Subject: ​Correct The Record Thursday November 6, 2014 Afternoon Roundup
From: Burns Strider <[email-masked]>
To: CTRFriendsFamily <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2014 15:45:46 -0500
List-Id: <CTRFriendsFamily.americanbridge.org>

*​**Correct The Record Thursday November 6, 2014 Afternoon Roundup:*

*Tweets:*

*Correct The Record* @CorrectRecord: "The Clintons stood up for an
inclusive national party, tirelessly campaigning across the Midwest and
South."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/11/05/upside-of-democratic-party-loss-in-midterms-column/18544401/
…
<http://t.co/cSTQV5OAoH> [11/5/14, 6:27 p.m. EST
<https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/530139297928597504>]

*Correct The Record* @CorrectRecord: .@davidbrockdc
<https://twitter.com/davidbrockdc> in @USATODAY
<https://twitter.com/USATODAY> - GOP extremists riding to Democrats’ rescue
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/11/05/upside-of-democratic-party-loss-in-midterms-column/18544401/
…
<http://t.co/cSTQV5OAoH> [11/5/14, 6:26 p.m. EST
<https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/530139101991673857>]

*Correct The Record* @CorrectRecord: .@HillaryClinton
<https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton> has made children her passion and her
cause for more than 35 years #HRC365
<https://twitter.com/hashtag/HRC365?src=hash> http://bit.ly/1uw7rkz
<http://t.co/XuxGLueXLd> [11/5/14, 2:16 p.m. EST
<https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/530076234446036992>]

*Headlines:*

*Time: “Is This Hillary Clinton’s Moment?”
<http://time.com/3560468/is-this-hillary-clintons-moment/>*

"I watched Clinton speak three times during the campaign, and she limited
herself to women’s issues too, but she did it cleverly. The emphasis was on
economics rather than reproductive rights."

*Bloomberg: “Can Hillary Clinton Save the Democrats?”
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2014-11-06/can-hillary-clinton-save-the-democrats>*

“When the week began, one of the biggest challenges Hillary Clinton faced
was how to separate herself from an unpopular Democratic president. Now she
faces an even tougher task: Saving the Democratic Party.”

*Huffington Post blog: Peter D. Rosenstein: “Hillary Clinton's Vision for
America a Sharp Contrast to Tea Party Congress”
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-d-rosenstein/hillary-clintons-vision-f_b_6114584.html>*

“As recriminations continue over whose fault it is that Democrats lost the
Senate one potential positive is Hillary Rodham Clinton will be able to run
full-out against the ultra-conservative Congress.”

*The Hill blog: Ballot Box: “Clinton getting Hollywood help”
<http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/223180-clinton-getting-hollywood-help-for-possible-presidential>*

“Former secretary of State Hillary Clinton (D) hasn’t yet launched her
expected presidential bid, but she’s already getting Hollywood help for it.”

*The Atlantic: “Democrats Can't Keep Playing Not to Lose”
<http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/11/if-democrats-play-not-to-lose-theyll-lose-in-2016/382448/>*

[Subtitle:] “Senate candidates ran timid midterm campaigns, relying on
turnout and ignoring the issues they're passionate about. The resulting GOP
wave is a warning to Hillary Clinton for 2016.”

*The Hill blog: PCCC’s Adam Green and Stephanie Taylor: “Route to power for
Democrats: Big ideas”
<http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/223101-route-to-power-for-democrats-big-ideas>*

“And Warren was the most popular Democrat on the campaign trail for a
reason: Her message of taking on Wall Street, reducing student debt, and
expanding Social Security benefits is popular everywhere… Hillary Clinton
may be coming around to this strategy. In the final few weeks of the
campaign, she tried to sound more and more like Sen. Warren. (While not
hitting the language precisely, the intent seemed admirable.)”

