Subject: Correct The Record Wednesday November 26, 2014 Roundup
From: Burns Strider <[email-masked]>
To: CTRFriendsFamily <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 12:36:06 -0500
List-Id: <CTRFriendsFamily.americanbridge.org>

*​**Correct The Record Wednesday November 26, 2014 Roundup:*

*Tweets:*

Correct The Record @CorrectRecord: .@HillaryClinton
<https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton> launched the Climate & Clean Air
Coalition w/ 37 nations working to reduce emissions #HRC365
<https://twitter.com/hashtag/HRC365?src=hash>
http://correctrecord.org/stemming-the-tide-of-climate-change/ …
<http://t.co/5229XfhTZn> [11/25/14, 8:01 p.m. EST
<https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/537410669423759360>]

*Headlines:*

*Times-Picayune: “Hillary Clinton hosting New York fundraiser for Mary
Landrieu”
<http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/11/hillary_clinton_hosting_new_yo.html>*

“Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is hosting a New York City
fundraiser for Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., on Monday.”

*Associated Press: “Hillary Clinton Treads Lightly On Policy Issues As She
Eyes 2016”
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/26/hillary-clinton-2016_n_6225174.html?utm_hp_ref=politics>*

"Clinton is expected to make her political intentions known in the coming
weeks, likely in early 2015. Her speeches are closely watched for signs of
how she might offer a rationale for her candidacy."

*CNN: “Is the Clinton magic gone in Arkansas?”
<http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/26/politics/hillary-clinton-arkansas/>*

"This state launched the Clinton brand two decades ago and handed Hillary
Clinton one of the biggest victories of her 2008 primary battle against
Barack Obama."

*Washington Post blog: “Clinton has a clear lead among Democrats — but
would face stiff competition from Romney, Christie”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/11/26/clinton-has-a-clear-lead-among-democrats-but-would-face-stiff-competition-from-romney-christie/>*

"The new Quinnipiac survey has Clinton with support from a whopping 57
percent of Democrats, followed at a distant second by Massachusetts Sen.
Elizabeth Warren, at 13 percent. Vice President Joe Biden trails with 9
percent, while no other candidate breaks the 4 percent threshold."

*New York Times opinion: “Who Will Save the Democratic Party From Itself?”
<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/26/opinion/who-will-save-the-democratic-party-from-itself.html?_r=0>*

*“*Not everyone agrees that Hillary Clinton’s selection as the Democratic
nominee is unstoppable. The first to challenge her is Jim Webb, a one-term
former senator from Virginia. Here is the case for the Democratic Party
renegade.”

*New York Observer: “Hillary Clinton’s Deafening Silence On Ferguson”
<http://observer.com/2014/11/hillary-clintons-deafening-silence-on-ferguson/>*

"Meanwhile, few aspirants hoping to succeed President Obama had much to say
about Ferguson."

*Times-Picayune: “Hillary Clinton hosting New York fundraiser for Mary
Landrieu”
<http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/11/hillary_clinton_hosting_new_yo.html>*

By Bruce Alpert

November 25, 2014, 5:55 p.m. EST

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is hosting a New York City
fundraiser for Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., on Monday.

Landrieu, trailing in recent polls to Republican Rep. Bill Cassidy for the
Dec. 6 runoff, continues to face an avalanche of negative ads from
conservative advocacy groups, such as Karl Rove's American Crossroads. But
the National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee, apparently confident
of Cassidy's victory, has canceled planned TV ads in New Orleans, Baton
Rouge and Lafayette, according to Politico.

Clinton, who campaigned at a New Orleans rally for Landrieu before just
before the Nov. 4 primary, is hosting the Landrieu fundraiser at the home
of long-time Clinton supporters Sarah and Victory Kovner. Tickets range
from $1,000 to $12,600, with proceeds going to Landrieu's Senate campaign,
the Louisiana Democratic Party and Landrieu's political action committee.
Clinton, the former First Lady and New York senator, is the current
frontrunner for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination.

Meanwhile, outside groups reported new allocations Tuesday to fund efforts
aimed at defeating Landrieu.

Ending Spending Inc. reported in a filing Tuesday with the Federal Election
Commission reported that it spent $187,000 for "direct contact" with
Louisiana voters in opposition to Landrieu. The group was created by Joe
Ricketts, founder of TD Ameritrade. Tea Party Patriots reported a $7,000
allocation for e-marketing efforts against Landrieu and $2,031 for
automated calls and script writing on behalf of Cassidy.

