Subject: Correct The Record Monday November 17, 2014 Morning Roundup
From: Burns Strider <[email-masked]>
To: CTRFriendsFamily <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 09:06:28 -0500
List-Id: <CTRFriendsFamily.americanbridge.org>

*​**Correct The Record Monday November 17, 2014 Morning Roundup:*

*Headlines:*

*The Hill: “Will the Obama coalition survive?”
<http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/224329-will-the-obama-coalition-survive>*

“The coalition of voters that twice elected President Obama to the White
House might not be there for the Democratic nominee in 2016, party
strategists are warning.”

*Wall Street Journal blog: Washington Wire: “Will Hillary Clinton Be More
Accessible to Voters in 2016?”
<http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/11/17/will-hillary-clinton-be-more-accessible-to-voters-in-2016/>*

“Yet if she does run, some Democrats and friends of Mrs. Clinton say they’d
like to see her escape from the bubble a bit more, perhaps reveal more of
her character and personality than the public ordinarily gets to see.”

*Talking Points Memo: “Why Hillary 2016 Thinks She Can Expand Obama's
Electoral Map”
<http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/hillary-clinton-2016-map?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+tpm-news+(TPMNews)>*

“The top minds in the proto-Hillary Clinton 2016 campaign infrastructure
are already gaming out Electoral College scenarios.”

*San Francisco Chronicle: “New political generation on hold as elder
Democrats hang on”
<http://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/New-political-generation-on-hold-as-elder-5897425.php#/0>*

“Even on the national stage, the Democratic leadership has a distinctly
gray tinge. The party’s leading presidential hopeful is Hillary Rodham
Clinton, 67, in contrast to a Republican field that could include Sens.
Rand Paul, 51, and Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, both 43.”

*National Journal: “Obama's Immigration Order Has 2016 Perils for Both
Parties”
<http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/obama-s-immigration-order-has-2016-perils-for-both-parties-20141116>*

“If Obama fails to achieve a small recovery, even a well-known and
relatively popular politician like Hillary Clinton will struggle to
convince voters they shouldn't back the other party's choice for the White
House—a situation not unlike the one that befell John McCain's campaign to
replace George W. Bush in 2008.”

*Politico: “Obama makes legacy play on trade”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/barack-obama-trade-legacy-112939.html>*

“A race to the finish line on TPP in the coming months could also be tricky
for Hillary Clinton, who’s seeking to court many of those same critics as
she prepares a potential bid for the White House.”

*New York Post: “NY GOP Chair: de Blasio will take 2016 nomination over
Hillary”
<http://nypost.com/2014/11/17/gop-chairman-de-blasio-will-take-nomination-over-hillary-in-2016/>*

“Mayor de Blasio — not Hillary Rodham Clinton — will be the Democratic
nominee for president in 2016. That’s the jaw-dropping prediction being
made by New York’s top Republican, state GOP Chairman Ed Cox, who, as
son-in-law to former President Richard Nixon, knows a thing or two about
national politics.”

*Articles:*

*The Hill: “Will the Obama coalition survive?”
<http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/224329-will-the-obama-coalition-survive>*

By Justin and Amie Parnes

November 17, 2014, 6:00 a.m. EST

The coalition of voters that twice elected President Obama to the White
House might not be there for the Democratic nominee in 2016, party
strategists are warning.

Following their disastrous showing at the polls this month, many Democrats
have consoled themselves with talk of how the groups that fueled Obama’s
resounding victories — namely minorities and young people — will make up a
bigger slice of the electorate in two years’ time.

But some fear the party is placing far too much trust in demographics,
while ignoring the unique circumstances that led to Obama’s rise.

“I don’t think the Democratic Party should take anyone for granted, or
should just assume that these voters are just going to back our nominee,
and more importantly, going to turn out for the same level as President
Obama,” said Democratic strategist Doug Thornell.

“They’re going to need a reason and they’re going to need a message.”

Obama won the Electoral College handily in 2008 and 2012, vanquishing the
GOP with a coalition of millennials, minorities and women in swing states
such as Ohio, Iowa and Colorado.

The wave of support gave Obama the former GOP strongholds of Virginia (in
both elections) and North Carolina (in 2008), stirring anxious chatter
among Republicans about being locked out of the White House for years to
come. Obama’s victories, combined with the rising Latino population, have
convinced many Democrats that the presidential map is skewing decidedly in
their favor.

Yet some question whether the supposed advantages will materialize when the
name at the top of the ballot isn’t Barack Obama.

A former Democratic campaign official stressed that the eventual nominee,
whether Hillary Clinton or not, will need to find “new ways to energize our
folks.”

That need seems particularly acute after the drubbing the party took in the
midterms — dismal results due, in part, to overall turnout sliding to its
lowest level since 1942.

“The messaging we put out there hasn’t been translating,” a senior
Democratic operative said. “I don’t want to sugarcoat it. It has been an
issue for us.”

“We need to try and communicate what’s at stake,” the operative added.

Not only did Democrats lose seats in red and purple states this year, they
also failed to win the governor’s mansion in deep-blue Illinois,
Massachusetts and Maryland, where exit polls showed black and young voters
found other things to do on Election Day.

