Subject: Correct The Record Sunday November 9, 2014 Roundup
From: Burns Strider <[email-masked]>
To: CTRFriendsFamily <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2014 14:04:53 -0500
List-Id: <CTRFriendsFamily.americanbridge.org>

*​**Correct The Record Sunday November 9, 2014 Roundup:*

*Headlines:*

*Bloomberg View: Albert R. Hunt: “Clinton Should Be Ready for Predictable
Attacks”
<http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-11-09/clinton-should-be-ready-for-predictable-attacks>*

“The former secretary of state, who is almost certain to run for president,
has the luxury of time to elaborate her strategy. There will be matters
beyond her control: relentless attacks, including some from the left.”

*NBC News: “Howard Dean on MTP: 'Where the Hell is the Democratic Party?'’
<http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/howard-dean-mtp-where-hell-democratic-party-n244636>*

“Dean, a former presidential candidate himself, insisted that he is not
running and will support Hillary Clinton in two years.”

*BuzzFeed: “The Facebook Election”
<http://www.buzzfeed.com/bensmith/the-facebook-election>*

“Some details from the first simple cut of sentiment data we got, spanning
Oct. 26 to Nov. 5: Clinton, the most discussed Democrat on Facebook, and
Warren have almost identical sentiment ratings — 57% positive and 40%
negative for Clinton; 56% positive and 40% negative for Warren.”

*ABC News: “Hillary Clinton Leads In Facebook Interactions Before, After
Midterm Elections”
<http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/11/hillary-clinton-leads-in-facebook-interactions-among-some-potential-2016-contenders-before-after-midterm-elections/>*

“According to data provided to ABC News from the social networking site
Facebook, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton led a pack of potential
2016 presidential candidates in terms of the number of “interactions” on
the social site in the days leading up to and the day after the Nov. 4
midterm elections.”

*Washington Post blog: Post Politics: “Scott Walker: We need a governor to
beat Hillary Clinton … or maybe Paul Ryan”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/11/09/scott-walker-we-need-a-governor-to-beat-hillary-clinton-or-maybe-paul-ryan/>*

“‘I love Paul Ryan,’ Walker said on NBC's ‘Meet the Press,’ according to a
transcript. ‘I've said many times before I’ll be the president of the Paul
Ryan fan club, but I do think if we’re going to beat Hillary Clinton in
this next election, we’re going to have a message that says Hillary Clinton
is all about Washington.’”

*Associated Press: “George W. Bush gives 50-50 odds Jeb run in 2016”
<http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_289563/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=DtZalMf7>*

“Former President George W. Bush is giving even odds about whether another
Bush will try to occupy the White House.”

*Washington Post: “GOP presidential hopefuls jockey for position in a
crowded 2016 field”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gop-presidential-hopefuls-jockey-for-position-in-a-crowded-2016-field/2014/11/08/da41466e-66b5-11e4-bb14-4cfea1e742d5_story.html?hpid=z1>*

"Whereas Democrats are rapidly coalescing around Hillary Rodham Clinton as
their standard-bearer, there is no heir apparent on the Republican side.
The field is as splintered as the Grand Old Party itself, with stark
differences along the lines of ideology, style and background."

*New York Daily News: “Hillary Clinton could be Democrats' sole star after
midterm elections brought GOP takeover”
<http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/hillary-clinton-democrats-star-gop-midterm-article-1.2004093>*

[Subtitle:] “Republicans snatched control of the Senate, built a commanding
majority in the House and strengthened their grip on state legislatures and
governorships, the breeding ground for political talent.”

*Washington Post opinion: Sen. Elizabeth Warren: “Elizabeth Warren: It’s
time to work on America’s agenda”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/elizabeth-warren-its-time-to-work-on-americas-agenda/2014/11/07/984da7b6-669c-11e4-9fdc-d43b053ecb4d_story.html>*

“It’s not about big government or small government. It’s not the size of
government that worries people; rather it’s deep-down concern over who
government works for.”

*MSNBC: “Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s post-election populist pitch”
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/elizabeth-warren-out-post-election-populist-pitch>*

“Bouncing back from an Election Day blowout that cost Democrats the Senate,
Sen. Elizabeth Warren is calling on her colleagues in Washington to focus
on issues facing everyday Americans.”

*Article:*

*Bloomberg View: Albert R. Hunt: “Clinton Should Be Ready for Predictable
Attacks”
<http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-11-09/clinton-should-be-ready-for-predictable-attacks>*

By Albert R. Hunt

November 9, 2014, 11:03 a.m. EST

The Democrats' drubbing in the midterm elections simplified one of Hillary
Clinton's challenges: Now she can strike some distance from President
Barack Obama. Everybody else is doing it.

The former secretary of state, who is almost certain to run for president,
has the luxury of time to elaborate her strategy. There will be matters
beyond her control: relentless attacks, including some from the left.

