
veteran GOP strategist.

Former presidential candidates Rick Perry, Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee
are eyeing repeat bids, and other ambitious Republican governors like
Jindal, Ohio's John Kasich, Indiana's Mike Pence, Wisconsin's Scott Walker
are considering the idea, too. Kasich and Walker both won big on Tuesday.

The bench goes even deeper, to Ohio Sen. Rob Portman, a budget whiz and the
rare Republican who supports same-sex marriage, neurosurgeon Ben Carson, a
conservative author and fixture on the conservative speaking circuit, and
South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, a foreign policy hawk.

Hillary Clinton

As it stands now, at the end of 2014, all of them will be vying for the
right to Clinton, the Democratic heir apparent once again.

Despite her unquestioned status as the early frontrunner for the Democratic
nomination and the White House in 2016, Clinton's re-emergence on the
political scene, covered ad nauseum by the press, has not been smooth. She
defended her buck-raking lecture tour — which took her to private equity
firms and interest groups that have opposed Obama's agenda in Washington —
by saying that she and her husband, former president Bill Clinton, needed
the money because they were "dead broke" after they left the White House.

She delivered an impatient and defensive answer in June when pressed about
her "evolution" on same-sex marriage, a reminder of her fraught
relationship with the news media. In a CNN town hall that same month, she
said the government should deport children from Central America who
illegally crossed the border seeking refugee status, a position that put
her at odds with Hispanics lobbying for a more humane immigration policy.

Clinton's return to the campaign trail this fall has been considerably
smoother.

At event after event for Democrats in tough midterm races, she rallied
voters with punchy and well-received speeches, though one recent flub —
saying that businesses don't create jobs — suggests she isn't entirely
comfortable channeling the populist fervor that's taken hold among the
Democratic grassroots.

Unlike 2008, when she shied away from the history-making potential of her
gender, she has been unafraid to embrace women's issues in her stump
speeches, talking about issues like abortion rights, access to
contraception and paid sick leave.

Her efforts meant little, though: Hillary and Bill Clinton campaigned in 25
states for more than 30 candidates at 75 campaign events. And in a wipeout
year for Democrats, pretty much everyone they shared a stage with lost. The
same was true for any Democratic surrogate but the klieg lights shine
brighter on the Clintons.

Exits polls signaled a harsh rejection of the status quo and the Obama
administration, raising a number of questions for Clinton, both about her
rationale for running and how she plans to address her relationship with
the unpopular president during a campaign.

But the more immediate question now swirling around Clinton is not if she
will run — but when.

Some Democrats have urged Clinton to signal her intentions quickly, perhaps
by forming an exploratory committee sometime over the holidays, allowing
her to begin hiring staff and laying groundwork for a national campaign
apparatus. A presidential announcement in the New Year— in January, for
instance — would also deny some oxygen to other Democrats flirting with a
run.

Others say Clinton can afford to wait much longer — perhaps until the the
spring — and are urging her to do so to avoid being dragged into the muck
of campaigning too early.

"Those who are urging her to start running now are those who think she has
to respond to every attack or allegation or question from a reporter," said
Donna Brazile, the Democratic strategist who managed Al Gore's campaign in
2000 and a CNN contributor.

"She does not. She has the luxury of time. She can focus on what kind of
candidate she wants to be. She can test her message. The last thing we need
is a candidate who comes rushing out of the box to start appearing at J-J
Dinners. She needs to take some time off and recap," Brazile said.

The constellation of groups with ties to Clinton-world — the Ready For
Hillary super PAC, Correct The Record, the Center for American Progress,
Priorities USA Action, the super PAC co-chaired by former Obama campaign
manager Jim Messina — appear primed to ramp up for a presidential run now
that the midterms are in the books.

Politico reported last week that David Plouffe, Obama's longtime political
guru, recently advised Clinton and two of her top confidantes, Cheryl Mills
and John Podesta, on how to build out a campaign organization and avoid the
kind of self-inflicted blunders that plagued her in 2008.

Other Democrats

Though most of the Democratic Party's rising stars are deferring to Clinton
when it comes to 2016, a handful of others say they will make a decision
about the race whether Clinton runs or not.

Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley, who has compiled a progressive record on
social and economic issues in his home state but is little-known
nationally, is the most serious of them. He has logged more miles
campaigning for Democratic candidates in 2014 — more than Clinton or anyone
else in the party — collecting chits for a potential campaign in the
process. He took a serious hit on Tuesday when his lieutenant governor and
hand-picked successor in Maryland, Anthony Brown, was felled by a
Republican who ran almost exclusively against O'Malley's record on taxes.

The Democratic Party's biggest grassroots star, Massachusetts Sen.
Elizabeth Warren, has said repeatedly that she will not run, but those
statements have been ignored by progressives who demand that she join the
race and address her signature issues — income inequality, student loans
and financial sector reform among them. Tuesday's election revealed a deep
well of economic discontent in the country that Warren seems primed to tap
into.

Vice President Joe Biden, all-too-aware of Clinton's strength with the
party establishment and mindful that launching a campaign would immediately
emasculate an already-diminished president, does not seem close to making a
decision about the race even though he insists it's under consideration.

Other potential candidates like Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders or former
Virginia Sen. Jim Webb would, at first glance, enter the race as protest
candidates, hoping to tap into simmering anxiety about Clinton's moderate
policy inclinations and her ties to Wall Street.