“People just stayed home because the candidate didn’t motivate them and
didn’t manage to convince them to go to the polls,” Thornell said.

But anxious Democrats think there could be more to the problem than that.

They note that even when Obama got involved in encouraging his base to vote
for the candidates of his choosing, the results were tepid at best.

Obama focused intently on turning out the black vote, conducting a series
of urban radio interviews and taping commercials for black networks.
Despite that, Democrats received a lower percentage of the black vote, and
fewer blacks turned out at the polls than in either of Obama’s presidential
contests.

“The magic of 2008 will be hard to reproduce,” Southern Methodist
University professor Cal Jillson said, pointing out that the Democratic
advantage among blacks had gone from “10-to-1 to 19-to-1” under Obama.

Grover Norquist, the anti-tax advocate known for stringing together
political coalitions at the other end of the political spectrum, said
Democrats face two major problems.

The first: Many of the party’s structural advantages — from volunteer lists
to technology infrastructure — were built by Obama’s campaign team, not by
the party.

The second, he said, is that demographics are not destiny.

Norquist said anyone looking at the electorate through the prism of race,
gender and ethnicity would miss the rise of “issue voters,” including the
swelling numbers of gun-permit holders, homeschoolers or school-voucher
recipients in swing states.

“The electorate is different today than when Obama got elected — people now
have freedoms and rights they didn’t before,” Norquist said.

Any Democratic nominee expecting Obama’s supporters to fall into his or her
lap will be in for a rude awakening, he said.

“They’re not transferable, you can’t hand people off like they are serfs or
something,” he said.

The 2008 Obama campaign had an additional advantage: the then-senator could
clothe himself in the garb of the outsider running against the status quo,
all while seeking to make history as the nation’s first black president.

Now, the Democratic candidate will be running as the de facto incumbent,
associated with Obama’s checkered record to a greater or lesser degree.

Polls indicate that a still-lagging economy and the lack of progress on key
issues such as immigration reform have wounded the party — and the
president — among groups that once offered stalwart support.

A Washington Post/ ABC News poll released Nov. 2 showed Obama’s
favorability among Hispanics had dropped a staggering 19 points since
January. His standing had declined 9 points with blacks and 6 points with
independents.

The numbers bear a striking resemblance to the pre-Obama world, when the
electoral map was less friendly to Democrats.

Warnings about the crackup of the Obama coalition have come from none other
than David Plouffe, the operational mastermind behind the president’s two
White House victories.

“We shouldn’t just assume that the Obama voters will automatically come out
for Democratic presidential candidates,” Plouffe told The New York Times
after the Democrats’ midterm losses.

Democrats insist Obama can remedy that situation during his final two years
in office and ensure that his coalition endures.

Aggressive moves on net neutrality and global warming have already
reinvigorated liberals, and expansive action on immigration reform could
help bring Latinos back into the fold, they say.

There’s also hope among Democrats that the historic nature of a Clinton
campaign could lead to a different, but still vibrant, electorate.

Strategists say a potential Clinton bid would likely generate outsized
enthusiasm among young and single female voters, which could offset drops
in other parts of the electorate.

“Hillary is going to have to build that excitement in the base the way the
president did in 2008. Voters are going to have to truly believe in her
path and her vision and get excited by what she stands for,” a former Obama
campaign official said.

Clinton will have to avoid the notion that she’s the inevitable candidate,
the former official added, but can build excitement by emphasizing her
place in history as potentially the first woman president.

“Done right, I think that can really help her,” the former official said.
“Women will love it, and so will other groups, including young voters.”

*Wall Street Journal blog: Washington Wire: “Will Hillary Clinton Be More
Accessible to Voters in 2016?”
<http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/11/17/will-hillary-clinton-be-more-accessible-to-voters-in-2016/>*

By Peter  Nicholas

November 17, 2014, 6:39 a.m. EST

Not long ago Sen. Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent, invited a
political reporter to ride in the backseat of an old Volvo as he made a few
stops around Keene State College in New Hampshire.

“Don’t run over the students,” he cautioned the aide who was driving, when
a few kids crossed in front of the car.

Mr. Sanders might run for president in the next campaign. Because he’d be a
long shot, he can afford to take a few risks and let the press – and by
extension, voters – see him in an unscripted setting.

Candidates with a better shot at the brass ring would never chance it.
Fearing consequences of an incautious comment, they rely on teleprompters
and aides, advance staff and security to minimize the sort of spontaneous
interactions that can derail a campaign.

This brings us to Hillary Clinton.

Mrs. Clinton also is contemplating a presidential run, and she stands a far
better chance of winning the White House than Mr. Sanders. Don’t count on
her opening up her SUV to the national press corps.

Yet if she does run, some Democrats and friends of Mrs. Clinton say they’d
like to see her escape from the bubble a bit more, perhaps reveal more of
her character and personality than the public ordinarily gets to see.

Speaking of her last presidential bid, Alan Kessler, a longtime Democratic
fundraiser, spoke of “this perception that there was a wall around her.”

“Unless you were a hugely important elected official or a major donor,
there was no way to touch her,” he said. “It’s this whole aura around her.
That’s what doomed her in 2008 and they’re going to have to find a way in
this campaign to do away with that.”