Vote 2 Reduce Debt, another conservative group, is spending $1,600 on
internet ads and phone banks in support of Cassidy, according to an FEC
filing Tuesday.

*Associated Press: “Hillary Clinton Treads Lightly On Policy Issues As She
Eyes 2016”
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/26/hillary-clinton-2016_n_6225174.html?utm_hp_ref=politics>*

By Ken Thomas

November 26, 2014, 9:33 a.m. EST

Hillary Rodham Clinton offered praise for President Barack Obama's
executive actions to stave off deportation for millions of immigrants
living in the U.S. illegally. But the Democrats' favored presidential
hopeful has been less forthcoming on other issues in these early days of
the 2016 contest.

Clinton is not, so far, a candidate, and she's limiting her commentary
about the daily news cycle confronting Obama — a strategy that could keep
down chatter about where she and the unpopular president agree and where
they diverge.

The former secretary of state, senator and first lady is not talking about
the Keystone XL pipeline, rejected by one vote in the final weeks of the
Democrat-led Senate. She has yet to speak publicly about a sweeping climate
change agreement between the U.S. and China, an extension of talks over
Iran's nuclear program or the Senate's move to block a bill to end bulk
collection of Americans' phone records by the National Security Agency.

When Obama announced his moves to prevent the deportations for nearly 5
million immigrants living in the U.S. illegally, Clinton quickly embraced
the decision on Twitter. The president, she wrote, was "taking action on
immigration in the face of inaction" in Congress. In doing so, she signaled
that as a candidate, she would run against the Republican-led House and
Senate that convenes next year. Clinton also drew a distinction from her
would-be GOP opponents who have spoken of immigration reform in large part
as a border security problem.

On other weighty policy matters, however, Clinton is mum.

"You've got to make choices if you're not a candidate," said Lanny Davis, a
White House special counsel during the Clinton administration who attended
law school with Bill and Hillary Clinton. "She is not a candidate for
president. When she becomes a candidate, she has to start answering
questions."

Nick Merrill, a Clinton spokesman, declined to comment.

Clinton is expected to make her political intentions known in the coming
weeks, likely in early 2015. Her speeches are closely watched for signs of
how she might offer a rationale for her candidacy.

Clinton campaigned for Democratic candidates during the fall, often
pointing to pocketbook issues like equal pay for women, raising the minimum
wage and expanded family leave policies. "A 20th century economy will not
work for 21st century families," she said at an October rally.

Since then, Clinton has taken a more circumspect posture in public events,
appearing at charity events and voicing support for issues related to her
work at the Clinton Foundation. That approach allows her to stay above the
political fray in the aftermath of Democrats' poor showing during the
midterm elections.

Clinton has stayed close to Obama on immigration, releasing a statement
that noted that previous presidents of both parties had taken similar steps.

The following night, in an interview at a New York Historical Society
event, Clinton reiterated the need for Congress to act on a comprehensive
immigration bill. She also put the issue in the context of families, saying
the decision probably affected wait staff who were serving the dinner.

"There is probably no more pressing issue at this time than to fix this
immigration system," said Alex Padilla, California's secretary of
state-elect. "As a leader, it was right for her to speak up. A lot of
people wanted to know what she thought."

Other policy issues carry more political risk.

Clinton has avoided weighing in on the Keystone XL pipeline, saying it
wouldn't be appropriate for her since the environmental review by the State
Department happened during her watch. The issue is tricky for Democrats
because labor unions have supported the plan but environmentalists
adamantly oppose it.

Clinton has called climate change the nation's "most consequential" issue
but has yet to weigh in on the agreement Obama reached with China to set
new targets for cutting emissions. The deal was negotiated by John Podesta,
a Clinton White House chief of staff who is expected to play a prominent
role in a Clinton presidential campaign.

Both issues could receive attention from Clinton on Monday, when she is
scheduled to address the League of Conservation Voters in New York.

On NSA surveillance, Clinton has talked broadly about the need to balance
the need for security without infringing upon Americans' privacy amid a
debate over the government's collection of data. But she has kept a low
profile on the issue.

Republicans contend Clinton is being overly political in the lead-up to a
presidential campaign.

"Everything Hillary does is for political purposes," said Republican
National Committee spokeswoman Kirsten Kukowski, "which includes taking
positions for political expediency and not answering tough questions for
political reasons."