But it's mainly the political right and Republicans who will work
tirelessly to dig up dirt on the expected 2016 Democratic nominee. For all
the talk of empowered congressional Republicans investigating every facet
of the Obama administration, they won't miss any opportunity to look into
Clinton.

She's tough, resilient, and likely to be prepared for this predictable
onslaught. More instructive is whether she's prepared for matters within
her control. These include defining her candidacy and possible presidency.
It won't be sufficient to run on competence, breadth of experience and
reminders that, by the way, my husband's White House years were the salad
days for the U.S. economy.

Her foreign policy credentials are fodder for champions and critics alike.
But there is no domestic centerpiece. She needs an innovative, even bold
approach -- this is a cautious politician -- to dealing with middle-class
economic stagnation and income inequality.

That requires choices and trade-offs. She has a good and lucrative
association with Goldman Sachs. She also praises the liberal Massachusetts
Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren: "I love watching Elizabeth give it to
those who deserve to get it," she said last month at a campaign rally in
Massachusetts. One of the institutions Warren likes to "give it to" is
Goldman Sachs.

Can Clinton put together an efficient, functioning campaign? In the
2007-2008 cycle, the Clinton camp was rife with infighting, warring clans
as the many elements of Clintonland weighed in, sometimes not helpfully.
Especially controversial was top strategist Mark Penn, who had to step down
late in the campaign when it was disclosed he was simultaneously working
for the government of Colombia.

It's expected that former President Bill Clinton's chief of staff, John
Podesta, will assume the role of chief executive in the 2016 campaign. It
would be a widely praised selection. He is an adult who, as a strategist,
understands the nexus of politics and policy as well as anyone since Jim
Baker, the legendary Republican who served in the Ronald Reagan and George
H.W. Bush administrations.

Other names being considered for top positions include Democratic
operatives and Clinton campaign alumni such as Robby Mook, who won every
primary he directed for her in 2008, and Guy Cecil, who has run the
Democrats' national Senate campaign committee. There also are prominent
women such as Stephanie Schriock, who has managed successful Senate
candidates and now runs Emily's List, which tries to elect pro-choice
Democratic women to political office. (And Penn, who was on the outs, is
reportedly talking to the Clintons.)

Clinton also is reaching out for advice outside her political circle, most
notably from David Plouffe, who ran Obama's presidential campaigns.

And unlike 2008, this time she'll get the crucial technology and data right.

The big question is whether she will assemble a coherent team that holds at
bay some of the more disruptive elements of the far-reaching Clinton
constellation.

Will there be a Bill problem? The former president's indelicate comments
caused her some anxiety in 2008. He was rusty then, having been out of the
campaigning limelight for a while. In 2012 and during this year's midterm
congressional elections, he's shown he's back: easily America's best stump
campaigner as well as the most popular politician.

Like everyone else, she pales next to him on the campaign trail. He also
possesses superb political instincts; she doesn't and is more methodical.
Unfavorable comparisons will be made; she can't let that get to her.

The ex-secretary of state's book and promotional tour earlier this year
fell flat. Yet she won raves for her campaign appearances this autumn.

In modern American politics, there has never been such a prohibitive
front-runner who wasn't the incumbent president. No one, in either party,
can boast of such odds of winning. Yet Clinton's path will be full of
unforeseen changes, and more than a few ugly moments.

How she prepares in the next few months may well determine how she weathers
the storms.

*NBC News: “Howard Dean on MTP: 'Where the Hell is the Democratic Party?'’
<http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/howard-dean-mtp-where-hell-democratic-party-n244636>*

By Shaquille Brewster

November 9, 2014

Former Vermont Governor Howard Dean believes Democrats suffered a bad
midterm election because they lacked a clear message. “Where the hell is
the Democratic party?" he asked on NBC’s Meet the Press Sunday. "You've got
to stand for something if you want to win."

Dean criticized Washington Democrats for never being able to stay on
message, agreeing with Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C., who said his party did
not do a good job communicating what President Obama has done.

"The Republican message was, 'We're not Obama.' No substance whatsoever,"
Dean said. But after rhetorically asking himself the message from
Democrats, Dean answered sarcastically "Oh, well, we're really not either."

Dean, the former chair of the Democratic National Committee who created the
"50 State Strategy" for the party after its defeat in 2004, said Democrats
can pick up the pieces again. However, he told moderator Chuck Todd “You
cannot win if you are afraid!”

Dean, a former presidential candidate himself, insisted that he is not
running and will support Hillary Clinton in two years. Dean said Democrats
have to put money into the state parties order to rebuild the organization
that made President Obama’s campaigns so successful.

"You've got to strengthen the state parties. It requires discipline,
accountability, but it also requires money to go to the state parties and
we have to trust the state parties," Dean explained.