Democratic voters, in Iowa and elsewhere, have been telling reporters for
months that a contested but not-too-divisive nomination fight would be
healthy for the party and the primary process. A Clinton-versus-whoever
primary would allow other Democratic up-and-comers a chance to introduce
themselves, ensure a debate over the hot-button issues of the day, and give
operatives the ability to keep the party's mechanics in working order. Even
with token opposition, a primary would help keep Clinton in fighting shape
ahead of the general election.

The chances of Clinton losing the nomination again are at this point slim,
even though her poll numbers have slipped with the general public since
leaving the State Department and re-entering politics. But polls also show
that her reputation is sturdier among Democrats than it was at this point
six years ago — and her lead over potential foes is even larger.

Competitive primary

"A strong competitive primary would be important and helpful," said Matt
Sinovic, the executive director of Progress Iowa, a grassroots progressive
organization in the caucus state. "But if there is a primary, it would be
mostly stylistic, because she is such a known quantity. Look at the issues
we care about, like raising the minimum wage, protecting Social Security,
getting immigration reform done. Clinton is strong on every one of those
issues."

The Republican race is less predictable, and dramatically so.

Lording over the Republican race from balmy Florida is Bush. The son of one
president and younger brother to another, Bush's last name continues to be
something of a liability with the American public, even as memories of his
brother's troubled presidency fade.

But his family pedigree is also an asset within the Republican
establishment and the political insiders whose opinions matter greatly in
the early stages of a presidential race. Bush is a known commodity to GOP
donors and a trusted and pragmatic voice on policy issues — especially
immigration reform — for Republicans who want to expand the party's appeal
beyond its conservative base and bring Hispanics into the fold.

"There are probably two people who have the capacity to define the
Republican race very quickly," said Tom Rath, an influential Republican
attorney in New Hampshire. "One is Mitt Romney. If he got in, he would be
the unquestioned leader. But he is not going to do it. The other is Jeb."

Bush, the 61-year old former Florida governor, is genial, well-liked by
Republican donors and professionals and earnest to a fault about his 2016
thought process and whether he can run for president "with joy in my
heart." In the words of one Republican donor who spent time with him at a
South Carolina fundraiser last month, "people just like being around him."

"Jeb would immediately tap into the single biggest group of fundraisers, he
would do that in a big way," Rath said. "There is a cachet that goes with
his name. The aura around him is that he is the serious one."

Though he barely cracks double digits in hypothetical 2016 polls, Bush
would immediately command the attention, and the dollars, of the GOP
establishment. That would mean less early running room for other
Republicans, like Christie, Rubio or Kasich, hoping to tap into the same
financial network.

Bush versus conservatives

But aides to other potential candidates have eagerly pushed the idea that
the moderate and easy-going Bush, who last ran for office in 2002, is out
of step with the conservative bent of today's Republican Party and the
frenzied pace of today's hyper-active media environment, fueled by outside
political spending, social media and a new generation of political
reporters.

"If Jeb gets in, a lot of the money will go there right away, sure," said
an adviser to another potential GOP candidate. "But a significant amount
will still be there. Look, we will have to see if the Bush name still
works. If Jeb is able to understand how the game is played now compared to
when he was last playing in the majors. If he can hit those fastballs."

Two of the issues precious to Bush and his admirers in the Republican
establishment — education and immigration reform — are poison pills for a
passionately vocal slice of the Republican base.

A champion of charter schools and education vouchers, Bush is a defender of
the Common Core academic standards that many conservatives view as federal
intrusion into local schools. And sweeping immigration reform has been a
non-starter among right-leaning activists for almost a decade, so much so
that another Republican presidential wannabe, Rubio, backed away from the
very same immigration overhaul he co-sponsored in the Senate after
grassroots conservatives revolted over the bill.

"There are three issues that are non-starters with conservatives," said
Steve Deace, a nationally syndicated conservative talk radio host based in
Iowa. "Don't even show up if you support Obamacare, Common Core or amnesty.
And Jeb Bush is the poster child for two of those three."

Echoing a long-held view of conservative activists, Deace said the
Republicans must nominate an unapologetic fiscal and social conservative in
2016 — someone like Cruz — or risk alienating the party's base in the
general election. Nominating Bush or Christie, he said, would spell
disaster.

"Whatever pagan deity the Clintons pray to, they are on their knees praying
to run against a Bush or a Christie in 2016," Deace said. "If one of those
guys was the nominee, their base turnout models would make what McCain and
Romney did look like the the charge of light brigade. They would be lucky
to get to 40 percent in a general election."

The enduring tension between the GOP's conservative and pragmatic wings — a
feature of the party since the earliest Taft-Dewey clashes of the 1940s —
will again be at play in 2016.

The primary will test whether tea party conservatives like Cruz still have
the kind of firepower, and megaphone, that they did in 2010 and 2012. The
Republican establishment, which has tried to bring order to a volatile
nomination process that they believe wounded Romney in 2012 by forcing him
to tack too far right before the general election, will also be challenged.

There are some things GOP leaders cannot control, namely the unpredictable
power of outside money and the ability of a single donor to prop up a
candidate of his or her choosing, even long-shots.

Wild card

That wild card has the potential to throw campaigns wildly off-message and
needlessly drag out a divisive primary fight, especially in media-saturated
political environment that rewards over-the-top statements and fuels silly
micro-controversies. But even the most by-the-book candidates must bow to
this new campaign reality, Pawlenty said.

"Money, celebrity, and schtick will matter," said Pawlenty. "And having
billionaire friends who can fund Super PACs is probably key, too."