*CNN: “Is the Clinton magic gone in Arkansas?”
<http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/26/politics/hillary-clinton-arkansas/>*

By Dan Merica

November 26, 2014, 9:34 a.m. EST

This state launched the Clinton brand two decades ago and handed Hillary
Clinton one of the biggest victories of her 2008 primary battle against
Barack Obama.

But as she considers another bid for the White House in 2016, Arkansas
isn't so friendly.

In the final weeks of the 2014 election, top Democrats in Arkansas told
Hillary Clinton and her associates that she wasn't welcome to stump for the
party's candidates in the state, according to a knowledgeable source. While
there were some in Arkansas who wanted her to come, the "stay away"
contingent won the argument and Hillary Clinton was left to raise money for
Sen. Mark Pryor from New York.

Bill Clinton made up for the absence, making 13 stops in the state during
campaign season imploring voters to not make the election a repudiation of
President Barack Obama.

Still, Democrats across Arkansas lost big. The governor's mansion flipped
red, along with Pryor's Senate seat. The state's four-member House
delegation is solidly Republican.

The rout was part of a broader repudiation of Democrats across the South
this election cycle. But the results in Arkansas were particularly tough
for the Clintons and raise questions about whether the state most
associated with the couple is no longer welcome territory ahead of Hillary
Clinton's potential 2016 race.

"The coattails were short," outgoing Democratic Gov. Mike Beebe told CNN.
"It is a fact."

*Changes in Arkansas*

Bill Clinton handily won Arkansas during both of his presidential
elections. But the politics of the South changed during his time in office
as many states were increasingly dominated by Republicans.

Arkansas was a genuine battleground state during the 2000 election, when Al
Gore and George W. Bush both campaigned here and spent money on television
ads. Seeking to distance himself from Bill Clinton after his impeachment,
Gore didn't campaign with the former President and lost Arkansas to Bush by
5 points.

By 2008, Arkansas was seen as so unfriendly to Democrats that Obama wrote
the state off -- even as he won other southern states like North Carolina
and Virginia that Republicans carried for decades.

Before the 2014 election, Hillary Clinton's supporters -- many at the
grassroots level in Arkansas -- would quietly talk about the former first
lady's chances of competing and winning Arkansas in 2016. They touted her
standing with white women and working class voters.

But after Election Day, those optimistic Democrats are harder to find.

"Limited," said Vincent Insalaco, the chair of the Arkansas Democratic
Party, when asked about Hillary Clinton's chances of winning the state. "It
is limited here in Arkansas."

"I think she could run a strong race here, but I think the electorate has
changed," said Clarke Tucker, a newly elected Democratic state
representative. "The state has changed."

Hillary Clinton moved to Arkansas in 1974, joining her soon-to-be husband,
Bill, who was already a rising political star in the state. The couple
would go on to dominate the state's politics for the better part of two
decades and left a long list of confidants -- known as FOBs or Friends of
Bill -- in key Democratic positions across the state.

But times have changed. Republican power bases in northwest Arkansas have
grown, religious conservatives are a powerful voting bloc and the state's
Latino population has yet to become a force at the ballot box.

"Arkansas is a real demographic nightmare for Democrats," said Andrew
Dowdle, the vice chair of political science at the University of Arkansas.
"It is a complete reversal of fortunes."

All of this complicates the idea that Hillary Clinton could win Arkansas in
2016. During the 2008 primary, Hillary Clinton dominated Obama, winning 70%
of the state, her largest victory during that year's primary fight. That
was the only time she has been on the ballot in the state, however, and was
a contest with just Democratic voters.

The 2014 exit polls in Arkansas weren't positive for Hillary Clinton,
either. Thirty-nine percent of voters said she would make a good president,
according to the exit polls. Fifty-six percent said she would not.

Those same exit polls found that former GOP Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee,
who is also considering a 2016 run, is seen as a better presidential option
in the state than Hillary Clinton. Fifty percent of voters in Arkansas said
he would be a good president, compared to 46% who said he wouldn't.

With the former first lady eyeing another run at the presidency in 2016,
Democrats and Arkansas experts said that while she would easily win the
Democratic primary, she would struggle mightily to overcome what has become
a changed state.

*Democrat's silver lining: Obama is gone in 2016*

Democrats in Arkansas blame Obama -- not the Clintons -- for their losses.