Susie Tompkins Buell is a longtime friend of Mrs. Clinton. She described an
occasion over the summer where she and the former secretary of state were
visiting in a home in the Hamptons. Ms. Buell cut her foot and Mrs. Clinton
quickly began rummaging through a medicine cabinet looking for a Band-Aid,
refusing to give up the search even after Ms. Buell told her it wasn’t
necessary.

There’s nothing remarkable about the story. It’s what people do for each
other. It stands out only because it’s so seldom one hears anything about
Mrs. Clinton that isn’t tethered to the world of policy and politics.

There’s no question there’s a flesh-and-blood person lurking beneath the
earnest policy wonk who on Saturday at a panel discussion in Little Rock,
Ark., celebrated the value of “data” and spoke of the need for an
“evidence-based” discussion of the economy.

Last week, the University of Virginia made public a series of interviews
conducted as part of a Clinton administration history project. Many of the
former Clinton-era officials spoke candidly about Mrs. Clinton, who as
first lady exerted huge influence in her husband’s administration. Some of
the depictions showed admiration; others did not. Yet the interviews leave
the reader with a richer understanding of Mrs. Clinton than is possible to
glean from her past campaigns.

Roger Altman, a former Treasury official, said Mrs. Clinton inspired more
staff loyalty than her husband commanded and doesn’t “look at the world
solely and only politically.”

Leon Panetta, a former chief of staff in the Clinton White House, told of
how a staff member came out of one meeting with Mrs. Clinton looking shaken
up.

“What’s the matter?” Mr. Panetta asked.

“The first lady just tore everybody a new ass—-,” the aide replied.

Shaping Mrs. Clinton’s image was a running project in the Clinton White
House. A cache of nearly 4,000 papers released in March by the Clinton
Presidential Library shows the significant thought aides gave to making
Mrs. Clinton appealing to the public. And when she started on her U.S.
Senate race in 1999, an aide warned that the media would test her. Be
chatty, she was counseled, and “don’t be defensive.”

Mrs. Clinton likely will run one last campaign. Will voters see a more
accessible face than she has typically been willing to show?

*Talking Points Memo: “Why Hillary 2016 Thinks She Can Expand Obama's
Electoral Map”
<http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/hillary-clinton-2016-map?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+tpm-news+(TPMNews)>*

By Dylan Scott

November 17, 2014, 6:00 a.m. EST

The top minds in the proto-Hillary Clinton 2016 campaign infrastructure are
already gaming out Electoral College scenarios. What they think they have
is a candidate who could compete in a handful of traditionally red states,
putting Republicans on the defensive and increasing her chances of winning
the White House.

Mitch Stewart, Obama's 2012 battleground state director who is now an
independent consultant advising the grassroots group Ready for Hillary,
laid out the electoral math to TPM in a recent interview. Clinton will
start with Obama's map, he said, and can build from there.

There are two buckets of states potentially in play. Arkansas, Indiana and
Missouri comprise one bucket. The first is a somewhat unique case, given
Clinton's history there, while the other two were razor-thin in 2008, but
the principle is the same: Clinton has a record of appealing to white
working-class voters -- especially women -- and they could be enough when
paired with the Obama coalition to pull out a win.

"Where I think Secretary Clinton has more appeal than any other Democrat
looking at running is that with white working-class voters, she does have a
connection," Stewart said. "I think she's best positioned to open those
states."

Stewart pointed to Clinton's sizable 2008 primary wins in Pennsylvania and
Ohio, along with the enthusiastic support for her from former Indiana
governor and senator Evan Byah, as evidence of her potential
competitiveness with that population and therefore in those states.

Those white working-class voters in those states could be "the difference
between winning and losing, assuming that we maximize turnout, we maximize
voter registration in St. Louis, Indianapolis and northwest Indiana," he
said. "Assuming we do all those things, the fact that would push her over
the top is her appeal to white working-class voters."

The second bucket consists of Arizona and Georgia, two states that
Democrats believe are demographically trending toward them, a process that
could accelerate with the voter turnout that usually occurs in presidential
elections. As Stewart put it, they are "structurally on the precipice of
becoming purple states and a presidential campaign can be the catalyzing
factor to move those states forward."

Georgia combines an increasing African-American electorate, Clinton's
appeal to the white working class and northern voters who are moving into
the state. Stewart compared the trend to North Carolina, now an established
battleground. Arizona can turn blue, Democrats believe, if they mobilize
the growing Hispanic population.

None of these states are likely to be the key 270th electoral vote, Stewart
emphasized. The electoral tipping point is still likely to be the
traditional battleground states: Iowa, New Hampshire, Virginia, Ohio,
Colorado and Nevada. But if Democrats can make these other states
competitive, it gives them more room for error and forces Republicans to
expend resources in places that have traditionally been marked down as wins
for them before the campaign even starts.

"If Republicans have to spend resources in Arizona and George to make sure
that they win it, that means that they're spending less resources
elsewhere," Stewart said. "The further we can play into their field, the
more money they're going to have to spend playing defense in places they've
normally taken for granted."

Stewart's outlook is a common one in the Hillary 2016 universe. The New
York Times' Amy Chozick reported earlier this month that Clinton supporters
have a term for it -- the "New Clinton Map," which combines white
working-class women with the Obama coalition to expand the electoral
playing field.