But GOP leaders and their allies in the business community, who largely
succeeded in sidelining controversial conservative voices in 2014, are
working to reign in the nomination process. The Republican National
Committee imposed new rules to shorten the nominating calendar and reduced
the number of GOP debates in an effort to keep the intra-party battling to
a minimum.

"There is a clear risk of having too many subgroups who don't agree with
each other," Barbour said. "We must avoid that. We have to nominate
somebody who can unite our party and attract a large numbers of
independents and moderates and conservatives."

Though their grassroots base may disagree, Republicans in Washington have
also been blunt about the need to expand the party's reach beyond white
voters, whose share of the national vote shrinks ever year. At the same
time, the country's Hispanic and Asian populations are on the rise.

Among the potential candidates, Bush, Christie and Paul have been blunt
about the need for Republicans to temper hardline rhetoric on immigration
and do more to appeal to Hispanics, a rapidly-growing piece of the
electorate that broke 3-1 for Obama over Romney in 2012.

What GOP leaders know all-too-well is that the voting population looks very
different — younger and less white — in a presidential year than it does in
a midterm. The Republican National Committee's "Growth and Opportunity
Project" — the so-called GOP "autopsy" issued in the wake of their 2012
loss — said the party has to drastically change the way it talks to
Hispanic voters.

"If Hispanic Americans perceive that a GOP nominee or candidate does not
want them in the United States (i.e. self-deportation), they will not pay
attention to our next sentence," the report said.

Javier Palomarez, the president of the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce,
said that roughly 60,000 Hispanic-Americans turn 18 every month. Another
way of looking at that figure: Every 30 seconds, a Hispanic becomes
eligible to vote.

"These numbers speak for the themselves," Palomarez said. "They tell the
tale. What I have personally told President Obama is that never before has
the Hispanic vote been more critical in electing an American president, and
to me, never again will an American president be elected without openly
courting the Hispanic vote."

Barbour, who flirted with running for president himself in 2012, expressed
confidence that Republicans have learned from their mistakes after a
six-year hiatus from the White House, and will be willing to overlook
ideological differences to get behind a nominee who can win.

"Our party is so concerned with the direction President Obama has taken us
these last six years," Barbour said. "I am reminded of the Democratic Party
in 1992, when they were out in the wilderness. They had been out of the
White House for 12 years, and they were not about to be left outside again.
It gets cold outside."

*BuzzFeed: The 8 Questions Everyone Is Asking About Hillary Clinton
<http://www.buzzfeed.com/rubycramer/the-8-questions-everyone-is-asking-about-hillary-clinton>*

By Ruby Cramer

November 5, 2014 8:43 a.m. EDT

[Subtitle:] It’s all about her now.

As election results rolled in on Tuesday, Democrats lost key race after key
race after key race. They lost the ones they saw coming, the ones they
hoped wouldn’t. They lost the ones they thought were safe wins. They lost
almost everything. There were a couple bright spots — New Hampshire,
Michigan. But the midterms put the President Barack Obama’s party under
water. (“A tidal wave,” as one Democrat put it. “A tsunami,” said another.)

What’s next for this beleaguered Dems? The next, higher-stakes set of
national elections in 2016.

And specifically: Hillary Clinton.

People close to the former First Lady, Senator, and Secretary of State say
she still hasn’t made the “decision.” But for Clinton’s allies, advisers,
friends, and former staff, the question is no longer whether she’ll run for
president a second time. It’s when, how, with whom, and with what message.

These questions may seem small. But if Clinton does go through with another
campaign, the slightest shade of difference in the way she answers them
will influence the shape and success of her next presidential campaign.

There are about 60 days until 2015. And Clinton will be making a number of
these decisions between now and then, and moving into early next year.

Here are some things to watch:

1. Who will be in charge?

This question will determine major staffing choices. It could determine
timing of a launch… And for the many Democrats obsessing about a Clinton
campaign, it’s the biggest question out there.

And it’s twofold: Who will be in charge? And will anyone be in charge?

Six years ago, when Clinton lost the Democratic nomination to Obama, her
bloated, ill-advised campaign operation received the large share of blame
in the election post-mortems. She had a campaign manager — Patti Solis
Doyle, who was fired and replaced late in the primary. But Mark Penn, her
pollster, was the one in charge, if always jostling with other officials
and Clintonworld mainstays with their own pockets of power, spread out
across campaign and the country.

This time around, Clinton will face the same challenge: establishing a
campaign structure that works. According to one person familiar with the
Clinton operation under construction, some see a “flat” structure taking
shape — with a campaign manager, a chair, and senior advisors all playing
influential roles.

From the sprawling network of Bill and Hillary Clinton, four names come up
with some consistency when people talk about the campaign manager job.

One is Guy Cecil, the executive director of the Democratic Senatorial
Campaign Committee, the apparatus for electing and recruiting candidates to
the upper chamber. In 2008, Cecil served as the national political and
field director on the Clinton campaign. He also used to work at Dewey
Square Group.

Another is Ace Smith, a California strategist who represents most of the
state’s major Democrats and is known for his background in opposition
research.

A third contender mentioned is Stephanie Schriock, the president of EMILY’s
List, a national nonprofit that supports women running for office who
support abortion rights.

The Clinton watchers who trade these prognostications say that Schriock has
less of a personal relationship with Clinton than the others — and that
Smith is expected to have a role on a campaign, but perhaps not in the
manager role. With Cecil, people in the Clinton orbit have said midterm
losses wouldn’t hurt his chances at the role. But the damage to Democrats
on Tuesday was worse than anticipated.

