Subject: What Media is Saying the Day After Election Day
From: Burns Strider <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2014 20:34:47 -0500
List-Id: <CTRFriendsFamily.americanbridge.org>

Forbes column: Hillary Clinton “may have been the biggest winner of the night.” “But Republicans around the nation were not the only big winners last night. Standing, metaphysically speaking, just out of view on the many stages where Republican winners gave victory speeches and inside the hotel ballrooms where happy Republican supporters ate, drank and were merry, was the one person who may have been the biggest winner of the night— Hillary Rodham Clinton.” [Rick Unger column, Forbes, 11/5/14]

·       Anyone that thinks 2014 is predictive of a 2016 general election is “truly deluding themselves.” “Yes, I am all too aware that a few candidates who were given the Clinton stamp of approval—complete with multiple campaign appearances by Bill and Hilary—went down in flames. However, anyone who would imagine that these loses were somehow predictive of how Secretary Clinton might fare in a presidential primary race for the nomination of her party or the 2016 general election is truly deluding themselves. It was not the Clintons who were on trial last night—it was the current occupant of the White House who was sent a message of disapproval in no uncertain terms. It was Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid who was rejected by voters throughout the nation, including a great many whom have likely never even heard of Harry Reid.” [Rick Unger column, Forbes, 11/5/14]

·       “Last night’s GOP sweep will make it easier for Hillary Clinton to remind potential challengers of this very different environment and …make it easier to let Hillary be Hillary.” “And unlike a Republican Party that fields potential presidential nominees who are more likely to be ideological purist (I refer you to the 2008 and 2012 Republican ‘Caravan of Clown Candidates’), leading the party to ultimate defeat, Democrats tend to me more pragmatic in that department, understanding that it is far better to put a Democrat in the White House that may be a little too conservative for their tastes than it is to put a Republican in the big chair who is way too conservative for their taste. As a result, last night’s election results should go a long way toward taking the pressure off Mrs. Clinton to move to uncomfortable positions as more progressive Democrats realize that a challenge from Clinton’s left will only force her into a losing posture. Relieving that pressure and letting Hillary be Hillary is precisely what makes her one of the big winners of the 2014 midterm elections…. Last night’s GOP sweep will make it easier for Hillary Clinton to remind potential challengers of this very different environment and…let me say it again…make it easier to let Hillary be Hillary.”

Washington Post: “The Republican takeover of the Senate could be good news for at least one Democrat: Hillary Rodham Clinton.” “The Republican takeover of the Senate could be good news for at least one Democrat: Hillary Rodham Clinton. Clinton campaigned hard this fall for Democrats and spent much of her time trying to preserve a Democratic majority in the Senate — an effort that failed dramatically in Tuesday’s GOP midterm rout. But many Democratic strategists said the switch to Republican control may have a silver lining for Clinton, helping her better define herself as she shapes a potential 2016 presidential campaign. By providing a convenient foil for Clinton and other Democrats, a GOP-run Congress would make it less imperative for Clinton to highlight her differences with President Obama, these strategists said. Obama’s damaged, lame-duck condition also makes Clinton the strongest Democrat left standing. A Republican Senate is likely to ‘spend a lot of time trying to repeal some of the progress made in the Obama administration,’ Democratic strategist Erik Smith said. ‘That would be a great situation for her, because she could both make the case against the Republicans while currying favor with the Obama base.’” [Washington Post, 11/5/14]

Yahoo News: “The long-term winner, in fact, wasn’t even on the ballot this year. Her name is Hillary Clinton.” “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.” [“How Hillary Clinton won the 2014 midterms,” Andrew Romano column, Yahoo News, 11/5/14]

·       In 2016, Clinton may be able to run as the solution to D.C. dysfunction. “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.” [“How Hillary Clinton won the 2014 midterms,” Romano column, Yahoo News, 11/5/14]

Associated Press: “In a difficult year for Democrats, some of the former first lady’s allies prevailed.” “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.” [AP, 11/5/14]

CNN exit poll: 83% of Democrats think that she would make a good President. “While GOP operatives will highlight the fact that Clinton and her husband failed to help Democrats win Tuesday, it won’t harm her standing among Democratic voters. The CNN exit poll showed that 83% of Democrats think that she would make a good President.” [CNN, 11/5/14]

Slate: Clinton will simply be looking at a much different landscape of likely voters. “While it’s tempting to look at this not-so-hot showing and assume the worst for a Clinton 2016 run, presidential elections can’t really be meaningfully compared to midterm elections, which have older and more married voters, traditionally a bad group for Democrats. Single female voters, in particular, don’t turn out for the midterms. Between 2008 and 2010, there was a 20 point drop-off in the percentage of single women at the polls. Since that’s a demographic that votes Democratic, that loss in the midterms can mean a bump during presidential elections. Clinton will simply be looking at a much different landscape of likely voters.” [Slate, 11/5/14]

National Journal: “A [GOP] win in the Senate could worsen the GOP's factional struggle for identity, or help propel Hillary Clinton to the presidency by giving her a clear status quo to campaign against.” “Democrats' midterm election prognosis may not be great in the short term, but it's not all doom and gloom either, particularly looking ahead at 2016. A win in the Senate could worsen the GOP's factional struggle for identity, or help propel Hillary Clinton to the presidency by giving her a clear status quo to campaign against.” [National Journal, 11/4/14]

Politico: “For the Democratic Party, Tuesday night was brutal. For Hillary Clinton’s future, however, there were many silver linings.” According to Politico, “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.” [Politico, 11/5/14]

Politico: “A newly-minted Republican Senate helps her [Sec. Clinton] to solve the problem of how to run against Washington.” According to Politico’s coverage of the 2014 elections, “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.” [Politico, 11/5/14]

Politico: The 2014 election results showed Sec. Clinton had “an opportunity to run as an experienced, Margaret Thatcher-type fighter who can govern in an ungovernable moment” in 2016. According to Politico’s coverage of the 2014 elections, “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.” [Politico, 11/5/14]

Daily Beast column: “The media will be full of stories in the next few days about whether Obama will drag Hillary Clinton down for 2016. Could be, but I doubt it. She’s her own brand.” According to The Daily Beast’s Michael Tomasky’s coverage of the 2014 elections, “The media will be full of stories in the next few days about whether Obama will drag Hillary Clinton down for 2016. Could be, but I doubt it. She’s her own brand. As long as the economy isn’t awful, and Benghazi is still a punch line for Jon Stewart, she can survive this.” [Michael Tomasky, The Daily Beast, 11/5/14]

Politico Magazine: “Trend lines are emerging that could very easily turn this into the Democrats’ economy—and perhaps Hillary Clinton’s—by 2016.” According to Politico Magazine, “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.” [Politico Magazine, 11/4/14]