Other top Democratic strategists, not as immediately involved in
Clintonland, agree that they might be onto something.

"I think Hillary Clinton can be a temporary salve to Democrats' fading
chances with white voters, primarily because she will attract women,"
Carter Eskew, a top adviser to Al Gore's 2000 campaign, told TPM. "If she
supplements her gender appeal with a real contrast on the economy, then all
the better."

That will be key, Stewart agreed. Clinton has already been testing a 2016
message that heavily emphasizes wage growth and expanding the middle class.
That's how she'll attract those voters that could bring these additional
states into reach.

"For whatever reason, Democrats have not been able to articulate a message
that resonates even though our economic values align with that
working-class family's economic values," Stewart said. "It's something that
we have to figure out."

It is not a universally shared opinion, however. Mother Jones's Kevin Drum
outlined why Democratic struggles with the white working class have become
so ingrained in recent years. Larry Sabato, director of the University of
Virginia's Center for Politics, sounded skeptical when asked by TPM about
Clinton's ability to break through with that population.

"It’s possible, but I’ll believe it when I see it," he said in an email.
"The hardening of party lines during the Bush and Obama years make switches
more difficult unless they are propelled purely by demographic shifts."

Others within the Democratic Party cautioned, though, that no matter who
the 2016 nominee is, working-class whites shouldn't be viewed as an
electoral elixir. The base Obama coalition is still the foundation for
national wins.

"As you put together the coalition, it still is an important part. What's
important is that a Democrat gets a certain respectable showing there,"
Kenneth Baer, a former Obama administration official and founder of
Democracy: A Journal Of Ideas, told TPM. "It is necessary to win a part of
the white working-class vote, but it is not sufficient by any means to win
a presidential election as a Democrat. And so you really, really need to
perform strongly in those other categories as well."

*San Francisco Chronicle: “New political generation on hold as elder
Democrats hang on”
<http://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/New-political-generation-on-hold-as-elder-5897425.php#/0>*

By Carla Marinucci

November 16, 2014, 7:52 p.m. EST

When Rep. Mike Honda celebrated his hard-fought re-election win in Silicon
Valley over fellow Democrat Ro Khanna, his victory speech crystallized one
of his party’s biggest challenges in California as it looks toward the
future.

“There’s no reason to retire,” the 73-year-old Honda exulted when his
narrow victory over Khanna, 38, was assured. “I’m going to live until 103.
... I’m not going anywhere.”

While Honda’s grit and enthusiasm is a boon to his progressive and labor
backers, his stated determination to hang on to his House seat for years to
come underscores the fears of some Democrats that they head into the 2016
elections in danger of losing ground to Republicans with critical
Millennial voters.

Some political observers suggest that a “gerontocracy” dilemma looms for
Democrats, who fired up millions of young voters with a fresh face named
Barack Obama in 2008, but who now face the dominance of the party’s older
officeholders and the difficulty of its younger generation in moving up the
ladder.

In what he called a post-election “wake-up call,” Simon Rosenberg, who
heads NDN, a Democratic think tank in Washington, warned his party last
week that the Democratic National Committee must take the lead in
“recruiting and training a new generation of candidates and operatives
needed to beat a new generation of Republicans.”

*'Children of Reagan’*

“Part of what we are witnessing is the coming to power of the children of
Reagan — fortysomething Gen Xers who came of age during the Reagan era,”
Rosenberg said. “This generation of politicians is young, gaining in
experience, and will be a force to be reckoned with in institutional and
state politics for generations to come.”

In California, Democratic leadership is dominated by older warriors — from
Gov. Jerry Brown, 76, to state party Chairman John Burton and Sen. Dianne
Feinstein, both 81, to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Barbara
Boxer, both 74.

Most members of the Bay Area’s House delegation — all of them Democrats —
are in their 60s and 70s. The lone exceptions are Reps. Jared Huffman of
San Rafael, 50, and Eric Swalwell, 33, of Dublin — who, like Khanna, bucked
the Democratic Party establishment and the White House when he took on a
long-term incumbent. Unlike Khanna, Swalwell won his race, defeating
20-term Rep. Pete Stark in 2012.

A recent USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll showed that although Boxer and
Feinstein are still popular with voters, nearly 60 percent of respondents
said they wanted fresh faces to take their jobs.

*Patience running out*

With Republicans about to seize control of the U.S. Senate and speculation
growing that Boxer won’t run for re-election in 2016, the political gossip
mill is churning about the patience — or lack thereof — of younger
Democrats who have been biding their time for several years.

“I don’t think talent is going to wait,” said Republican strategist Rob
Stutzman, citing a Democratic bench that includes Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom,
Attorney General Kamala Harris, Controller John Chiang and a host of House
members.

If Boxer “doesn’t retire, I don’t know why she wouldn’t be challenged from
within her party,” Stutzman said. “And it will almost certainly happen to
Feinstein,” who will be 85 when she comes up for re-election in 2018, he
said.

Even on the national stage, the Democratic leadership has a distinctly gray
tinge. The party’s leading presidential hopeful is Hillary Rodham Clinton,
67, in contrast to a Republican field that could include Sens. Rand Paul,
51, and Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, both 43.