2. Is Robby Mook the man?

And then there is Robby Mook, the man whose name now comes up most in
conversations about running a Clinton campaign.

Mook ran and won three states for Clinton in 2008. He then went to the
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, or DCCC, before managing the
race of a longtime Clinton family friend, Terry McAuliffe, last year. Mook
helped McAuliffe, a longtime fundraiser, eke out a two-point win to become
governor of Virginia.

Insider speculation about a campaign manager often comes down Cecil and
Mook. For months, people speculated: one was up, one was down; one was in,
the other was out. But increasingly, Mook has been discussed in a somewhat
separate category.

One sign of his unique position: Cecil, Smith, and Schriock all plan to
attend a confab in New York later this month hosted by Ready for Hillary,
the super PAC that has led early Clinton efforts this year from the
outside, gathering a long list of supporters who would back her campaign
the day she announces.

Mook will not be attending, and has had no involvement with the group. His
efforts on behalf of Clinton have been viewed as more from the inside than
out.

After managing the McAuliffe race, Mook did not jump on a 2014 campaign.

Instead, he continued work for McAuliffe through the governor’s PAC, Common
Good VA, according to filings showing payments to Mook this year.

If Clinton does select Mook as campaign manager, one thing to watch: Who
comes with him. In 2008, a tight-knit group of friends on the campaign —
the so-called “Mook Mafia” — developed around him. Most followed him from
Nevada to Ohio to Indiana, where he served as state director. The group
remains close.

3. When will she announce?

If the campaign manager is one of the biggest questions facing Clinton now
— the other is about timing. When does she launch a campaign? Does she
start with an exploratory committee — a vehicle through which she could
delay an official “announcement,” but start raising money — or does she
just dive right in? Does she get going before the end of the year? Right
after? Later in the spring?

In recent weeks, Clinton supporters and advisers have frayed on the topic.
Two basic schools of thought exist about how and when Clinton could
announce.

First are the people who believe she should get in before the start of next
year — in the next 60 days. The idea: that Clinton should get in now and
start raising money, that people already know what’s coming — so why play
coy any longer?

On a logistical level, a campaign or exploratory committee would provide
Clinton with a conduit to finance her own political activity, rather than
pay for her own personal staff or have other campaigns foot the bill for
her travel expenses.

People who think Clinton should wait until after the New Year say there’s
no need to start fundraising now: She’ll be able to get money no matter
when she announce. And if Clinton wants donors to line up significant
contributions on the day she announces — a group of fundraisers in New
Jersey are already planning to bundle $5 to $10 million to have ready on
day one — then she could use more time.

If Clinton announced before the end of the year, she would have to file her
first fundraising report with the Federal Election Commission by January.

4. Will she take the blame for “#HillarysLosers”?

Clinton campaigned for almost the majority of competitive Senate candidates
on the Tuesday’s ballot. As soon as the election night wound down, and it
was clear the Democrats would lose hold of the Senate, Republican
operatives and potential rivals criticized Clinton on Twitter as an
ineffective surrogate.

Sen. Rand Paul, who is expected to run for president, spent the last two
weeks on the campaign trail attacking Clinton in his stump speeches. Just
after midnight on Tuesday, he set up a “#Hillary’s Losers” album on his
Facebook page.

Did Clinton move the dial more or less than any surrogate this year?
Probably not. But expect Republicans to keep talking about her losing
candidates.

On Wednesday morning, the Republican National Committee also sent a
research memo to reporters headlined, “Hillary’s Policies Were On The
Ballot.”

5. Will she embrace Obama — or criticize him?

What Clinton says about Obama in the next 60 days will portend to what
extent the onetime rivals will stay in lockstep moving forward into the
next election.

When Democrats blame the president for their losses, will Clinton do the
same?

The former secretary of state did not talk about Obama much at all during
her swing through the country on behalf of Democratic candidates this fall,
though her aides maintain a regular backchannel to the White House. She
spoke more often about the economic policies of a different White House:
her husband’s.

Clinton’s stump speeches did not touch at length on Obama’s record in
office, and so she has two options. She can use her service in President
Obama’s cabinet to link herself closely to him and to Democratic voters,,
and to focus contrasts on her differences with Congress, now fully
controlled by Republicans to Democratic voters. Or she can focus on
well-known internal disputes over foreign policy, in which she took a
relatively hawkish line, and raise new ones on domestic policy.

Every word she says about the current president will be carefully crafted,
and watched.

6. What will John Podesta do?

One way to tell what Clinton is doing: Watch John Podesta.

John Podesta, a longtime advisor to both Clintons, is expected to serve in
the chairman role, as first reported in Politico earlier this fall. More
than one former Clinton adviser has stressed Podesta’s importance. His
voice, one source said, would carry great weight no matter who fills other
staffing roles.

Last year, Podesta was in talks to co-chair Priorities USA Action, the
pro-Obama super PAC that has realigned itself behind a potential Clinton
candidacy. But that fell through when he agreed to join the White House
senior staff as a counselor. Podesta has said he agreed to serve in that
role for a full year.

He hits the one-year mark on January 1, 2015.

One former campaign aide suggested Clinton wouldn’t announce her campaign
until he could leave the White House and assume his expected role as chair.

Podesta, who served as Bill Clinton’s chief of staff, founded the liberal
think-tank, the Center for American Progress, now run by Neera Tanden, a
former Clinton advisor who stayed close with the former secretary of state
and her work this year.