*Articles:*

*Time: “Is This Hillary Clinton’s Moment?”
<http://time.com/3560468/is-this-hillary-clintons-moment/>*

By Joe Klein

November 6, 2014, 6:38 a.m. EST

[Subtitle:] To win in 2016, she will need to appear fresh, aggressive and
optimistic

On the Sunday before the 2014 election, a vision–perhaps a fantasy–of the
future of the Democratic Party was on display at a get-out-the-vote rally
in Nashua, N.H. The first speaker was Ray Buckley, chairman of the state
party. Every other speaker, and there were lots, was a woman. There were
two female candidates for state senate from the Nashua area. There was one
of New Hampshire’s two (out of two) female members of Congress. There was
Maggie Hassan, the incumbent governor. There was Jeanne Shaheen, a former
governor locked in a tight race for another term in the U.S. Senate.
Hillary Clinton was there too–at the last rally of 45 campaign stops she
made for Democratic candidates during the 2014 campaign.

New Hampshire has always been a magic place for the Clintons. In 1992, Bill
Clinton’s second-place finish gave him new life amid the Gennifer Flowers
and draft-evasion scandals. In 2008, crushed by Barack Obama in Iowa,
Hillary Clinton almost shed a frustrated tear on the day before the
primary, then won, narrowly, keeping her candidacy alive. “You lifted me
up, gave me my voice back,” she told the Nashua crowd. “You taught me so
much about grit and determination.” A big “Ready for Hillary” truck was in
the parking lot. It seemed the 2016 campaign had begun.

A few days later, 4 out of 5 of the female candidates onstage in Nashua won
re-election, but it was an empty victory, since Democrats were crushed
across the country. No doubt, the Republican sweep can be attributed to the
unloved Obama, and to the fact that Presidents usually fare badly in their
sixth-year election, and to the states in play, which favored the
Republicans. But the Democratic candidates were weak and inept; they seemed
defensive, reflexive, played out. They pretty much limited themselves to
women’s issues, and those were clearly not enough to convince a frightened
and frustrated country.

I watched Clinton speak three times during the campaign, and she limited
herself to women’s issues too, but she did it cleverly. The emphasis was on
economics rather than reproductive rights. She was especially good on the
economic impact of pay equity: working women would have more money to
spend, and they would spend it on consumer goods, which would create
jobs–the opposite of trickle-down economics. She told specific personal
stories about her difficulties as a working mom. She spoke slowly, softly,
far more confidently than she had in past campaigns. There was a two-tiered
rationale for her message: she was spot-on the Democrats’ national pitch, a
good soldier selling the blue brand, but the emphasis on women’s rights
also redressed a failing from her 2008 campaign. She had run on
“experience” then and downplayed the fact that she was a piece of history:
the first plausible woman to run for President. She doesn’t have to worry
about experience now; everyone knows she has it. The question is, how does
she play to her strengths as a woman if she chooses to run? (And I assume
she will.) And how does she convince voters that she’s not the same old,
same old?

The 2014 exit polls indicated that both political parties are roundly
disdained. The Republicans earned their enmity because of their angry,
intransigent extremism, but they may be emerging from the swamp. Their
candidates this year were more moderate (though they still pandered
shamelessly to the party’s paranoid base). Even Mitch McConnell was making
postelection noises about getting stuff done in Washington. This raises a
potential problem for Democrats. It could put a crimp in one of their
strongest arguments: We’re not Republicans.

There are two even larger, perhaps existential problems for the Dems. They
are the party of government, and people don’t like government. They don’t
think it works. The botched rollout of Obamacare is far more persuasive to
many people than its ensuing successes. Additionally, Democrats have
allowed themselves to be lulled by demographics. They are strong among
growing blocs: women, young people, minorities. Consequently, they have
come to seem a party of identities rather than issues. They don’t speak to
a larger, unifying sense of America; they speak to women and try to get out
the vote among blacks, Latinos and students. They have come to seem
opportunistic rather than optimistic.