“Wisdom comes from experience — but a lot of these people have a little too
much,” said political commentator Patrick Dorinson. “When you’ve been in
power a little too long, with little opposition, you get entrenched. And
the more they do that, the more they allow the Republicans to develop the
new talent.”

GOP consultant Kevin Spillane says Democrats hoping to attract Millennials
“will have to change, or Republicans are going to win.”

*Key East Bay race*

He points to new faces like Catharine Baker of Pleasanton, 42, an attorney
and mother of two school-age children. The moderate Republican won her East
Bay Assembly race despite a well-funded challenge from Democrat Tim
Sbranti, who had the backing of the California Teachers Association and
Democratic establishment figures including Brown.

Baker, the first Republican to win election to state office from the Bay
Area since 2006, said her victory was the product of an effort by state GOP
leaders to cultivate younger candidates at every level.

She stressed education and jobs, not social issues. Her appeal to crossover
and younger voters came because “I was an outsider, not an elected
official,” she said.

Being pitted against big unions, a prime source of Democratic campaign
funding, helped rather than hurt her in the suburban district that
stretches from Livermore to Orinda, Baker said.

“That’s another big component in change,” she said. “I had a lot of people
tell me I was the first Republican they’ve ever voted for.”

Republicans also fielded a crowd of fortysomething candidates for statewide
office in the general election. GOP officials acknowledge it could take
another election cycle — or more — to overcome the Democrats’ 15-point
voter registration advantage. But in this election, Fresno Mayor Ashley
Swearengin, who ran for controller, and secretary of state candidate Pete
Peterson both won endorsements from major newspapers and gained a platform
for future runs.

Younger Republicans such as Swearengin, Baker and Neel Kashkari, the
party’s 41-year-old candidate in the gubernatorial election, have one
advantage their junior Democratic counterparts lack — the GOP has been out
of power so long, there’s no old guard to block the way up.

Former San Leandro Mayor Anthony Santos, who ran for re-election in 2010 at
78 — and lost — says he advises his fellow Democrats not to stay too long
in the job.

“There are too many Democrats who are well over 70 and have no idea what it
is like to be young — and what the younger people are thinking and what
their needs are,” Santos said.

*Excellent example*

Democratic observers said the House race between Honda and Khanna was a
prime example of the party’s dilemma.

Honda has the advantages in Washington of seniority and seven terms of
experience, which he said helped in securing such benefits for his district
as funding to extend BART toward San Jose.

Khanna, however, would have attracted rising-star buzz on Capitol Hill, as
an Indian American and favorite of the tech crowd — no small consideration
for a party reliant on Silicon Valley fundraising.

Honda did nothing to endear himself to those donors — or the valley’s young
tech innovators — in his victory speech when he said the election “could
not be bought” by “millionaires and billionaires.”

With few incumbents to protect, Republicans are concentrating on rebuilding
the party through programs such as Trailblazers, which targets promising
young GOP candidates, and GROW Elect, which encourages Latino Republican
up-and-comers at the local level, said party strategist Aaron McLear.

*Republican diversity*

In the state Legislature, still overwhelmingly Democratic, Assembly GOP
leader Kristin Olsen of Modesto noted that there will be more women among
Republicans than Democrats in the next session.

Among the GOP newcomers are three Asian American women from Orange County —
Ling-Ling Chang and Young Kim, who won Assembly races, and Janet Nguyen, a
former refugee from Vietnam who won her state Senate race in a landslide.

Political consultant Rich Schlackman said Democrats have their own rising
stars, pointing to Newsom, Harris, Secretary of State-elect Alex Padilla
and Treasurer-elect Betty Yee.

And at the local level, Oakland Mayor-elect Libby Schaaf could be someone
to watch, Democratic observers suggest. Even Khanna may be heard from
again, if he can find a clear path, they say.

Larry Gerston, a political science professor at San Jose State University,
said the next few years will be a turning point for the Democratic Party in
California — with the very real possibility that the “big three” of Brown,
Feinstein and Boxer will leave office by 2018.

Then, he said, “you’ll see a flurry of people trying to move up.”

*National Journal: “Obama's Immigration Order Has 2016 Perils for Both
Parties”
<http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/obama-s-immigration-order-has-2016-perils-for-both-parties-20141116>*

By Alex Roarty

November 16, 2014

It didn't take long for the 2016 election to reach its first major
crossroads. As early as this week, President Obama is expected to ignore
the wishes of congressional Republicans and announce that he will
unilaterally defer deportations for millions of undocumented immigrants.

When he does, Republicans and Democrats alike should worry he just made
life harder for their next presidential nominees. Few decisions, even from
the president, influence elections more than 23 months away, but Obama's
immigration maneuver accomplishes the rare feat of exposing both parties to
what should be their biggest cause for concern in the 2016 election.

At stake for Democrats is whether Obama's decision to take executive action
prevents him from a broad political rehabilitation during the last two
years of his presidency. If Obama fails to achieve a small recovery, even a
well-known and relatively popular politician like Hillary Clinton will
struggle to convince voters they shouldn't back the other party's choice
for the White House—a situation not unlike the one that befell John
McCain's campaign to replace George W. Bush in 2008.