Dean said his party will rebound if they raise and stand for economic
"lunch-bucket issues" and expanding opportunity. He added Democrats should
be debating a Supreme Court that has "deviated from the Constitution on
numerous occasions." Dean added "I still have yet to find where the
Constitution says a corporation is a person."

*BuzzFeed: “The Facebook Election”
<http://www.buzzfeed.com/bensmith/the-facebook-election>*

By Ben Smith

November 9, 2014, 9:11 a.m. EST

[Subtitle:] The social network may end TV’s long dominance of American
politics — and open the door to a new kind of populism. BuzzFeed News and
ABC News share exclusive access to Facebook’s new “sentiment data.”

At some point in the next two years, the pollsters and ad makers who steer
American presidential campaigns will be stumped: The nightly tracking polls
are showing a dramatic swing in the opinions of the electorate, but neither
of two typical factors — huge news or a major advertising buy — can explain
it. They will, eventually, realize that the viral, mass conversation about
politics on Facebook and other platforms has finally emerged as a third
force in the core business of politics, mass persuasion.

Facebook is on the cusp — and I suspect 2016 will be the year this becomes
clear — of replacing television advertising as the place where American
elections are fought and won. The vast new network of some 185 million
Americans opens the possibility, for instance, of a congressional candidate
gaining traction without the expense of television, and of an inexpensive
new viral populism. The way people share will shape the outcome of the
presidential election. Even during the 2014 midterms, which most Americans
ignored, Facebook says it saw 43 million unique individuals engage in the
political conversation. Now a rawly powerful video may reach far more
voters in a few hours than a multimillion-dollar ad buy; and it will reach
them from trusted sources — their friends — not via suspect, one-way
channels.

And so we at BuzzFeed News are deeply excited to have nearly exclusive
access (it’s shared with a broadcast partner, ABC News) to a powerful new
window into the largest political conversation in America. This data will
be drawn from a Facebook project working in the tricky field of “sentiment
analysis,” the attempt to analyze people’s feelings based on what they
write, which we think may be the most important new source of political
data in the 2016 elections. This project will allow BuzzFeed News reporters
to ask Facebook for data on, for instance, how Iowans feel about Hillary
Clinton, or which Republican candidate appears to be best liked by women.

The field of sentiment analysis is as famous for its pitfalls as for any
successes. Sentiment analysis has been bad at detecting sarcasm, for
instance. But there’s good reason to think that if anyone can pull this
off, it will be Facebook. First, it has access to a far, far larger sample
of natural language than any other social network. What’s more, that
carries with it contextual data that can serve as a point of departure for
sentiment analysis — the field, in particular, that allows people to
include how they’re feeling or what they’re doing when they post status
updates. And third, Facebook quite simply has some of the best data
scientists in the world, and has built a company on a deep and
comprehensive understanding of user data. We’re also comfortable with
Facebook’s approach to its users’ privacy with this data, which is
anonymous and aggregate, with no data available for groups of interactions
under 1,000.

The Facebook sentiment data BuzzFeed News will have access to is a new
window into not just what Americans are talking about, but which way their
sentiment is moving.

Some details from the first simple cut of sentiment data we got, spanning
Oct. 26 to Nov. 5: Clinton, the most discussed Democrat on Facebook, and
Warren have almost identical sentiment ratings — 57% positive and 40%
negative for Clinton; 56% positive and 40% negative for Warren.

Fascinatingly, Joe Biden, though subject of just a quarter Clinton’s volume
of conversation, is also viewed in a warmer light, with 67% of the
conversation about him positive — a hint of the sort of politician, raw and
authentic and occasionally stumbling, who thrives in this new medium.

On the Republican side, Chris Christie is the most discussed figure, but
the results are far more mixed: 47% of the sentiment is positive, 45%
negative. The twist: The conversation about Christie is far more negative
inside his home state of New Jersey than outside it — just 33% positive in
the state, but 52% positive outside it. The most warmly viewed Republicans
are Condoleezza Rice and Paul Ryan. Sentiment about Jeb Bush, meanwhile, is
underwater.

BuzzFeed News’ staff, led on this project by political editor Katherine
Miller and data editor Jeremy Singer-Vine and their teams, will be diving
deep into this data over the next two years. We anticipate bringing our
readers and the broader web both daily updates and more complex news and
analyses, always treating the data with analytical rigor, and comparing it
with public polling and other sources of information. The data will be
granular enough to see trends among and between states, between men and
women inside states, and among age groups.

The Facebook sentiment data isn’t a substitute for polling, in part because
the huge sample of Americans on Facebook still isn’t co-extensive with the
electorate, but the sentiment data has the potential to be an important and
telling complement to it.

We are devoting resources to this sentiment data set because of its place
in the broad and evolving shift in American politics toward the social web.