7. What happens to the Clinton shadow groups?

There are three groups that have promoted Clinton, defended Clinton, and
encouraged people to get excited about Clinton: That’s Ready for Hillary,
the self-described grassroots super PAC; Correct the Record, a project
focused on shielding Clinton from partisan attacks and making a case for
her in the press; and Priorities USA, the super PAC poised to start raising
large amounts of money.

The first of these groups, Ready for Hillary, started up at the beginning
of last year. At the time, Clinton was just stepping down at from the State
Department. She kept a low profile, gave paid speeches, accepted some
awards. This summer, Clinton was back in the press, promoting a new memoir.
Even then, Clinton felt one step removed from politics. Ready for Hillary
filled that void. The group harnessed real enthusiasm for the idea of her
candidacy. Fans had a venue for it. And they gathered endorsements from
lawmakers that helped freeze the Democratic field.

But Clinton has since reemerged on the political scene. She campaigned
aggressively for Democrats in competitive races, holding a total of 45
rallies and fundraisers in 20 states since September, according to her
staff.

People are no longer ready and waiting for Hillary. She’s here.

So what happens to the super PAC? They shut down. The plan, according to
sources familiar with it, is to close shop as soon as Clinton sets up her
own campaign. Ready for Hillary has events planned through December so far.

Priorities USA will gear up fundraising after a period of inactivity during
the midterm races. Correct the Record will be the one to watch as Clinton
potentially adds to her staff, including a possible communications
director, ahead of a campaign.

8. And what will she be doing in the meantime?

We know the answer to this one.

One thing that’s on Clinton’s agenda this year no matter what happens:
finish a campaign to fundraise for the Clinton Foundation endowment, which
the family would like to build up to $250 million.

If Clinton runs, the family won’t be able to focus as much on the
foundation.

In particular, Bill Clinton, a one-man fundraising machine, would likely be
unable to sustain his efforts to solicit money each year. A bolstered
endowment would help sustain the foundation through an election and far
longer, ensuring that it outlives both Bill and Hillary Clintons. According
to one person familiar with the status of the endowment push, the last 60
days of the year will be a “race to the finish.”

The foundation has nearly met the goal, the source said.

*AP via Newsday: “Incumbent Maloney tops GOP's Hayworth for US House”
<http://www.newsday.com/news/region-state/incumbent-maloney-in-close-race-with-gop-hayworth-1.9586166>*

By The Associated Press

November 5, 2014, 11:15 a.m. EST

ALBANY, N.Y. - (AP) -- Democratic incumbent Sean Patrick Maloney has
defeated Republican challenger Nan Hayworth in a rematch in New York's 18th
Congressional District.

The result was a replay of his first victory against her two years ago.
Hayworth was in her first term when Maloney ousted her then.

The national Democratic Party threw its support behind Maloney. Among those
stumping for him was former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Maloney is a former aide of President Bill Clinton.

Hayworth is an ophthalmologist. She had the support of the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce in her campaign.

The district covers suburban counties in the Hudson Valley north of New
York City.

*New York Times: “The Democrats’ Southern Problem Reaches a New Depth”
<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/06/upshot/the-democrats-southern-problem-reaches-a-new-depth.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=1>*

By Nate Cohn

November 5, 2014

For generations, Southern Democratic politicians could count on doing
better at the ballot box than the national party, which had long been
abandoned in the South in presidential elections. No longer.

Despite attempts to distance themselves from President Obama, every
Democratic Senate candidate in the South failed to run well ahead of his
2012 results. Democrats lost Senate races, sometimes by wide margins, in
Kentucky, Georgia, Louisiana, Arkansas and North Carolina, most of which
were thought to be competitive for much of the year. They nearly lost in
Virginia, where they were thought to be heavy favorites. The New York Times
has not yet projected a winner in that state’s Senate race.

The inability of Southern Democrats to run well ahead of a deeply unpopular
Mr. Obama raises questions about how an increasingly urban and culturally
liberal national Democratic Party can compete in the staunchly conservative
South. It raises serious doubts about whether a future Democratic
presidential candidate, like Hillary Clinton, can count on faring better
among Southern white voters than President Obama, as many political
analysts have assumed she might.

The Democrats running in the South on Tuesday night were not weak
candidates. They had distinguished surnames, the benefits of incumbency,
the occasional conservative position and in some cases flawed opponents.
They were often running in the states where Southern Democrats had the best
records of outperforming the national party. Black turnout was not low,
either, nearly reaching the same proportion of the electorate in North
Carolina, Louisiana and Georgia as in 2012.

Yet neither Mary Landrieu, Alison Lundergan Grimes, Michelle Nunn, Kay
Hagan, Mark Pryor or Mark Warner was able to run Tuesday more than a few
points ahead of President Obama’s historically poor performance among
Southern white voters in 2012, according to the exit polls. There were some
predominantly white counties in every state where the Senate candidates ran
behind Mr. Obama, even in the former Democratic strongholds Kentucky and
Arkansas.

Perhaps most symbolic of the Democratic struggle was Ms. Nunn. She was the
strongest Democratic Senate nominee of the cycle by some accounts: the
daughter of a popular former Senator and a prodigious fund-raiser. She had
never run for office and thus had no record for which she could be easily
attacked. And her opponent, David Perdue, was a corporate executive who
once said that he was proud of his record of outsourcing.

Yet Ms. Nunn was defeated by nearly eight percentage points in Georgia —
nearly the same margin by which Mr. Obama lost to Mitt Romney in the state
two years ago. She may have fared somewhat better than Mr. Obama among
white voters, but not by much. She ran no better than Mr. Obama — or even
behind him — in many of the state’s whitest counties.