The Obama Presidency is crippled, not dead. There will be opportunities for
compromise and even triumph. But the Democrats are now Hillary Clinton’s
party. She will be challenged for the nomination, and she will have to
adjust to new political realities. She will also have to figure out a way
to seem fresh, aggressive and optimistic–the precise opposite of the
candidates the Democrats put forward in 2014.

*Bloomberg: “Can Hillary Clinton Save the Democrats?”
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2014-11-06/can-hillary-clinton-save-the-democrats>*

By Lisa Lerer

November 6, 2014, 8:04 a.m. EST

[Subtitle:] After a brutal midterm beating, Democrats are looking for a
savior.

When the week began, one of the biggest challenges Hillary Clinton faced
was how to separate herself from an unpopular Democratic president. Now she
faces an even tougher task: Saving the Democratic Party.

The conversation that will greet Clinton if and when she finally pulls the
trigger on her second presidential run is very different than what she may
have expected just a week ago. Weeks before votes were cast, the wide
circle of aides, donors, and backers known as Clinton World were already
engaged in an internal debate over whether she should announce her
candidacy this year. Now, those talks are a piece of a party-wide
re-evaluation as defeated Democrats try and figure out what went wrong on
Tuesday, when they suffered historic midterm losses and lost their majority
in the U.S. Senate.

The difficult political climate, combined with a heavy dose of Democratic
anxiety, heightens the already intense pressure on Clinton and her team to
confront a series of interlocking political questions. People close to
Clinton say she hasn’t totally decided whether she’s going to run, despite
her spot as the Democratic front-runner for nearly two years. She has no
campaign structure in place and confidants say decisions have yet to be
made on staffing, office space and messaging.

Still, as the losses reverberated through Democratic circles, Clinton
allies began positioning her as the one person who can bring the party
back. It’s a role that mirrors the one her husband took on in 1992, when he
offered himself as the embodiment of his party’s hopes of renewal. And, in
perhaps the biggest irony, it's a similar image to the one that fueled
President Barack Obama's underdog primary campaign against a certain New
York senator in 2008.

Clinton supporters argue that with Obama weakened by the loss of the
Senate, it’s easier for Clinton to separate herself from the Democratic
president, who’s not only the leader of her party but her former boss. And
with Republicans running Congress, she can strike a clearer contrast and
position herself as a leader not directly engaged in the partisan fray.

“She has an opportunity to articulate what’s happening with the economy in
ways the president has not,’’ said Stan Greenberg, a Democratic pollster
who advised former President Clinton. “Everybody expects she’s going to
offer a different direction.”

Groups backing Clinton are planning major events later this month. Correct
the Record will hold a donor lunch on Nov. 21 in New York. A day later,
donors involved with Ready for Hillary, a super-PAC laying the groundwork
for a presidential bid, will meet for a daylong strategy session. The
super-PAC, which has its own bus, traveled 40,000 miles during the past
five months, stopping at 40 college campuses and dispatching dozens of
staff to competitive states. They now boast a list of 3 million supporters
and over 100,000 donors.

It's not as though the Clinton team emerged from the midterm elections
unscathed. Former Clinton staffer Guy Cecil is the executive director of
the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, which spent $60 million in a
much-hyped project aimed at expanding the Democratic ground game in the
midterms. Another ally, Stephanie Schriock, is the president of Emily’s
List, which played big in the election and lost some high-profile races.

The Clintons themselves held 109 events for Democratic candidates this
cycle, with much of their attention focused on the South. In Kentucky,
Hillary Clinton was the star attraction of a splashy Louisville rally and
returned to the state 15 days later to address 1,200 supporters at
Transylvania University. "Get out there in the next three days and make
sure you send Alison Lundergan Grimes to Washington," she said.

The voters didn’t listen. Grimes lost Kentucky by 16 points, including a
14-point deficit to McConnell with white women, according to exit polling—a
group Clinton was expected to help deliver.