This shift is not just about Facebook. First, starting about 10 years ago,
political organizing and small-dollar fundraising moved to email, a good
channel for politicians to communicate directly with their most loyal
supporters. Then the inside conversation moved to the social web first,
with the abrupt shift from the political blogosphere to Twitter in 2009 and
2010.

Candidates, however, have struggled to take the third and most vital
element of politics — mass persuasion — to the web, and remain reliant on
the dusty 30-second television ad, blasted out to voters in the least
targeted way imaginable.

What is beginning to dawn on campaigns is that persuasion works differently
when it relies on sharing. It is a political truism that people are most
likely to believe what their friends and neighbors tell them, a truth that
explains everything from sophisticated and earnest door-knocking efforts to
malign email-forward whispering campaigns. And the social conversation
favors things that generations of politicians have been trained to avoid:
spontaneity, surprise, authenticity, humor, raw edge, the occasional human
stumble. (Joe Biden!) As mobile becomes increasingly central to the social
web, I suspect that more voters in 2016 will be persuaded by a video in
their Facebook mobile browsers than by any other medium.

This isn’t a change in how the same politicians and campaigns distribute
the same old media. It’s a deeper change in which politicians will thrive.
Platforms have always shaped presidential politics — think of John F.
Kennedy’s native grasp of television — and the 2016 election has the
potential to be another turning point.

A few modern politicians appear to have a real feel for the raw emotion
and, sometimes, (apparent) spontaneity that people will want to share.
Elizabeth Warren’s blunt and casual economic 2011 tirade and Ted Cruz’s
theatrical confrontations (and even his own low-production-value cell phone
videos) are the beginnings of that viral populism for which the social web
has opened a real space.

BuzzFeed News’ new project with Facebook sentiment data will tell us and
our readers how this new viral politics affects the Americans it reaches.
And the stakes, the presidency, are as high as they get.

*ABC News: “Hillary Clinton Leads In Facebook Interactions Before, After
Midterm Elections”
<http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/11/hillary-clinton-leads-in-facebook-interactions-among-some-potential-2016-contenders-before-after-midterm-elections/>*

By Benjamin Bell

November 9, 2014, 11:12 a.m. EST

According to data provided to ABC News from the social networking site
Facebook, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton led a pack of potential
2016 presidential candidates in terms of the number of “interactions” on
the social site in the days leading up to and the day after the Nov. 4
midterm elections.

Facebook — which defines interactions as “posts, comments, likes and
shares” — measured the number of interactions related to each person on the
site between October 26th and November 5.

See the number of interactions of potential 2016 contenders below:

Hillary Clinton: 312,000

Chris Christie: 233,000

Ted Cruz: 152,000

Rand Paul: 93,000

Jeb Bush: 88,000

*Washington Post blog: Post Politics: “Scott Walker: We need a governor to
beat Hillary Clinton … or maybe Paul Ryan”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/11/09/scott-walker-we-need-a-governor-to-beat-hillary-clinton-or-maybe-paul-ryan/>*

By Aaron Blake

November 9, 2014, 11:03 a.m. EST

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) suggested strongly Sunday that he would be
open to running for president in 2016.

In doing so, Walker would not say whether he would defer to his home-state
colleague and 2012 vice presidential nominee, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.). But
he did say the GOP should nominate a governor for president rather than a
member of Congress or someone in Washington.

"I love Paul Ryan," Walker said on NBC's "Meet the Press," according to a
transcript. "I've said many times before I’ll be the president of the Paul
Ryan fan club, but I do think if we’re going to beat Hillary Clinton in
this next election, we’re going to have a message that says Hillary Clinton
is all about Washington."

When host Chuck Todd pressed Walker on whether he was saying Ryan isn't a
good choice because of his ties to Washington, Walker relented a little.

"Paul may be the only exception to that rule," he said, "but, overall, I
believe governors make much better presidents than members of Congress."

Walker, who was reelected Tuesday, said that it was his plan to serve out
his full four-year term but that he's open to what the future might hold.

"I've got a plan to keep going for the next four years," Walker said. "But,
you know, certainly I care deeply about not only my state but my country,
and we’ll see what the future holds."

*Associated Press: “George W. Bush gives 50-50 odds Jeb run in 2016”
<http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_289563/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=DtZalMf7>*

By Nedra Pickler

November 9, 2014

WASHINGTON (AP) - Former President George W. Bush is giving even odds about
whether another Bush will try to occupy the White House.

Brother Jeb, a former Florida governor, is "wrestling with the decision" of
running for the Republican nomination for president in 2016, George W. Bush
says.

"I think it's 50-50," the former president told CBS' "Face the Nation."

"He and I are very close. On the other hand, he's not here knocking on my
door, you know, agonizing about the decision. He knows exactly, you know,
the ramifications on family, for example. He's seen his dad and his brother
go through the presidency. I'd give it a tossup."