The most surprising result was probably the close race in Virginia, where
Mark Warner leads by just a half percentage point after having been favored
by a wide margin. Some election watchers weren’t even paying attention to
Virginia coming into Election Day.

Mr. Warner had a long record of performing well among the state’s
culturally southern voters. His success in appealing to so-called “Nascar
voters” appeared in nearly every media profile over the last decade. The
lore was well founded in the results: Mr. Warner swept the southern half of
the state when he won the governor’s mansion in 2001 and then he won nearly
every county in his 2008 Senate race.

But Mr. Warner’s standing in southern Virginia was reduced to that of just
any other Democrat. He barely outperformed Mr. Obama in his traditional
strongholds, and underperformed Mr. Obama elsewhere.

Ms. Grimes of Kentucky was a third Senate candidate who seemed well
positioned to outperform Mr. Obama. She too was a political novice, free to
craft a platform distinct from the national party. She was critical of the
Obama administration’s policies on coal, and refused to say whether she
voted for him. Her opponent, Mitch McConnell, may have been an incumbent,
but he entered the campaign with approval ratings in the 30s.

Yet Ms. Grimes only ran three points ahead of Mr. Obama, winning just 41
percent of the vote.

Ms. Grimes’s inability to avoid Mr. Obama’s baggage was perhaps most
evident in the heavily unionized stretches of eastern Kentucky coal
country, which was among the most reliably Democratic areas of the country
in the 20th century. But the so-called war on coal has dealt a devastating
blow to Democratic fortunes in the region, and by extension, to Democrats
seeking office in states like Kentucky and West Virginia.

Ms. Grimes did everything she could to distinguish herself from Mr. Obama
on coal policy. But she was crushed even in the once reliably Democratic
counties of eastern Kentucky. She lost Knott County by a 21-point margin.
John Kerry, by contrast, won the county by 27 points in 2004.

In Arkansas, Mark Pryor, a two-term Senate incumbent whose father was also
a senator, won just 39.5 percent of the vote — less than 3 points better
than Mr. Obama. Arkansas was perhaps the Southern state that held on to its
Democratic tradition the longest after the 1960s, but it is hard to detect
any tradition left today. The state also voted overwhelmingly for a
Republican governor.

There was no winner in Louisiana, where Senator Mary Landrieu and the
Republican Bill Cassidy will go to a runoff. But Ms. Landrieu, who is
widely expected to lose the runoff, ran less than two points ahead of Mr.
Obama.

In North Carolina, Ms. Hagan’s inability to outperform Mr. Obama in North
Carolina was less surprising. She was a first-term incumbent, she was a
liberal, and her approval ratings were poor. But she led in nearly all of
the pre-election polls over the final few months of the race, and yet she
too was defeated by a two-point margin — the same as Mr. Obama in the state
in 2012.

There were a few other bright spots for Democrats in the South. Gwen Graham
defeated the Republican Steve Southerland in Florida’s Second Congressional
district, an area that votes strongly for Republicans in presidential
elections with a large number of registered Democrats. But the newly
re-elected Republican governor Rick Scott made some of his largest gains
over his prior performance in the same area.

It remains to be seen whether Democratic weakness in the South will outlive
the Obama years. The national Democratic Party has fully embraced and even
defined itself in terms of cultural liberalism — on gun control, gay
rights, immigration, abortion, environmental policy and other issues.
Generational and demographic change are likely to push the Democrats
further in this direction, if anything. If that’s true, it will be very
hard for Democrats to win back the House, and it may even be hard for them
to win back the Senate.

*National Journal: “Christie and Cuomo Won the Midterms. Hillary Clinton,
Joe Biden, and Rand Paul Didn't.”
<http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/christie-and-cuomo-won-the-midterms-hillary-clinton-biden-and-rand-paul-didn-t-20141105>*

By Tim Alberta

November 5, 2014

[Subtitle:] A postmortem on 2016 hopefuls' roles this election cycle.

Plenty of 2016 contenders had something at stake in the midterms. As we
transition into a wide-open presidential cycle, here's who gained ground,
and here's who didn't.

Winners:

SCOTT WALKER

The Wisconsin governor didn't just win reelection Tuesday; he solidified
his legacy as the most battle-tested and successful Republican candidate of
the Obama era. Walker has now won three elections in four years, all of
which were nationalized and bitterly contested in a blue state that hasn't
backed a GOP presidential candidate since 1984. Armed with his impressive
electoral record and a political profile that checks virtually every box
for Republican primary voters, Walker is all but certain to run for the
White House. If he does, look for him to make the case that from his
executive branch he united a fractured GOP around core issues the party
agrees on—cutting taxes, reducing spending, balancing budgets, diminishing
the clout of organized labor—and won a battleground state three times
because of it.

CHRIS CHRISTIE

As chairman of the Republican Governors Association, Christie
understood—and even drew attention to the reality—that Tuesday's
gubernatorial contests would be perceived as a test of his national
political mettle. To say the New Jersey governor passed that test would be
an understatement. On Christie's watch, Republicans not only retained power
in key battleground states (Ohio, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, Wisconsin), they
also staged hostile takeovers in traditionally Democratic territory (‎Illinois,
Maryland, Massachusetts) and hung onto governorships in dark-blue states
(Maine, Michigan, New Mexico). Christie, who shelled out millions of
dollars to winning candidates in these races, now has plenty of favors to
call in as he prepares his all-but-imminent 2016 campaign.

