Subject: ​Correct The Record Monday December 8, 2014 Morning Roundup
From: Burns Strider <[email-masked]>
To: CTRFriendsFamily <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2014 08:11:32 -0500
List-Id: <CTRFriendsFamily.americanbridge.org>

*​**Correct The Record Monday December 8, 2014 Morning Roundup:*

*Headlines:*

*Bloomberg: “Clinton Trumps Republican Rivals on Leadership, Vision for
2016”
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2014-12-08/clinton-trumps-republican-rivals-on-leadership-vision-for-2016>*

“Former first lady, senator, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would
enter the presidential race with positive views of her past experience and
personal traits, making her a formidable contender against lesser-known
Republican rivals.”

*New York Times blog: The Upshot: “The Special Powers of Super PACS, and
Not Just for Federal Elections”
<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/09/upshot/the-special-powers-of-super-pacs-and-not-just-for-federal-elections.html?abt=0002&abg=0>*

“Ready for Hillary is a good example of an infrastructure super PAC… Other
similar PACs include Battleground Texas, which seeks to increase the
Democratic Party’s footprint in that state, and American Bridge 21st
Century, which provides funding for opposition research on Republican
candidates, neither of which made any independent expenditures in federal
elections.”

*National Journal: “Clinton Will Need to Win Over the Black Voters That
Landrieu Couldn't”
<http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/clinton-will-need-to-win-over-the-black-voters-that-landrieu-couldn-t-20141207>*

[Subtitle:] “The likely Democratic presidential nominee needs to duplicate,
or at least come close to duplicating, Obama's performance among
African-Americans. It's a tall task.”

"They (Clintons) have a built-in level of credibility. But you can never
take that granted. She has to reintroduce herself." - Dr. Silas Lee of New
Orleans

*Bloomberg: “Rand Paul Keeps Up His Obsession With Hillary Clinton”
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2014-12-08/rand-paul-keeps-up-his-obsession-with-hillary-clinton>*

“These days, it seems as though Rand Paul never misses an opportunity to
take a dig at Hillary Clinton.”

*The Hill: “2016 rivals woo Silicon Valley”
<http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/226151-2016-rivals-woo-silicon-valley>*

“Clinton has made multiple trips to Silicon Valley in recent months, taking
time to visit the headquarters of Twitter, Facebook and Google.”

*The Hill blog: Ballot Box: “For 2016, who will jump in first?”
<http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/226266-for-2016-who-will-jump-in-first>*

“Few expect her to enter the race in early January, as she did at the
equivalent point eight years ago. Clinton announced her candidacy almost
one year before the 2008 Iowa caucuses and two years to the day before the
inauguration of the 44th president.”

*Associated Press: “Bachmann ready to leave Congress, but not politics”
<http://bigstory.ap.org/article/5dbeec48ac364f4bbb3feebe07de788c/bachmann-ready-leave-congress-not-politics>*

“As she wrapped up her congressional business this past week, Bachmann said
she is determined to play a role in the next presidential election. The
possibility of Democrats nominating Hillary Rodham Clinton will make the
voices of Republican women more important than ever, she said.”

*Articles:*

*Bloomberg: “Clinton Trumps Republican Rivals on Leadership, Vision for
2016”
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2014-12-08/clinton-trumps-republican-rivals-on-leadership-vision-for-2016>*

By Lisa Lerer

December 8, 2014, 5:50 a.m. EST

[Subtitle:] The latest Bloomberg Politics poll finds that Americans like
Hillary Clinton and her government experience

Former first lady, senator, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would
enter the presidential race with positive views of her past experience and
personal traits, making her a formidable contender against lesser-known
Republican rivals.

Greater numbers of Americans view her as a strong leader, who has a better
vision for the future, shares their values, and empathizes with their
concerns, according to a new Bloomberg Politics Poll. Among the Republicans
tested against her, former Republican nominee Mitt Romney has the best name
recognition and strengths to challenge her standing as this early stage in
the 2016 race. Romney, however, has repeatedly said he won't campaign for
the presidency for a third time.

With poll participants saying she is better than her potential Republican
opponents on these four qualities, including the traditionally Republican
strength of leadership, Clinton is positioned quite differently than
President Barack Obama was during his re-election bid. In 2012, Romney won
by 13 percentage points among voters who said the quality that mattered
most in deciding how they voted for president was a candidate who "shares
your values," by 23 points among those looking for a "strong leader," and
by nine percentage points among those who prioritized a candidate with a
"vision for the future," according to the election's exit polls with voters
that were collected by Edison Research for the National Election Pool, a
consortium of national media outlets. For Obama, a 63-percentage-point lead
among voters who most valued a candidate who "cares about people like me"
was a key attribute that helped propel him to victory.

 “Her image and reputation with voters has been defined, and in some ways
redefined, by her service as Secretary of State, where voters saw someone
who was a strong leader in representing our country,” said Geoff Garin, a
Democratic polling expert who worked for Clinton’s unsuccessful primary
campaign against Obama. “If she runs, she comes to this election in much
better shape then she did in the 2008."

While Clinton lacks Obama’s overwhelming empathy advantage, she's better
positioned two years before the election in every other attribute. When
respondents were asked which potential candidate did a better job on each
of four qualities,  she runs seven to 20 points ahead on leadership when
pitted against former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, New Jersey Governor Chris
Christie, Texas Senator Ted Cruz, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, and Romney.
Though Clinton has yet to provide a detailed account of how she'd guide the
nation as president, Americans think she has more of a vision for the
future than any in the Republican field. When measured on that attribute,
she leads Romney by 6 points, Paul by 10 points, Bush by 15 points,
Christie by 17 points, and Cruz by 21 points.