The former president was more conservative in his estimate than another
family member. Jeb Bush's son George P. Bush said two weeks ago it was more
likely than not that the former Florida governor would move forward.

George W. Bush is promoting "41," a book about his father, former President
George H.W. Bush.

"One of the lessons you learn from George H.W. Bush is that you can go into
politics and still be a good father," George W. Bush said when asked if
it's worth putting a family through a presidential campaign. "I put our
family through it," he responded.

George W. Bush said he would be "all in" for his brother if he decides to
run for the office and would do whatever he asks, even if it's to stay
behind the scenes. As for their mother's position that enough Bushes have
run for president, he said, "Sometimes her prognostications haven't been
very accurate."

*Washington Post: “GOP presidential hopefuls jockey for position in a
crowded 2016 field”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gop-presidential-hopefuls-jockey-for-position-in-a-crowded-2016-field/2014/11/08/da41466e-66b5-11e4-bb14-4cfea1e742d5_story.html?hpid=z1>*

By Philip Rucker

November 8, 2014, 6:19 p.m. EST

More than a dozen Republican governors and senators are rushing to line up
supporters, pore over policies and map out strategies for the 2016
presidential campaign, concluding that last week’s midterm rout of
Democrats shows that the GOP has a strong chance of taking back the White
House.

Whereas Democrats are rapidly coalescing around Hillary Rodham Clinton as
their standard-bearer, there is no heir apparent on the Republican side.
The field is as splintered as the Grand Old Party itself, with stark
differences along the lines of ideology, style and background.

“Tuesday night certainly gives the Republicans a sense of hope and
momentum, and that fuels enthusiasm, interest and engagement,” said former
Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty (R), a 2012 presidential candidate.
“There’s an enhanced opportunity that will propel more candidates toward
2016.”

For the first time in a generation, there is no singularly dominant
contender on the Republican side, leaving a passel of governors, senators
and other luminaries jockeying for position.

Some hopefuls sound all but certain to run: Texas Gov. Rick Perry is
inviting hundreds of policy heavyweights, financiers and grass-roots
activists to Austin for private consultations in December, his final full
month in office. Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.) has summoned his advisers, donors and
supporters to Washington this week for strategy meetings. Sen. Ted Cruz
(Tex.) is preparing to push a hard-line conservative agenda on Capitol
Hill, beginning this week in the Senate’s lame-duck session.

Intense courtship of major donors has been underway for months. It could
take about $100 million — in addition to more from a hefty independent
super PAC — for a candidate to secure the nomination, and the eventual
nominee must have the capacity to raise $1 billion for the general
election. But many big donors have been reticent to pick a horse so soon.

“If somebody called me this week to talk about it, I’d be offended,” said
Fred Malek, a prominent GOP donor in Virginia. “I’d say, ‘Hey, for Christ’s
sake, we just spent a ton of money helping you get elected and now you’re
asking us about the next campaign?’ ”

Ohio Gov. John Kasich established himself as a serious contender after he
easily won reelection Tuesday in a quadrennial swing state, as did
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, whose commanding win — his third in four years
— strengthened his claim to top-tier status.

A likely rival to Kasich and Walker, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie,
campaigned as chairman of the Republican Governors Association for fellow
governors in 23 states over the past two months and is basking in the glow
of unexpected blue-state victories. Christie kept a grueling pace on the
campaign trail — he visited Illinois eight times and Florida seven times —
and came away convinced that with the right economic-results-oriented
message, Republicans could make inroads with independent, Hispanic and
black voters.

Although Christie mostly has rebounded politically from a major
bridge-related scandal a year ago, his temperament remains a source of
concern within the party elite. He recently told at a man who was
interrupting his speech, “Sit down and shut up.”

John Weaver, who managed his share of outbursts as a top presidential
campaign strategist for the often-blunt Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), said of
Christie: “I’m not sure you can have 75 town hall meetings in New Hampshire
and yell at people every day. People want to talk about the future, they
want to be hopeful, they want to know what you’ll do. They don’t want to be
yelled at.”

The closest thing the GOP has to a front-runner is former Florida governor
Jeb Bush, who has been conferring privately with his family about a run and
is developing an agenda on poverty issues and education, two areas where
his party has struggled to make its case. Bush does not yet have a map for
successfully navigating a crowded primary, in spite of the deep support he
enjoys from establishment donors. But because of his stature, he does not
feel compelled to rush into the process, according to people close to him.

If Bush passes on a run, that could clear a path for a former protege, Sen.
Marco Rubio (Fla.). Rubio is gearing up for a tour at the end of the year
to promote his latest book, a tome about “economic opportunity,” and is not
planning to decide on a presidential run until after the tour.