Clinton targeted her campaign speeches to working women, focusing her
message on better family leave, equal pay, improved childcare policies.
Campaigning for New York Governor Andrew Cuomo in Manhattan last month,
Clinton recounted her search for someone to watch a sick, 2-year-old
Chelsea when she was due in court for a trial. With no family in town, she
found a friend to fill in, although that didn't relieve the worry she felt
throughout the day. “Let's not kid ourselves, we have not achieved
equality. We have made a lot of progress, don't get me wrong, I'm standing
here as a prime example of it,” she told supporters. “But we have not yet
seen the kind of progress that will ripple out from this ballroom to every
woman in New York and beyond.”

Republicans were eager to advertise the Clinton losses. Kentucky Republican
Rand Paul posted a Facebook album of photos of Clinton campaigning with
candidates who lost on Tuesday. Each was tagged #HillarysLosers. The next
morning, the Republican National Committee distributed a memo titled,
“Hillary’s Policies Were On The Ballot.”

“Hillary Clinton and Billl Clinton have been all over the place and trying
to make it out as if they’re somehow better for Democrats,” Paul said on
Fox News. “The facts are the facts. Did the Clintons help the ticket? So
far, I don’t think they have.”

Tuesday’s results have also emboldened potential opponents within her own
party. Senator Elizabeth Warren emerged less scathed. Her supporters are
planning a big push on her behalf starting next week, with events in early
primary states. “The results show that candidates who are chosen by party
insiders aren’t always the strongest candidates,’’ said Eric Sagran,
campaign manager of Ready for Warren, the political action committee
advocating for her candidacy. “People want to see candidates who stand up
for their convictions.”

That message is being echoed throughout the progressive wing of the party,
with labor unions and liberal activist groups arguing on Tuesday that the
political losses, contrasted with support for minimum wage initiatives,
illustrate a desire for candidates willing to push progressive economic
policies.

“Democrats lost the Senate tonight because they ran too little and too late
on Elizabeth Warren-inspired populist progressive priorities like expanding
Social Security benefits, breaking up the big banks, and student loan
reform that polls show are overwhelmingly popular with Americans,” said
Charles Chamberlain, executive director, of the liberal Democracy for
America. “The bright spots in this election come from Warren Wing Senate
candidates.”

*Huffington Post blog: Peter D. Rosenstein: “Hillary Clinton's Vision for
America a Sharp Contrast to Tea Party Congress”
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-d-rosenstein/hillary-clintons-vision-f_b_6114584.html>*

By Peter Rosenstein

November 6, 2014, 10:16 a.m. EST

As recriminations continue over whose fault it is that Democrats lost the
Senate one potential positive is Hillary Rodham Clinton will be able to run
full-out against the ultra-conservative Congress.

When as many believe she will announce her candidacy for President in the
beginning of 2015 she will be helped by the likes of senator Ted Cruz
(R-TX), the current incarnation of the late Senator Joseph McCarthy (D-WI),
who was quoted in the Washington Post saying "The first order of business
should be a series of hearings on President Obama, looking at the abuse of
power, the executive abuse, the regulatory abuse, the lawlessness that
sadly has pervaded this administration." The Post went on to write "When
Cruz was asked if he would back Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky for
Republican leader, Cruz would not pledge his support -- an indication that
there are limits to how much of a partner he's willing to be."

When Hillary Clinton lays out her vision for America it will be in sharp
contrast to what Republican members of Congress believe. Her vision will
include full and equal participation by women in every part of American
society; and an immigration policy that lays out a path for citizenship for
those already here and allows their children to be educated. Her vision
will include rebuilding America's infrastructure and providing decent high
paying jobs for all Americans. It will include ensuring a strong and robust
foreign policy that uses all the tools available to a President, from
diplomacy and economic sanctions to understanding that having the best
military in the world is a deterrent but that a President must be willing
to use it as a last resort if all else fails. Her vision for American
includes ensuring that every child has the chance to grow up and reach
their full potential and that everyone including women, minorities and LGBT
Americans have their full civil and human rights.