One reason Beebe, the outgoing governor, sees things getting better for
Democrats in 2016 and beyond is because "Obama will be gone."

"I think it is all Obama," Beebe said. "I don't think there is any question
that most folks feel like it was a repudiation of the president and the
president's policies. But I think it is cyclical and the reason I say that
is if you look at the history."

"Democrats are looking at what can she do different from Barack Obama,"
said Dowdle. "If you are a Democratic party activist, you would end up
hoping she would win white women. ... That idea that a woman candidate
could end up running and making the gap grow is not going to happen."

Exit polls show that Beebe is partly right: Nearly 70% of voters in
Arkansas said they disapprove of Obama. Only 30% said they were satisfied
with him.

For Inalasco, 2016 -- and a Hillary Clinton run - is a moment to rebuild.

"I would hope that she would carry Arkansas," he said, rejecting the idea
that Democrats are done in the state. "But if she runs it is so, so
positive for us on the local level, here, for what we can do with her
popularity."

As for whether the Clinton magic is gone in Arkansas, Inalasco deferred his
answer for two years.

"I guess," he said, "we will see what happens in 2016, won't we?"

*Washington Post blog: “Clinton has a clear lead among Democrats — but
would face stiff competition from Romney, Christie”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/11/26/clinton-has-a-clear-lead-among-democrats-but-would-face-stiff-competition-from-romney-christie/>*

By Jose DelReal

November 26, 2014, 8:26 a.m. EST

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton continues to lead the 2016
Democratic presidential field — it's not even close — but another Clinton
administration is far from a sure thing, even if the election were held
today: A new poll out Wednesday shows that even as the clear Democratic
favorite, she would face stiff competition from several would-be GOP
candidates.

The new Quinnipiac survey has Clinton with support from a whopping 57
percent of Democrats, followed at a distant second by Massachusetts Sen.
Elizabeth Warren, at 13 percent. Vice President Joe Biden trails with 9
percent, while no other candidate breaks the 4 percent threshold.

Clinton has yet to announce whether she will run but is widely expected to
enter the race. The vice president has publicly flirted with the idea of
running, while Warren has so far dismissed the possibility of a 2016
candidacy.

The field is far less clear on the GOP side, where former presidential
candidate Mitt Romney remains the favorite with 19 percent support. The
2012 Republican presidential nominee has publicly said that he is not
interested in mounting a third presidential bid. The poll has former
Florida Gov. Jeb Bush following Romney among GOP voters with 11 percent
support.

When Romney is taken out of the equation, Bush leads with 14 percent
support, is followed by New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie at 11 percent. Both
Bush and Christie have said publicly that they are considering throwing
their hats in the ring, but have not formally entered the race.

Despite Clinton's enormous lead among potential rivals in the Democratic
primary, the survey indicates she would struggle against several GOP
candidates. Romney has 45 percent to Clinton's 44 percent, if the election
were held today. And Clinton would have 43 percent to Christie's 42 percent.

She is a clearer favorite when matched against other GOP candidates, with a
46 percent to 41 percent edge over Bush, and a 46 percent to 42 percent
advantage over Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan. And Clinton trounces Texas Sen.
Ted Cruz, 48 percent to 37 percent.

The telephone survey of 1,623 registered voters was conducted by cell phone
and landline between Nov. 18 and Nov. 23. The survey has a margin of error
of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

*New York Times opinion: “Who Will Save the Democratic Party From Itself?”
<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/26/opinion/who-will-save-the-democratic-party-from-itself.html?_r=0>*

By Thomas B. Edsall

November 25, 2014

Not everyone agrees that Hillary Clinton’s selection as the Democratic
nominee is unstoppable. The first to challenge her is Jim Webb, a one-term
former senator from Virginia.

Here is the case for the Democratic Party renegade.

When Webb, who served as secretary of the Navy under Ronald Reagan,
announced the formation of a presidential exploratory committee on Nov. 19,
he sought to capitalize on Democratic discontent. Taking a swipe at both
Wall Street and Clinton’s potential bid for the nomination, Webb declared:

“Our Constitution established a government not to protect the dominance of
an aristocratic elite, but under the principle that there should be no
permanent aristocracy, that every single American should have equal
protection under the law, and a fair opportunity to achieve at the very
highest levels.”