The GOP’s 2012 vice presidential nominee, Rep. Paul Ryan (Wis.) enjoys
broad national recognition but says he will take his time weighing whether
to seek the top job. “I’m not in a place where I have to scratch and claw
to get my name out there,” he said in a recent interview. “I’ve got all the
time in the world. I don’t have some calendar with a red circle.”

Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee and former Pennsylvania senator Rick
Santorum — two past winners of the Iowa caucuses — are well-liked by
evangelicals and could run again. Other hopefuls, including Sen. Rob
Portman (Ohio) and Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, want to watch how the field
takes shape before throwing their hats into the ring.

The race could draw at least one non-politician as well: Ben Carson, a
pediatric neurosurgeon with a fervent following among conservative
activists, is leaning into a run by airing a paid one-hour film Sunday
tracing his life story.

Haley R. Barbour, a former Mississippi governor who toyed with a
presidential run in 2012 before deciding against it, said the emerging
field is so strong that he sees no favorite, including Bush if he runs.
Barbour said the race may be more muddled than 2012’s contest between
establishment favorite Mitt Romney and a cast of conservative challengers.

“There’s too much quality in the field,” Barbour said. “Is it possible this
time that you have a social conservative contest and a tea party contest
and an establishment contest? I don’t know.”

Barbour predicted that the successful candidate will provide a contrast to
President Obama and his acclaimed oratory. “Americans want some straight
talk,” he said. “After a while, you get tired of being told the sky is
chartreuse.”

Republicans were buoyed by Tuesday night’s romp, but party leaders
cautioned against reading too much into the results. Democrats will have an
advantage in 2016, when the presidential-year electorate is certain to be
much larger and more diverse.

“Election results are like postmodern art: People can look at the same
picture and see different things,” Pawlenty said.

Alex Castellanos, a veteran GOP strategist, said “midterms are brake-pedal
elections. They’re about the incumbent and a course correction.
Presidential-year elections are accelerator elections. They’re about where
the country should go. We’ve proven we can win elections that are about
saying ‘no,’ but we haven’t proven we can win an election about leading and
taking people to a better place.”

With a field so large, many candidates won’t be able to count on
consolidated support from their home states. There could be two candidates
each from Florida, Ohio, Texas and Wisconsin.

Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus told reporters Friday
at a breakfast held by the Christian Science Monitor that the party has “a
long way to go to be ready for 2016.”

“We are excited and proud of where we’ve come, but I think we’ve got to be
about perfect as a national party to win a national cultural vote in this
country,” Priebus said. “I think the Democrats can be good and win, but we
have to be great.”

A key challenge will be standing up to Clinton, a former secretary of state
with two decades of experience on the global stage and a gravitas and
celebrity that no Republican hopeful can match. But the presidential
primary process is a crucible that elevates winners.

“None of our fruit is ripe yet,” Castellanos said, “but somebody will grow
into the presidency.”

*New York Daily News: “Hillary Clinton could be Democrats' sole star after
midterm elections brought GOP takeover”
<http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/hillary-clinton-democrats-star-gop-midterm-article-1.2004093>*

By James Warren

November 8, 2014, 9:24 p.m. EST

[Subtitle:] Republicans snatched control of the Senate, built a commanding
majority in the House and strengthened their grip on state legislatures and
governorships, the breeding ground for political talent.

WASHINGTON — The Democrats have become the New York Yankees of politics:
some aging stars, a thin bench and a depleted farm system.

The party suffered a midterm election thumping Tuesday that inevitably
raised questions about its health.

Republicans snatched control of the Senate, built a commanding majority in
the House and strengthened their grip on state legislatures and
governorships, the breeding ground for political talent.

Democrat Hillary Clinton, who is 67, looms large over the political stage,
but most of the rising stars of national politics are members of the GOP.

Governors such as John Kasich (Ohio), Chris Christie (N.J.), Scott Walker
(Wis.), Bobby Jindal (La.) and Mike Pence (Ind.) have entered the
conversation of potential presidential candidates - if not in 2016, than
further down the road.

Republican Sens. Rand Paul (Ky.), Ted Cruz (Texas), Marco Rubio (Fla.) and
John Thune (S.D.), and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) are in the mix, too.

And Tuesday's election brought a new class of intriguing Republicans to the
fore, including Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina, who became the first
black senator elected in the Deep South since Reconstruction; Mia Love of
Utah, the first black Republican woman to win a House seat; and Elise
Stefanik, 30, of upstate New York, the youngest woman elected to Congress.

Meanwhile, accentuating a long-term trend, a whole species of politician
became extinct: the last remaining rural, white southern House Democrats
lost their seats.

"The state of the Democratic party is uneasy at best. They hold the
presidency - but little else," said Andrew Rudalevige, a Bowdoin College
political scientist.