But to the White House, the chance to reengage and reenergize the
immigrant-heavy Latino community ahead of 2016 plainly outweighs the risk
that doing so will alienate the broader electorate. And therein lies the
danger for Republicans, whose leaders two years ago stated emphatically
that the party needed to grow its appeal among Hispanic voters if it wanted
to succeed in national elections. Broadly speaking, the executive order
might be politically complicated, but within the Latino community, it is a
guaranteed winner.

Democrats could use a winner with Hispanic voters after the 2014 election
and the administration's failure, at least until the president's executive
order, to stop the deportations of many members of their community. The
party won 62 percent of the Latino vote in 2014, according to exit polls,
but some immigration advocates say the energy and passion many of them
showed for Obama's party—especially in 2012 after he ordered a stop to
deportations for the children of illegal immigrations—was missing this
election.

They cite Sen. Mark Udall's defeat in Colorado, one of the few states in
play in 2014 with a large Hispanic vote, as evidence of what happens to
Democrats when they don't advocate for immigration reform. It's something
that would happen to the party's next presidential candidate, said Frank
Shary, executive director of America's Voice.

"If the president's record ended up being little more than 2 million
deportations and a lot of unkept promises, it's not so much that it would
drive a lot of Latinos into the hands of Republicans, it would probably
lead to a lot of them to stay home on Election Day," he said.

Complicating matters on the Republican side is the party's prospective
presidential candidates, most of whom are positioning themselves to draw
conservative support ahead of a competitive primary. Their reaction will
receive disproportionate attention, and the eventual GOP nominee will have
trouble repositioning an immigration agenda for the general election. It
could be a repeat of what happened in 2012 to Mitt Romney, whose call
during primary season for undocumented immigrants to "self-deport" helped
Obama win Hispanic voters by a better than 2-to-1 ratio.

Even if Republicans avoid the harsh rhetoric that has marked the previous
responses to immigration policy—something Republican strategists
acknowledge is no guarantee—their explanation that their objections are
based on overuse of executive power might not resonate with the Hispanic
community.

"That won't matter," said one immigration policy strategist who works with
both parties. "If they start filing lawsuits, making noise about impeaching
the president over this, Republicans will have completely lost Latino and
Asian voters. It will be seen not as a direct attack on president, but a
direct attack on the community."

Whether the support Obama gains from Hispanics is enough to overcome the
potential broader damage to his popularity remains to be seen. As Obama
explained in his post-election press conference, voters are upset with
Washington gridlock and dysfunction—two things he vowed to work to correct
in his last two years in office.

Republicans have warned the president that any executive action, coming
just weeks after his party's Election Day drubbing, will poison the well
with Congress for the new session and make any new legislative deal-making
much more difficult.

"It looks like a revenge move," said Ron Bonjean, a former top GOP
congressional aide. "He's poking a stick in their eye.… Using his authority
in that way shows he doesn't want to work with Congress. It further
strengthens the Republican argument [that] if legislation lands on his
doorstep, all he wants to do is … pretend he's a dictator. He doesn't want
to work with Congress."

Even Republicans who have argued for the necessity of the party broadening
its appeal with racial minorities are now saying that, in this case, the
president's own move will backfire.

"There's always a danger for undisciplined politicians to overreact, and
their overreaction always backfires," said Whit Ayres, a GOP pollster and
frequent critic of the party's immigration policy. "But if Republican
elected officials watch their tone and don't overreact, this move
contemplated by the president will backfire."

*Politico: “Obama makes legacy play on trade”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/barack-obama-trade-legacy-112939.html>*

By Josh Gerstein

November 16, 2014, 12:55 p.m. EST

BRISBANE, Australia — After years of populist rhetoric against banks and
Wall Street, repeated calls for raising the minimum wage and withering
campaign-trail criticism of corporate America for shipping jobs overseas
and dodging taxes, President Barack Obama could leave office with a foreign
policy legacy whose most concrete achievement is a huge free trade deal
with Pacific Rim countries.

On a trip through Asia and Australia over the past week, Obama and his
aides have been pushing hard to finalize the Trans-Pacific Partnership,
pressing foreign leaders from 11 countries to hash out their differences
and get the pact done in the coming months.

The trade deal would deliver a tangible achievement that a GOP-controlled
Senate is highly likely to endorse and demonstrate that Obama has the
diplomatic chops to pull off a complex, multilateral deal akin to playing
three-dimensional chess.

But his history of bashing prior trade pacts also sets him up for renewed
trouble with a political base frustrated with him after heavy election
losses and a faltering agenda. Their ire could also hit presumptive
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, who economic policies
are already under attack from liberals and whose tenure at the State
Department coincided with the TPP negotiations.

U.S. officials said they were surprised at how forcefully Obama pressed the
free-trade message both in public and private during summit meetings in
Beijing on Monday and Tuesday. And his sustained focus on the issue was
refreshing after numerous other international meetings have been
sidetracked by various crises, the American officials said.

To some degree, Obama’s new emphasis on trade may be making a virtue out of
necessity, since few other major accomplishments seem to be looming on the
foreign policy front and his efforts to improve ties with Russia, broker an
Israeli-Palestinian peace deal and oversee a peaceful withdrawal from Iraq
have all foundered.