Webb suggested that he could bring working class whites back into the
Democratic fold and restore the biracial Democratic coalition:

“We have drifted to the fringes of allowing the very inequalities that our
Constitution was supposed to prevent. Walk into some of our inner cities if
you dare, and see the stagnation, poverty, crime and lack of opportunity
that still affects so many African-Americans. Or travel to the Appalachian
Mountains, where my own ancestors settled and whose cultural values I still
share, and view the poorest counties in America – who happen to be more
than 90 percent white, and who live in the reality that “if you’re poor and
white you’re out of sight.””

The Democratic Party used to be the place where people like these could
come not for a handout but for an honest handshake, good full-time jobs,
quality education, health care they can afford, and the vital, overriding
belief that we’re all in this together and the system is not rigged.

Webb’s exploration of a presidential bid is based on the premise that he
can tap into a crucial but alienated segment of the electorate.

This bloc includes voters convinced that Wall Street owns both parties,
voters tired of politicians submitting to partisan orthodoxy and voters
seeking to replace “identity group” politics with a restored middle- and
working-class agenda.

Webb’s election history – his victory in Virginia is the only race that he
has run – suggests that he will have difficulty achieving his goals. Before
we turn to examine the forces that will make his candidacy a difficult one,
let’s take a look at some positives.

Webb is a decorated veteran – he served from 1968 to 1972 in the Marine
Corps in Vietnam, and was awarded the Navy Cross – as well as a pointed
critic of military intervention in Iraq, Libya and Syria. Opposition to the
war in Iraq was a centerpiece of his 2006 Senate campaign.

Webb is a prolific author of both novels and nonfiction. His books are
dominated by themes of war and fighting from “Fields of Fire” to “Born
Fighting” to “A Time to Fight.” Webb notes with pride on his website his
heritage as the descendant of “between 250,000 and 400,000 Scots-Irish” who
migrated to America in the eighteenth century, traveling in groups of
families and bringing with them not only long experience as rebels and
outcasts but also unparalleled skills as frontiersmen and guerrilla
fighters. Their cultural identity reflected acute individualism, dislike of
aristocracy and a military tradition, and, over time, the Scots-Irish
defined the attitudes and values of the military, of working class America,
and even of the peculiarly populist form of American democracy itself.

Webb is one answer to the weaknesses of today’s center-left, the so-called
“upstairs-downstairs” coalition described by Joel Kotkin, presidential
fellow in Urban Futures at Chapman University. Kotkin argues in his
recently published book, “The New Class Conflict,” that the Democratic
Party has been taken over by what he calls “gentry liberals,” an elite that
has undermined the historic purpose of the Democratic Party.

Kotkin contends that “The great raison d'être for left-wing politics –
advocating for the middle- and working classes – has been refocused to
attend more closely to the policy imperatives and interests of small,
highly affluent classes, as well as the powerful public sector.”

I asked Kotkin what he thought of the themes Webb intends to raise, and he
wrote back “I think he’s onto something.”

The Democrats, Kotkin believes, need “someone — Sherrod Brown, Webb, Jon
Tester, somebody! — who speaks to the issues of upward mobility and
incomes.” Both Senator Brown and Senator Tester have staked out populist
positions in support of their working-class constituents in Ohio and
Montana.

Most Democratic politicians and strategists, according to Kotkin, “just
have no feel at all — as Harry Truman and Bill Clinton did, for example —
for the aspirations of the middle class. This is why they are losing them,
and deservedly so.”

Morris Fiorina, a political scientist at Stanford, is similarly critical of
the “upscale capture” of the Democratic Party. In an email, he wrote that
in the aftermath of the financial collapse of 2008, “the country is
desperate for economic relief, but as time goes on it becomes clear that
the administration’s economic policy is to take care of the financial
sector, where hundreds of people are clearly guilty of fraud in any
layman’s view. The result is building disappointment, resentment, and rage
in the public, which results in the 2010 debacle.”

“Today,” Fiorina writes, “We have a situation where voters can choose
between a party that openly admits to being a lap dog of Wall Street and a
party that by its actions clearly is a lap dog but denies it. At least vote
for the honest one.”

Asked about Webb, Fiorina replied, “the emotional side of me loves him.”
But, Fiorina cautioned, “the rational side is worried about how he would
actually behave if he were president.”

Further to the left side of the political spectrum, Krystal Marie Ball,
co-host of the MSNBC show The Cycle, waxed poetic on the air about the
former Virginia senator on Nov. 22, telling viewers that Webb was “such a
contrast from Hillary Clinton.”