"The Dems are demoralized, and without a set of fresh bodies in lower
offices that can breed the next set of big ideas. We've worked through the
Clinton-era ideas, I think - what's next?"

John Feehery, who was a top aide to then-House Speaker Dennis Hastert
(R-Il.) and Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.), said he believes the
Democrats' slump "says more about Obama than the party, although the party
itself seems more focused on satisfying its special interest groups than
offering a coherent agenda that can appeal to everybody."

In explaining the Democrats' failings, some actually point to the party's
success in winning the White House four of the last six elections (and the
popular vote five of the six times).

A politician gains national notice for loudly opposing the President. It's
mostly been the GOP doing that in recent years, with much media attention
going to naysayers like Paul, Cruz and Rubio.

It seems, too, that many Democratic kingpins are much older.

Where do young, talented politicians go in, say, giant California where
Gov. Jerry Brown, 76, and Sens. Diane Feinstein, 81, and Brooklyn-born
Barbara Boxer, 73, reign supreme?

Of course, as Rudalevige notes, defining a "rising star" can be subjective
and risky. Before his 2004 Democratic convention speech, who saw Illinois
state Sen. Barack Obama as an up-and-comer?

Conversely, remember undeniable rising star John Edwards? A similar
flameout could happen to what looks like the GOP's stronger, younger bench.

And in 1992, not many took seriously an Arkansas governor with a sketchy
personal reputation. You could have won big money betting on Bill Clinton
since New York Gov. Mario Cuomo; Democratic Sens. Bill Bradley (N.J.) and
Al Gore (Tenn.) and Rep. Dick Gephardt (D-Mo.) were all seen as far
stronger.

Indeed, many consultants and academics caution about exaggerating the
current state of affairs for Democrats.

That's especially true since the party has a heavyweight presidential
candidate in Clinton in the wings and the GOP does not.

Also, key Senate races in 2016 will be on turf far friendlier to Democrats
than last Tuesday.

John Mark Hansen, a University of Chicago political scientist, noted how,
after the 2004 elections, there was talk of a "permanent Republican
majority."

Then Democrats came back strong in 2006 and inspired talk of a "new
Democratic era" with Obama's own victory in 2008.

After Obama won a second term in 2012, some said the GOP couldn't win
another national election - until it essentially did just that Tuesday.

"Democrats would be ill-advised to read too little into (Tuesday's)
election results, but Republicans would be ill-advised to read too much,"
Hansen said.

For the Democrats, Clinton obviously consumes most of the discussion about
2016. Vice President Biden, who is 71, gets some mention and, in passing,
so do the likes of Sens. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), Amy Klobuchar (Minn.)
and Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.).

After that? Not a lot in Congress, especially with young and promising
talent ("a new generation," wrote Politico) wiped out Tuesday.

So Govs. Martin O'Malley of Maryland, Andrew Cuomo of New York, John
Hickenlooper of Colorado and Jay Inslee of Washington are seen as potential
national contenders one day.

But O'Malley was weakened when a Republican stunned his lieutenant governor
running to succeed him. Cuomo has angered liberals with some centrist
policies. And Inslee and Hickenlooper aren't really known much at all.

The Republicans face a tricky demographic landscape nationally, especially
with Hispanics and women, and their reliance on an aging white male base,
said Hansen and David Karol, a University of Maryland political scientist.

Those national trends still favor a Democrat in a presidential bid.

Still, for the time being, the Republican pool of political stars appears
deeper.

"Tuesday's results may limit the Democratic bench in that there are fewer
Democratic senators and governors," said John Sides, a George Washington
University political scientist, "and those are the offices you typically
need to hold before running for President."

*Washington Post opinion: Sen. Elizabeth Warren: “Elizabeth Warren: It’s
time to work on America’s agenda”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/elizabeth-warren-its-time-to-work-on-americas-agenda/2014/11/07/984da7b6-669c-11e4-9fdc-d43b053ecb4d_story.html>*

By Sen. Elizabeth Warren

November 7, 2014

There have been terrible, horrible, no good, very bad Election Days for
Democrats before — and Republicans have had a few of those, too. Such days
are always followed by plenty of pronouncements about what just changed and
what’s going to be different going forward.

But for all the talk of change in Washington and in states where one party
is taking over from another, one thing has not changed: The stock market
and gross domestic product keep going up, while families are getting
squeezed hard by an economy that isn’t working for them.

The solution to this isn’t a basket of quickly passed laws designed to
prove Congress can do something — anything. The solution isn’t for the
president to cut deals — any deals — just to show he can do business. The
solution requires an honest recognition of the kind of changes needed if
families are going to get a shot at building a secure future.

It’s not about big government or small government. It’s not the size of
government that worries people; rather it’s deep-down concern over who
government works for. People are ready to work, ready to do their part,
ready to fight for their futures and their kids’ futures, but they see a
government that bows and scrapes for big corporations, big banks, big oil
companies and big political donors — and they know this government does not
work for them.