JOHN KASICH

Ohio voters have correctly picked the past 13 presidential races. For that
reason alone, any seismic electoral development there demands attention.
And make no mistake: Gov. John Kasich winning reelection by 31 points—and a
margin of nearly a million votes—qualifies as seismic. Yes, he faced an
inferior opponent. But it hardly would have mattered who Democrats ran
against Kasich; the scope of his popularity in Ohio is stunning. An October
Quinnipiac survey showed Kasich's favorable-unfavorable at 54 percent to 30
percent, including 54 percent to 31 percent among independents, and 52
percent to 32 percent among women. Unlike Walker and Christie, it's unclear
whether Kasich will consider a White House bid. But those numbers—and
Tuesday's results—speak to an "electability" argument he could make as
convincingly as any Republican in the field.

BRIAN SANDOVAL and SUSANA MARTINEZ

Neither the Nevada governor nor his New Mexico counterpart is likely to run
for president in 2016. But both have long been viewed as prime running-mate
material, and their reelection victories Tuesday will do little to quell
that speculation. Sandoval, who's also thought to be mulling a 2016 Senate
bid, won more than 70 percent of the vote in Nevada—a stunning performance
in a state Obama carried by 7 points two years ago. Martinez wasn't quite
as convincing but still bested her Democratic opponent by an impressive
15-point margin. Their strong electoral results aside, Sandoval and
Martinez possess qualities that make them attractive options for a national
ticket. Both are Hispanic and relatively young; they also hail from the
Southwest, a region where Republicans feel pressured to make inroads ahead
of 2016. If it wasn't already, Tuesday's results in Nevada and New Mexico
make clear that Sandoval and Martinez will be top contenders for their
party's vice presidential nomination in 2016.

ANDREW CUOMO

Considering the scope of Tuesday night's Republican rout, it may be a
stretch to label any Democrat a "Winner." One exception is Cuomo, who after
winning reelection will enter the 2016 cycle with two attributes that may
suddenly be in demand among a startled Democratic base: executive
experience and distance from Obama. Cuomo's 13-point margin of victory
might prove less than inspiring for some party heavyweights, but
considering the national environment, it could have turned out a lot worse.
This isn't to say Cuomo will definitely run in 2016, or that he's suddenly
a Democratic favorite. But bottom line: Cuomo emerged from Tuesday's
Democratic bloodbath as a twice-elected governor with deep support among
his base and dynastic resources to mount a viable bid for his party's
nomination, should he so choose.

Losers:

HILLARY CLINTON

President Obama took a beating Tuesday night, and therefore, so did
Clinton. The midterm results represented a blistering rebuke of Obama, and
it's fantasy to think his former secretary of State and Democratic heir
apparent doesn't feel the second-hand sting. Clinton remains the
highest-profile appointment of the Obama administration. She played a major
role in crafting and executing the president's foreign policy. And her
likely presidential campaign, fairly or unfairly, is already viewed as an
attempt to secure "Obama's third term." That's dangerous territory for
Clinton, with exit polls showing two-thirds of voters saying the country's
on the wrong track, and a clear majority disapproving of Obama's
performance. Clinton already has made several calculated moves to distance
herself from the unpopular president. Expect those efforts to take on
newfound urgency beginning Wednesday.

ELIZABETH WARREN

In some ways, Warren, whose 2016 demurrals have noticeably softened,
benefits from Obama's—and Clinton's—terrible Tuesday night. After all,
she's the antiestablishment hero uniquely capable of channeling progressive
discontent with this year's Democratic platform and pushing for an extreme
makeover heading into 2016. Still, as a prominent member of her party, if
not a prospective presidential candidate, Warren should be wary of the
ramifications of investing in losing races. As a surrogate this cycle, she
tallied both notable wins (Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon) and losses
(Colorado, Iowa). But the lasting memory of her 2014 surrogacy will likely
be stops in West Virginia and Kentucky, where she stumped for pro-coal,
gun-toting Democrats who combined to lose by 42 points Tuesday. Being a
team player is nice, but it can be perilous to willingly associate with
losing campaigns—especially those where your involvement sends mixed
signals about commitment to principle.

MARTIN O'MALLEY

Let's be clear: Nobody considering a 2016 campaign had a worse night than
O'Malley. The Maryland governor has made no secret of his plans to run for
president, hiring staffers in Iowa, and paying repeated trips to
early-nominating states. The case for his candidacy rests upon his
transformation of Maryland into a liberal utopia, complete with stricter
gun laws and legalized gay marriage, the elimination of the death penalty,
and higher taxes to pay for investments in education. The only problem?
Maryland voters just rejected O'Malley's legacy, electing Republican
businessman Larry Hogan over Lt. Gov. Anthony Brown in a race that turned
into a referendum on O'Malley's governance. And, to be clear, Brown didn't
just lose. He lost by 10 points. In Maryland, one of the nation's
Democratic fortresses. That result was perhaps the single most surprising
of Election Day 2014 and could cripple O'Malley's campaign before it even
gets off the ground.

JOE BIDEN

Although Hillary Clinton is more commonly viewed as Obama's heir apparent,
Biden is keeping himself very much in the conversation—which isn't always a
good thing. The vice president was already going to have a bad Election
Day; he made it considerably worse by going on a Kansas radio station
Tuesday and declaring that independent Greg Orman—who has avoided any
affiliation with D.C. Democrats—would "be with us" if elected to the
Senate. Biden's gaffe prompted Orman's campaign manager to issue this
statement: "Greg's never spoken to the vice president in his life." Ouch.
The incident likely had little impact on the final outcome, as Orman wound
up losing to Republican Sen. Pat Roberts by 10 points. But it provided yet
another reminder of Biden's infamous lack of discipline.