"Clinton," Ball said, “is polished and produced and perfectly calibrated.
He is not. He is rough. He is authentic. He cares about issues. He speaks
plainly. He doesn’t try to oversmile, for example, he just is exactly who
he is. And there’s something very compelling about that, and it is a stark
contrast from the very carefully packaged and branded Clinton image.”

Al Hunt, a Bloomberg columnist, warned that Webb “could be Hillary
Clinton’s worst nightmare,” noting that Webb seems an improbable candidate.
He has taken illiberal positions, was President Ronald Reagan’s Navy
secretary, has few relationships within the Democratic Party, and has no
serious fund-raising network. What he does possess is a long-held and
forceful opposition to U.S. interventions in Iraq and Libya, and
potentially Syria, as well as solid anti-Wall Street credentials. In
Democratic primaries, these may be Clinton’s greatest impediments to
rallying a hard-core activist base.

To gauge Webb’s prospects, I looked at the exit poll data for the 2006
Virginia Senate race, when he unseated George Allen, the favored
Republican. I then compared Webb’s performance among key constituencies to
the performance of all House Democrats running nationwide in the same year.

The results of this comparison do not support the portrayal of Webb as a
candidate equipped to win over key white constituencies.

Take, for example, the ballots cast by white men. Webb lost among these
voters by a 24-point margin, 38-62. Exit poll data on all House races in
2006 shows that Democratic House candidates lost white men by a smaller
9-point margin, 44-53. White women voted for Allen over Webb by 53-47;
while House Democratic candidates split the votes of white women, 49-50.

Similarly, self-identified conservatives chose Allen over Webb by a
76-point margin, 12-88, while House Democratic candidates lost this segment
of the electorate by a substantial but smaller margin, 58 points (20-78).
Webb did not do any better with white evangelical and born-again
Protestants, losing these voters by a larger margin than did House
Democratic candidates.

To further check the validity of these comparisons, I looked at 2006 exit
polls in two other close Democratic Senate contests, in Montana, where
Tester beat Conrad Burns by less than 3,000 votes, 198,302 to 195,455, and
Claire McCaskill in Missouri, who beat the incumbent Republican Jim Talent,
50-47.

Tester and McCaskill both performed better among white men and women,
conservatives and white born-again and evangelical Protestants, than Webb
did.

Let’s forget Webb for a moment and take the question a step further. What
are the prospects of winning the presidential nomination for a candidate
who challenges current Democratic Party strategic orthodoxy? This strategy
calls for identity group, rather than class-based, mobilization, on the
assumption that turning out single women, the young, and racial and ethnic
minorities is more effective than an uphill struggle to revive support in
the recalcitrant white middle and working class.

As much as such a shift to a class-based strategy might result in economic
policies more beneficial to less affluent Democratic constituencies, and
therefore to more votes in the long haul, so far there has been
insufficient intraparty pressure to force a change in strategic orientation.

It is not lost on Democratic strategists that President Obama won twice
deploying a group-based rather than a class-based strategy. Even if the
next Democratic nominee does not inspire the high minority turnout levels
of 2008 and 2012, the 2016 electorate will be less Republican than it was
in 2012. Every four years, the heavily Republican white share of voters
drops by a little over 2 percent, and the disproportionately Democratic
minority share grows by the same amount.

There are, however, fundamental problems with the current Democratic
strategy, not least of which is that it is a strategy for winning
presidential elections but not necessarily for exerting real political
control.

The current approach depends on a Republican Party that refuses to adjust
to the transforming composition of the electorate. The 2014 elections
demonstrated, however, that the Republican Party and its candidates are not
immune to feedback and will change if they have to in order to win.

Insofar as the Republican Party tempers its retrograde stance on
social-sexual and moral-racial issues, Democratic campaigns stressing
alleged threats from conservatives — the threat to freedom and privacy
posed by the Christian right; the threat to Hispanic family unity posed by
anti-immigrant activists; the threat to programs serving the poor posed by
deficit hawks — will run out of gas.

That moment may be closer than expected. An Oct. 15 Washington Post/ABC
poll found that the public held the Democratic Party “in worse regard than
at any point in the past 30 years.” An Oct. 24 Pew Research Center survey
found, in turn, that the public favored Republicans over Democrats on such
key issues as handling the economy, the budget deficit, immigration and
terrorism.