The American people want a fighting chance to build better lives for their
families. They want a government that will stand up to the big banks when
they break the law. A government that helps out students who are getting
crushed by debt. A government that will protect and expand Social Security
for our seniors and raise the minimum wage.

Americans understand that building a prosperous future isn’t free. They
want us to invest carefully and prudently, sharply aware that Congress
spends the people’s money. They want us to make investments that will pay
off in their lives, investments in the roads and power grids that make it
easier for businesses to create good jobs here in America, investments in
medical and scientific research that spur new discoveries and economic
growth, and investments in educating our children so they can build a
future for themselves and their children.

Before leaders in Congress and the president get caught up in proving they
can pass some new laws, everyone should take a skeptical look at whom those
new laws will serve. At this very minute, lobbyists and lawyers are lining
up by the thousands to push for new laws — laws that will help their rich
and powerful clients get richer and more powerful. Hoping to catch a wave
of dealmaking, these lobbyists and lawyers — and their well-heeled clients
— are looking for the chance to rig the game just a little more.

But the lobbyists’ agenda is not America’s agenda. Americans are deeply
suspicious of trade deals negotiated in secret, with chief executives
invited into the room while the workers whose jobs are on the line are
locked outside. They have been burned enough times on tax deals that
carefully protect the tender fannies of billionaires and big oil and other
big political donors, while working families just get hammered. They are
appalled by Wall Street banks that got taxpayer bailouts and now whine that
the laws are too tough, even as they rake in billions in profits. If
cutting deals means helping big corporations, Wall Street banks and the
already-powerful, that isn’t a victory for the American people — it’s just
another round of the same old rigged game.

Yes, we need action. But action must be focused in the right place: on
ending tax laws riddled with loopholes that favor giant corporations, on
breaking up the financial institutions that continue to threaten our
economy, and on giving people struggling with high-interest student loans
the same chance to refinance their debt that every Wall Street corporation
enjoys. There’s no shortage of work that Congress can do, but the agenda
shouldn’t be drawn up by a bunch of corporate lobbyists and lawyers.

Change is hard, especially when the playing field is already tilted so far
in favor of those with money and influence. But this government belongs to
the American people, and it’s time to work on America’s agenda. America is
ready — and Congress should be ready, too.

*MSNBC: “Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s post-election populist pitch”
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/elizabeth-warren-out-post-election-populist-pitch>*

By Amanda Sakuma

November 8, 2014, 5:07 p.m. EST

Bouncing back from an Election Day blowout that cost Democrats the Senate,
Sen. Elizabeth Warren is calling on her colleagues in Washington to focus
on issues facing everyday Americans.

In an op-ed published by The Washington Post late Friday, the Massachusetts
Democrat laid out her post-election proposals – end tax cuts that benefit
corporations, break up giant financial institutions and ensure that people
with crippling student debt can renegotiate the terms of their loans.

“Before leaders in Congress and the president get caught up in proving they
can pass some new laws, everyone should take a skeptical look at whom those
new laws will serve,” Warren wrote.

President Obama and Republican leaders struck a conciliatory chord in the
wake of Election Day. Kentucky Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell, who is
poised to become majority leader in the next Congress, said Wednesday he
could find common ground with the president on matters such as trade and
tax reform. Obama, too, reached across the aisle, saying he would “enjoy
having some Kentucky bourbon” with McConnell.

But Warren cautioned that the solution to government gridlock and voter
frustration isn’t “a basket of quickly passed laws designed to prove
Congress can do something — anything. The solution isn’t for the president
to cut deals — any deals — just to show he can do business. The solution
requires an honest recognition of the kind of changes needed if families
are going to get a shot at building a secure future.”

For Warren, whose name is frequently mentioned as a potential progressive
challenge to a Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, the policy
prescriptions for both Congress and the president could be seen as early
moves looking ahead to 2016. It’s a populist economic drumbeat that the
freshman senator has been pounding for quite some time. But after the
midterm election exit polls showed that the economy was once again top of
voters’ minds, Warren’s message may hit home with the American public.

A whopping 63% of voters said they felt the U.S. economic system favored
the wealthy, leaving just 32% who felt it was mostly fair, according to the
NBC News national exit poll. Compare that to just two years ago when 56% of
voters in the 2012 election cycle thought the wealthy were on top, and 39%
said the shake was even to most Americans.

One of the many diagnoses to come out of the brutal midterm election for
Democrats was that candidates on the left did not run on a strong
progressive message, amid low approval ratings for President Obama. Voters
did approve a number of progressive issues on the ballot on Election Day –
including minimum wage hikes in a handful of red states. Should Warren try
her hand at a presidential run, she could be the Democratic candidate to
carry the progressive banner.

*Calendar:*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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