That vision will be in sharp contrast to Republicans of all stripes in both
houses of Congress who will be offering hearings and recriminations instead
of the action voters want. They will be offering 'personhood' amendments
and trying to take away healthcare from millions of Americans who now have
it through the Affordable Care Act. Americans will hear Hillary's vision
and then see that their representatives in Washington aren't able to work
together and are failing to solve issues such as immigration, raising the
minimum wage, ensuring affordable healthcare for all Americans, and
guaranteeing that our veterans, the brave men and women who fought for our
nation, are taken care of. Voters will see a Congress continuing to try to
give tax breaks to the rich instead of working to ensure that Medicare and
Social Security are viable far into the future for them and their children.
They will contrast Hillary's vision for the nation with what Congress is
doing, or not doing, and come to the conclusion that the new Republican
majority isn't focused on the things that will make their lives better and
the bloom will be off the rose very quickly.

Many are confident that rational people understand while there was a
Republican wave there still aren't enough Tea Party votes to override a
Presidential veto and no ultra-conservative legislation will become law.
Republicans will end up getting the blame for continuing the stalemate in
Washington and 2016 when Republicans will have to defend 24 seats in the
Senate and Democrats only 10 will have a different outcome.

So ready-or-not the 2016 Presidential campaign officially began on November
5, 2014. In less than three months the year-long speculation about whether
or not Hillary will run will come to an end.

If Hillary announces she begins with an advantage far surpassing anything
people thought she had in 2008 when she first ran. Today there is no other
candidate like Barack Obama waiting in the wings. Those trying to turn
Elizabeth Warren into that candidate are stymied because she is a very
smart woman and realizes she isn't ready and can't win. She has an
important message which we must heed and is a good Senator with the
potential to become a great one.

The Ready for Hillary PAC which is continuing to raise money to expand the
package they will turn over to Hillary's campaign provides the kind of head
start that no candidate has ever had. They have nearly 3 million current
email addresses of supporters across the nation, thousands in every state,
and a list of 100,000 active donors, with new donors and emails being added
daily. There has never been anything like it in the history of politics and
Hillary can thank Adam Parkhomenko and Allida Black who founded the
organization for the incredible advantage she will have when she jumps into
the race.

There are millions of people Ready for Hillary who believe she will shortly
say she is ready to answer their call and begin the journey that will
result in her being inaugurated the nation's 45th and first woman President
of the United States on January 20, 2017.

*The Hill blog: Ballot Box: “Clinton getting Hollywood help”
<http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/223180-clinton-getting-hollywood-help-for-possible-presidential>*

By Alexandra Jaffe

November 6, 2014, 10:21 a.m. EST

Former secretary of State Hillary Clinton (D) hasn’t yet launched her
expected presidential bid, but she’s already getting Hollywood help for it.

Hollywood mega-producer Jeffrey Katzenberg started calling donors to secure
committments for Priorities USA Action, the super-PAC expected to handle
advertising for Clinton’s bid, the day after the midterm elections,
according to the Washington Post. He and adviser Andy Spahn are planning to
travel the nation to meet with donors face-to-face.

“We will [be] reaching out in the weeks ahead to set up one-on-ones and
meet-and-greets to talk about the urgency of the task ahead,” Spahn told
the Post

Other leaders of the group, including former Michigan Gov. Jennifer
Granholm, executive director Buffy Wicks and senior advisers Sean Sweeney
and Paul Begala, have also kicked their fundraising efforts into high-gear.

The super-PAC is simply looking to lock down commitments from donors, and
won’t collect the money until and unless Clinton launches her probable
White House bid. But the fundraisers are pitching the preliminary donations
as integral to shaping the early presidential debate and getting ready to
defend Clinton against any potential attacks, a role which Priorities
played effectively for President Obama in the early stages of the 2012
election.