“This has the potential for being a historic achievement,” Obama said at a
meeting of TPP leaders in Beijing, making clear that completing the pact
would be a big legacy item. “What we are seeing is momentum building around
a Trans-Pacific Partnership that can spur greater economic growth, spur
greater jobs growth, set high standards for trade and investment throughout
the Asia Pacific.”

These words stand in contrast to some of the rhetoric he once used to
criticize trade deals like the North American Free Trade Agreement. During
the 2008 campaign, Obama painted deals like NAFTA as job-killers in America.

“I think it has been devastating, because our trade agreements did not have
labor standards and environmental standards that would assure that workers
in the U.S. were getting a square deal,” he said during a January 2008
debate.

Even though Obama’s views on trade pacts seem to have warmed since then,
his political brand has never been identified with free trade the way
Republicans’ or even President Bill Clinton’s have been. From the time Bill
Clinton arrived on the national political scene, he made a point of
departing from the protectionist orthodoxy of labor unions and the
Democratic Party. Obama, by contrast, came to prominence criticizing free
trade, not embracing it.

“It’ll be a great irony if his main foreign policy success is a trade
deal,” said the Hoover Institution’s Kori Schake, foreign policy adviser to
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) during the 2008 presidential campaign.

Now Obama has to convince the very workers whose fate he decried that the
TPP is in their interest.

A senior administration official traveling with Obama said the president
believes he can successfully make the case that well-negotiated free-trade
deals can be good for this constituency. The official pointed to a trip
Obama took to Detroit in 2011 with South Korean President Lee Myung-Bak.

Autoworkers cheered the pair because the trade deal they cut was seen as
promoting jobs on both sides of the Pacific, the official noted. U.S.
officials also say key beneficiaries of a trade deal will be small- and
medium-size businesses and software makers, not simply big multinational
corporations.

Yet there are ways in which pushing for a TPP deal is politically
convenient. With a Republican takeover of the Senate looming as a result of
the trouncing Democrats took in the midterm elections, Obama is casting
about for areas where he and the GOP can work together. Trade is one of the
highest-profile areas of possible bipartisan cooperation, something Obama
says voters are demanding.

Republicans are “interested in promoting trade that will create jobs and
opportunity for U.S. workers and U.S. businesses,” Obama said Friday during
a news conference in Burma, adding that he’s “all over it.”

“We believe in open markets and trade that is fair and free — a level
playing field where economies play by the same rules,” the president
declared Saturday in a speech in Australia.

Obama aides insist that his support for new trade deals being hashed out
with Asia and Europe is not inconsistent with the sharp criticism he
offered of NAFTA. The president argued Saturday that the Asia deal would be
a “high-standards” agreement that makes it hard for countries to undercut
each other by damaging the environment or having lax labor or safety rules.

“We are pushing new standards in this trade agreement, requiring countries
that participate to protect their workers better and to protect the
environment better, and protect intellectual property that unleashes
innovation, and baseline standards to ensure transparency and rule of law,”
the president said.

While Obama and his team see distinctions, critics see more of the same.
While the GOP may get on board with an Asian trade deal, many members of
Obama’s own party are skeptical or downright hostile to the idea.

“Our country has already lost more than 5 million manufacturing jobs since
NAFTA and the World Trade Organization went into effect,” Rep. Rosa DeLauro
(D-Conn.) said. “What does TPP do? It further exacerbates the economically
unsustainable trajectory of our society.”

She concluded, “We should not blindly enorse any more NAFTA-style deals.”

Some administration officials are clearly frustrated with those who focus
on Obama’s past criticism of trade deals rather than his current enthusiasm
for them.

“From the start of this administration, we have made clear that we need to
understand the history of trade policy and learn the lessons of that
history,” U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman said earlier this year.
“However, some of the criticisms I hear of our agenda don’t seem to
recognize that this is 2014, not 1994.”

Of course, some critics say Obama’s populist tone on trade deals, corporate
America and Wall Street has always been mainly rhetorical. They note how he
gave top jobs to Clinton Administration officials who were architects of
many of the free trade and financial deregulation policies he criticized.
Many on the left also argue that efforts to punish those responsible for
the 2008 financial meltdown have been notably lackluster.

A race to the finish line on TPP in the coming months could also be tricky
for Hillary Clinton, who’s seeking to court many of those same critics as
she prepares a potential bid for the White House. She’s identified with her
husband’s penchant for free trade deals and could find it difficult to
distance herself from agreements that were being negotiated during much of
her tenure in Obama’s Cabinet.

Some Democratic lawmakers and labor unions are already pressing her to take
a more skeptical tack on trade, opposing deals that could make it easier
for companies in low-wage countries like Vietnam to compete with firms
which depend on American workers.

It’s also possible the TPP deal will never get done, or at least not on
Obama’s watch. Administration officials say they’re increasingly confident
that it will be completed. Some experts close to the administration believe
the deal could be wrapped up within six months. However, timelines for
completing the deal have repeatedly slipped.

In June, Obama suggested that the agreement could be ready to be unveiled
during his current trip to Asia. But a few weeks ago, administration
officials began lowering expectations by declaring that the negotiations
would not be finished in time for the president to announce an agreement
while abroad.