RAND PAUL

Election Day 2014 was a spectacular success for the Republican Party
overall, but it presented a unique setback for the Kentucky senator. The
commonwealth's election laws currently prohibit anyone from running
simultaneously for state and federal office; Paul, who's up for reelection
in 2016, worked feverishly to elect a GOP supermajority in the statehouse
that could pass a bill amending that restriction. Alas, Democrats retained
control of the lower chamber, ensuring that any such changes won't happen
ahead of 2016. Paul has several options of recourse, including challenging
the law in court. But if those efforts are unsuccessful, Paul, like Sen.
Marco Rubio in Florida, will be forced to choose—in the not-so-distant
future—between running for president and seeking reelection to the Senate.

*MSNBC: “Midterm voters rate potential 2016 presidential candidates”
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/voters-not-enthusiastic-about-2016-presidential-outlook>*

[No Writer Mentioned]

November 5, 2014, 12:45 a.m. EST

The end of the 2014 midterm election means that the next presidential race
is just around the corner. The NBC News national exit poll of voters
suggests they are divided on which party should occupy the White House
after President Obama leaves office. And they are not particularly
enthusiastic about the presidential qualifications of the potential
contenders.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is considered the prohibitive
favorite for the Democratic nomination, while the Republican field is wide
open. In a hypothetical matchup between Clinton and an unnamed Republican,
the GOP candidate has the support of 40% of voters, while Clinton takes
34%. Twenty-four percent of voters said it would depend. Of course, the
race is contingent on who will eventually be the Republican candidate to
face Clinton, if she should decide to run and is able to secure the
Democratic nomination.

Clinton also trailed the hypothetical GOP candidate in two key presidential
swing states – by 36% to 32% in Florida, and by 36% to 34% in Ohio.

Just 43% of midterm voters said Clinton would make a good president. She
can take solace in the fact that this percentage is higher than for any of
four potential 2016 Republican candidates also asked about in the NBC News
national exit poll. Among those GOP possibilities, former Florida Gov. Jeb
Bush did slightly better than others, with 29% of voters saying he would
make a good president. Bush is followed by Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul at 26%,
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie at 24% and Texas Gov. Rick Perry at 24%.

The eventual Republican nominee will first need to run the gauntlet of
early caucus and primary states, where GOP base voters carry more weight
than independents. Among tea party-aligned Republicans, 56% said Perry
would make a good president. Fifty-two percent feel the same about Bush,
and 51% say the same about Paul. However, only 38% of tea party Republicans
see Christie as White House material.

About half of white evangelical Republicans see Bush – 51% – and Perry –
49% – as making good presidents. Forty-one percent say the same about Paul,
but only 33% of this GOP base group feel the same about Christie.

NBC News also asked voters in seven different states to give their thoughts
on the presidential potential of 10 home-grown possibilities in the
Republican field. Of these contenders, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee
gets the biggest vote of confidence from his home state, with 50% of voters
there saying he would make a good president. At the other end of the
spectrum, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, who ran unsuccessfully
for the GOP presidential nomination in 2012, is least likely – at 23% – to
be seen as White House material by voters in his home state.

Just under half of Wisconsin voters give a thumbs up to Rep. Paul Ryan of
Wisconsin – 45% – who was the party’s nominee for vice president in 2012
and to their current governor Scott Walker – 42% – who just won re-election
Tuesday.

In Florida, 39% of voters said that former Gov. Bush would make a good
president, and 36% said the same about current Sen. Marco Rubio. In Texas,
outgoing Gov. Perry got a positive presidential report from 34% of voters
there, while Sen. Ted Cruz is also seen as making a good president by a
similar 34%. In Kentucky, 34% of voters said Sen. Paul would make a good
president. NBC News state exit polls also found that 27% of Louisiana
voters feel Gov. Bobby Jindal would make a good president.

Visit NBC News Decision 2014 for more exit poll results and election
returns.

*Time: “Rand Paul Says Hillary Clinton Is ‘Yesterday’s News’”
<http://time.com/3558477/rand-paul-hillary-clinton-midterms-2014/>*

By Sam Frizell

November 5, 2014, 11:23 a.m. EST

[Subtitle:] After GOP won Senate control on Tuesday night

Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky took to the airwaves Tuesday night as the GOP
celebrated its regaining of Senate control, linking Republican victories to
putative dissatisfaction with possible 2016 contender Hillary Clinton.

Paul, also a presumptive candidate for the 2016 GOP presidential
nomination, pointed to Clinton’s campaigning for failed Democratic
candidates including Georgia’s Michelle Nunn, Iowa’s Bruce Braley, North
Carolina’s Kay Hagan and Kentucky’s Alison Lundergan Grimes. Paul even
initiated the hashtag #HillaryLosers on his Facebook page and Twitter feed.

“Somebody should ask Hillary Democrats why they got wiped out tonight.
Clearly, Hillary is yesterday’s news,” Paul said in an email to Breitbart
News. He added that the midterm elections on Tuesday should be viewed as a
rejection of the former Secretary of State’s track record.

Clinton has not held office since she left the Obama administration as
Secretary of State in 2013 but is widely considered to be mulling a run in
2016.