*The Atlantic: “Democrats Can't Keep Playing Not to Lose”
<http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/11/if-democrats-play-not-to-lose-theyll-lose-in-2016/382448/>*

By Peter Beinart

November 6, 2014, 11:25 a.m. EST

[Subtitle:] Senate candidates ran timid midterm campaigns, relying on
turnout and ignoring the issues they're passionate about. The resulting GOP
wave is a warning to Hillary Clinton for 2016.

At a dinner in Iowa in November 2007, in the speech that launched his
victory over Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama accused his party of timidity.
“Not answering questions because we’re afraid our answers won’t be popular
just won’t do it,” he thundered. “Triangulating and poll-driven positions
because we’re worried about what Mitt or Rudy might say about us just won’t
do it. If we are really serious about winning this election, Democrats,
then, we can’t live in fear of losing.”

This fall, Democrats ran like they were afraid of losing. Consider the
issues that most Democrats think really matter: Climate change, which a
United Nations report just warned will have “severe, pervasive and
irreversible impacts” across the globe. The expansion of Medicaid, so
millions of poor families have health coverage. Our immoral and incoherent
immigration system. Our epidemic of gun violence, which produces a
mini-Sandy Hook every few weeks. The rigging of America’s political and
economic system by the one percent.

For the most part, Democratic candidates shied away from these issues
because they were too controversial. Instead they stuck to topics that were
safe, familiar and broadly popular: the minimum wage, outsourcing, and the
“war on women.” The result, for the most part, was homogenized,
inauthentic, forgettable campaigns. Think about the Democrats who ran in
contested seats Tuesday night: Grimes, Nunn, Hagan, Pryor, Hagan, Shaheen,
Landrieu, Braley, Udall, Begich, Warner. During the entire campaign, did a
single one of them have what Joe Klein once called a “Turnip Day moment”—a
bold, spontaneous outbreak of genuine conviction? Did a single one unfetter
himself or herself from the consultants and take a political risk to
support something he or she passionately believed was right?

I’m not claiming that such displays would have changed the outcome. Given
President Obama’s unpopularity, Democratic victories, especially in red
states, may have been impossible.

But there is a crucial lesson here for 2016. In recent years, some
Democrats have convinced themselves they can turn out African Americans,
Latinos, single women, the poor, and the young merely by employing fancy
computer systems and exploiting Republican extremism. But technologically,
Republicans are catching up, and they’re getting shrewder about blunting,
or at least masking, the harshness of their views.

We saw the consequences on Tuesday. According to exit polls, voters under
30 constituted only 13 percent of the electorate, down from 19 percent in
2012. In Florida, the Latino share of the electorate dropped from 17 to 13
percent. In North Carolina, the African-American share dropped from 23 to
21 percent.

If Hillary Clinton wants to reverse those numbers, she’s going to have to
inspire people—people who, more than their Republican counterparts, are
inclined toward disconnection and despair. And her gender alone won’t be
enough. She lost to Obama in 2008 in part because she could not overcome
her penchant for ultra-cautious, hyper-sanitized, consultant-speak. Yet on
the stump this year, she was as deadening as the candidates she campaigned
for. As Molly Ball put it in September, “Everywhere Hillary Clinton goes, a
thousand cameras follow. Then she opens her mouth, and nothing happens.”

The midterms should be a warning that that won’t be good enough. In
general, young people don’t have the same passion for Hillary that they had
for Obama. Neither do African Americans. Neither do many liberals. If she’s
going to rouse them to the polls in the same remarkable numbers that Obama
did, she’s going to have to take the risk of actually saying something.
She’s going to have to find a big issue that she truly cares about and
speak about it with reckless conviction.