Democrats, according to Pew, retained an advantage on less tangible
qualities such as empathy, honesty and a willingness to compromise.

As attractive as those characteristics are, they are not top priorities for
voters. Both Pew and Gallup have found that, except in times of crisis –
for example, in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks — voters’ top priorities
consistently include bread-and-butter issues, jobs and the economy.

In September 2006, just before Democrats regained control of the House and
Senate, the party held a 30-point advantage, 58-28, on the question, “which
party is better able to handle the economy,” according to Gallup. Going
into the 2014 elections, Gallup found there had been a huge swing on this
question, with Republicans now ahead 48-43.

If those numbers do not change significantly before Nov. 8, 2016, it won’t
matter whether the nominee seeks to strengthen a biracial coalition by
broadening white support or by increasing turnout among the party’s
identity group constituencies. The Democrats’ lack of credibility on
economic issues will hobble, if not extinguish, the party’s prospects.
Unless the Democrats develop a coherent, comprehensive strategy for the
have-nots, it won’t matter whether the party’s nominee is Clinton, Webb or
anyone else.

*New York Observer: “Hillary Clinton’s Deafening Silence On Ferguson”
<http://observer.com/2014/11/hillary-clintons-deafening-silence-on-ferguson/>*

By Lincoln Mitchell

November 26, 2014, 10:15 a.m.

“The frustrations that we’ve seen,” said President Obama in a statement
yesterday about recent events in Ferguson, Missouri, “are not just about a
particular incident. They have deep roots in many communities of color who
have a sense that our laws are not always being enforced uniformly or
fairly. That may not be true everywhere, and it’s certainly not true for
the vast majority of law enforcement officials, but that’s an impression
that folks have and it’s not just made up. It’s rooted in realities that
have existed in this country for a long time.” The comments demonstrate the
President’s keen understanding of the environment that has contributed to
the demonstrations and frustration felt in Ferguson and elsewhere in the
U.S. following a grand jury’s decision not to indict Darren Wilson. “Next
week,” the President continued, “we’ll bring together state and local
officials, and law enforcement, and community leaders and faith leaders to
start identifying very specific steps that we can take to make sure that
law enforcement is fair and is being applied equally to every person in
this country.” That sentence should provide great succor to those who want
to see few if any changes to the system that produced Darren Wilson and
subsequent demonstrations.

Meanwhile, few aspirants hoping to succeed President Obama had much to say
about Ferguson.

Most of the Republicans seeking their party’s nomination for the presidency
in 2016 said little or nothing about the grand jury decision and the events
that followed. This was wise and reflected a strategic environment in which
Republicans no longer compete for African American votes. By saying
anything at all, Republican candidates such as Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio or
Bobby Jindal would only risk making a verbal gaffe that would hurt them
with the white moderates they need to win in a general election. Somewhat
predictably, the most visible Republican presidential candidate in the
hours since the grand jury decision has been Rand Paul. Mr. Paul indicated
that there is a need for reforms in the criminal justice system and that
issues related to drug use and poverty should be addressed as well.

The voice most glaringly absent in recent days has been that of Hillary
Clinton. Ms. Clinton the front-running non-candidate for the Democratic
nomination for President has, in recent months, not been shy about offering
opinions about Ukraine, Isis or President Obama’s various foreign policy
foibles, but for some reason has not had very much to say about the grand
jury’s decision or the demonstrations that followed that decision. This is
a reflection of Ms. Clinton’s generally cautious political style, but also
raises questions about Ms. Clinton and the Democratic Party itself.

African Americans are a huge part of the Democratic Party base. It is
extraordinary that the party’s second most visible leader does not see it
necessary or helpful to speak out during a moment that is so important to
so many African Americans. There are lots of things that can go wrong for a
politician when she speaks out at during times like these, but taking risks
defines leadership.

*Calendar:*

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

·  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 1 – New York, NY: Sec. Clinton hosts fundraiser for Sen. Mary
Landrieu (Times-Picayune
<http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/11/hillary_clinton_hosting_new_yo.html>
)

·  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>
)

·  February 24 – Santa Clara, CA: Sec. Clinton to Keynote Address at
Inaugural Watermark Conference for Women (PR Newswire
<http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/hillary-rodham-clinton-to-deliver-keynote-address-at-inaugural-watermark-conference-for-women-283200361.html>
)