“I’m skeptical … that he’ll be able to get TPP if he didn’t deliver it on
the Asia trip,” Schake said. “The complaint I’m hearing from the Japanese
and others is that they don’t think the president is actually interested
enough to put political heft behind the negotiations.”

The TPP is also a central part of the so-called pivot to Asia — the
president’s best known strategic shift in U.S. foreign policy — and
therefore critical to Obama’s legacy. Like other aspects of the pivot, now
termed a “rebalance,” the TPP puts China in an awkward spot and reaffirms
U.S. leadership in the region.

Publicly, Chinese leaders said they welcome trade deals like the TPP pact
under discussion and are working on a related proposal for a regional
free-trade area that would include China as well. Privately, Chinese
officials are nervous about the TPP. In fact, the meeting of leaders of TPP
countries in Beijing was staged at the U.S. Embassy — a strange venue for
such a gathering — in part because China made it difficult to assemble the
group anywhere else.

At the session, Obama was adamant that the TPP would be a major
accomplishment, and one he was committed to pressing forward on despite the
difficulties.

“To ensure that TPP is a success, we also have to make sure that all of our
people back home understand the benefits for them — that it means more
trade, more good jobs, and higher incomes for people throughout the region,
including the United States,” Obama said. “That’s the case that I’ll
continue to make to Congress and the American people.”

*New York Post: “NY GOP Chair: de Blasio will take 2016 nomination over
Hillary”
<http://nypost.com/2014/11/17/gop-chairman-de-blasio-will-take-nomination-over-hillary-in-2016/>*

By Fredric U. Dicker

November 17, 2014, 2:07 a.m. EST

Mayor de Blasio — not Hillary Rodham Clinton — will be the Democratic
nominee for president in 2016.

That’s the jaw-dropping prediction being made by New York’s top Republican,
state GOP Chairman Ed Cox, who, as son-in-law to former President Richard
Nixon, knows a thing or two about national politics.

Cox, citing information provided by a prominent “Democratic lobbyist,’’
told friends and associates in recent days that freshman Mayor de Blasio’s
effort to promote himself as the leader of the “urban progressive centers
of the nation’’ is part of a well-oiled plan to prepare for a presidential
run.

“It’s like Barack Obama; he was a brand-new freshman senator, and he ran
for president and won. I think de Blasio is going to do it,’’ Cox said at a
recent gathering, a source told The Post.

Cox also cited de Blasio’s remarkably close but dicey ties to the
controversial, and racially divisive, Rev. Al Sharpton, an Obama friend and
one-time Democratic presidential hopeful who has a vast national political
network, as evidence that the mayor sees his political future as somewhere
beyond New York City, the source said.

“Cox has been pointing out that Sharpton is back and forth to the White
House and serves as an emissary for de Blasio,’’ said the source, who
pointed out that former top Sharpton aide Rachel Noerdlinger continues to
serve as chief of staff to de Blasio’s wife, even as Noerdlinger has become
a political liability.

Cox also found backing for his prediction last week in a provocative
Huffington Post column in which the mayor — sounding like a national
spokesman for left-of-center “progressive’’ Democrats — blamed the sweeping
Republican election victories earlier this month on the failure of
Democrats to be progressive enough.

“This year, too many Democratic candidates lost sight of those core
principles — opting instead to clip their progressive wings in deference to
a conventional wisdom that says bold ideas aren’t politically practical,’’
de Blasio wrote.

Cox told associates that the “small blue dots’’ on the national electoral
map containing the nation’s biggest cities will dominate the 2016
Democratic primary and that de Blasio, “the leader of the urban Democratic
Party who holds the second-most important job in America,’’ would strongly
appeal to voters there.

As for Clinton, Cox, a Manhattan lawyer whose life has been steeped in
politics ever since he married then-President Nixon’s daughter in 1971,
contends the former secretary of state is out of step with party
progressives and doesn’t have the political skills of her husband.

“The national Democratic Party is going hard left. It’s Obama’s party, and
that’s why [freshman Mass. Sen.] Elizabeth Warren gets them excited,’’ Cox
said recently. “But Hillary voted for the Iraq war and then doubled-down by
saying we should have gotten more involved in Syria and talked about
businesses not creating jobs. She’s trying to ride in as a moderate when
the party’s gone hard left,’’ he continued.

Cox wouldn’t directly respond to questions about his remarks, but he told
The Post, “De Blasio is a man with huge national ambitions, and for those
ambitions, New York City is just a stepping stone.

Meanwhile, some Democrats are yelling “hypocrite’’ at de Blasio over his
Huffington Post essay.

The Democratic critics charge that de Blasio didn’t exactly stick to his
“core principles’’ with his own endorsement of Gov. Cuomo, who has been
widely criticized by party “progressives’’ for failing to support state
Senate Democrats.

“People thought it was incredibly hypocritical for the mayor to go around
lecturing progressive Democrats across the country in the Huffington Post
about how they need to have a backbone, when he bent over backwards to help
people like Cuomo,’’ said a prominent Democratic activist with ties to de
Blasio.

*Calendar:*

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

·  November 19  – New York, NY: Sec. Clinton is honored by the National
Breast Cancer Coalition (Breast Cancer Deadline
<http://www.breastcancerdeadline2020.org/donate/fundraising-events/2014-NY-Gala-Evite.html>
)

·  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>
)