The Republican against whom Hillary runs in 2016 will campaign like George
W. Bush in 2000. Rhetorically, at least, he will ooze compassion. He will
sand off all his party’s hard edges. He will probably put a woman or
minority on the ticket. He will campaign on non-threatening change, and
simply by being a Republican, he will win older white voters by a vast
margin.

To reassemble the Obama coalition against such a candidate, Hillary Clinton
will have to become a different candidate than she was this fall. To win,
she’s going to have to show there are subjects she cares about deeply
enough to be willing to lose.

*The Hill blog: PCCC’s Adam Green and Stephanie Taylor: “Route to power for
Democrats: Big ideas”
<http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/223101-route-to-power-for-democrats-big-ideas>*

By Adam Green and Stephanie Taylor, co-founders of the Progressive Change
Campaign Committee

November 6, 2014, 12:00 p.m. EST

Democrats lost on Tuesday, as widely predicted. But for months, pundits got
wrong what Democrats would need to win.

There was rumor that youth turnout, Latino turnout, and cutting-edge Get
Out The Vote practices would tip the balance in close races. But when
"close" elections are decided by 7 to 12 points, something much bigger is
happening.

Pundits say President Obama was unpopular. Score one for the pundits. But
the critical question is: Why was the president so unpopular?

Did voters not show up because of Syria, Obamacare, or Ebola? No.

Was President Obama proposing some big liberal idea, sparking backlash? No.
It's hard to remember the last time the President offered a big idea.

Jobs and economic security are consistently the top issues voters say they
care about in red, purple, and blue states. But Democrats did not have a
united economic agenda in this election.

Voters did not wake up on Election Day thinking that their ability to have
a job, have affordable college education, or to retire with security was at
stake. It was a Seinfeld-ian election about nothing. And nothing does not
inspire potential voters to vote. In the absence of big ideas, Democrats
lost.

(Of note, some Democrats campaigned as Republicans. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.)
campaigned as the "most conservative Senate Democrat" -- but voters chose a
real Republican over a fake one.)

However, someone did spark energy this election cycle. sen. Elizabeth
Warren (D-Mass.) attracted standing-room only crowds in red and purple
states. Democrats who didn't want to be seen with the president were proud
to be seen with Warren.

And  Warren was the most popular Democrat on the campaign trail for a
reason: Her message of taking on Wall Street, reducing student debt, and
expanding Social Security benefits is popular everywhere.

While progressives such as Sens. Al Franken (D-Minn.), Jeff Merkley
(D-ore.), and Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) won re-election -- and
Representatives Rick Nolan (D-Minn.) and Mike Honda (D-calif.) won their
close races -- they won because they have consistently been economic
populists and local voters knew that. But for other Democrats across the
nation, nothing substitutes for a clear, authentic, united Democratic
message focused on big ideas.

Moving forward, something needs to change for Democrats. We need a bigger
politics. We won't win our own tidal wave elections unless we can build a
movement around big ideas -- like free college education, full employment,
Medicare for All, expanded Social Security, and real reform of Wall Street.

We need to make these issues so central to the national debate that
candidates actively campaign on these ideas. And we need to start now.

Hillary Clinton may be coming around to this strategy. In the final few
weeks of the campaign, she tried to sound more and more like Sen. Warren.
(While not hitting the language precisely, the intent seemed admirable.)

Progressives will be organizing in states like New Hampshire and Iowa to
ensure that all Democrats running for president take a position on -- and
campaign actively on -- Elizabeth Warren's bold populist agenda. This is
the path to victory in the primary and general election.

A national progressive movement stands ready to work with those leaders in
Congress who choose to recognize this imperative and step up to champion
big ideas.

And if Obama makes Warren's agenda the centerpiece of his agenda in 2015,
his popularity will rise and Americans will get the debate about big, bold
ideas that we deserve.

Focusing on big ideas is the path forward for progressives and Democrats.
The Warren wing of American politics is ready to lead.