A different story emerges when the potential presidential match-ups are
tested among what likely voters say they value most. Clinton lags behind
all the Republicans among likely voters who named “sharing your values” as
their top quality in selecting a candidate. One reason for the shift is
that a plurality–41 percent—of Republicans identified "shared values" as
their most important trait. Maryanna Preston, a Florida clinical
psychologist who favors Republican candidates, said she found Clinton
untrustworthy. “I would not want her running this country,” she said. “She
is a power-hungry woman wanting to be the first woman president of the
United States. I think she’s dangerous.”

Still, in a general election showdown, Clinton wins against all five
potential Republican candidates among likely voters, though she never
breaks the 50 percent mark. Her margin is narrowest against Bush, Christie,
and Romney, with a six-percentage-point lead. She beats Paul by eight
points and Cruz by 13 points.

Clinton is far better known than most of her possible Republican
challengers, with the exception of Romney. That familiarity, some
Republicans argue, makes her appear to hold a more formidable position
today. “She has 100 percent name ID. Among the potential candidates for
2016, Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney are the only ones who even come close,” said
Republican pollster Whit Ayres. According to the poll, just 6 percent of
American say they're "not sure" whether they'd rank  her favorably or not,
compared with 13 percent who said the same of Romney. All of the other
Republicans tested were not known well enough to be rated by about a third
or more of the respondents. “I would have been stunned if any of the
Republicans beat Clinton on any measure.”

More than half–52 percent–of Americans have a favorable view of Clinton, a
drop from a high of 70 percent in December 2012, less than two months
before she left her post as Secretary of State and re-entered the national,
partisan political dialogue. That diplomatic background, considered by some
Republicans to be a point of weakness, is seen as beneficial by a majority
of Americans. More than two out of three view her tenure as Secretary of
State, marriage to former President Bill Clinton, and, perhaps as an
indication that Americans want an experienced insider in the next
president, her service in Washington, as advantageous to Clinton. About six
in ten say the same about her previous presidential run and work in the
Obama administration. "People get all critical about, ‘oh, so and so‘s a
career politician',” said Barbara Rishaw, a deli clerk and self-identified
“disillusioned independent” in Nashville, Tenn. “On the other hand,
wouldn’t you want to hire someone for a job when they actually have some
experience?”

One show of weakness for Clinton: 52 percent viewed her ties to Wall Street
as a positive—a ranking that could provide an opening to a populist primary
challenger or an avenue for attacks by Republicans.

The poll of 1,001 U.S. adults was conducted Dec. 3-5 by Selzer & Co. of Des
Moines, Iowa, and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage
points. Results based on the 753 likely voters in the 2016 election have a
margin of error of plus or minus 3.6 percentage points.

*New York Times blog: The Upshot: “The Special Powers of Super PACS, and
Not Just for Federal Elections”
<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/09/upshot/the-special-powers-of-super-pacs-and-not-just-for-federal-elections.html?abt=0002&abg=0>*

By Derek Willis

December 8, 2014

The “super PAC” is not what it used to be.

Before mere mortal political action committees got this elevated status to
accept unlimited political contributions, they were known as independent
expenditure-only committees. They were supposed to spend money trying to
elect or defeat candidates on the national level.

But a look at the activity of super PACs in the 2014 election cycle shows
that they have expanded their activities far beyond the original model. In
what is a perfectly legal maneuver in many states, they are at work in
state elections, provide a foundation for future elections and serve as a
source of money for other political committees. Sixteen super PACs that
spent at least $1 million during the cycle spent nothing on trying to elect
or defeat federal candidates, and 24 others spent less than half of their
money that way.

Combined, those 40 committees spent $287 million during the election, with
$49 million of that on direct independent expenditures in federal races.
This is the latest demonstration of what has become a predictable pattern
in federal election regulation: Methods or vehicles created at the federal
level typically find their way into state elections. While federal and
state elections have different rules and regulators, money passes between
them, and super PACs are no exception to that rule.

Among them was NextGen Climate Action Committee, funded mostly by the
billionaire hedge fund manager Tom Steyer to further his environmental
causes. It raised $77 million, but spent only $18.9 million on direct
independent expenditures in federal elections, with the remainder going to
state elections or to other federal committees.

Workers’ Voice, the A.F.L.-C.I.O.'s main political vehicle, raised $20.4
million and spent about 11 percent of that on direct independent spending
in federal races, giving to other committees and spending at the state
level.

Grow WV, a Republican super PAC active in West Virginia, raised $1.5
million and spent just $3,582 on federal elections, opting to play in state
legislative races, where Republicans won a majority in the State House of
Delegates and, after a postelection party change, also control the State
Senate.

The ability to raise unlimited amounts of money from any donor and the gaps
between federal and state campaign finance laws make super PACs much more
useful than originally intended. Instead of being used just for a specific
election, they are being devised for an endless campaign. The NextGen
Climate Action Committee ended the November election with $4.7 million in
cash, suggesting that it won’t be the last time we’ll hear from it.

Those super PACs that spent no money on federal independent expenditures
either focused exclusively on state elections or provided infrastructure
for parties or candidates. Liberty Principles PAC raised $1.8 million,
nearly all of it from Richard Uihlein, the conservative head of a Wisconsin
packing materials company, and gave it to an Illinois state committee for
use in primary elections in that state.

This approach works best in states that have relatively low contribution
limits; donors shift their money to the PACs permitted under federal rules.

Ready for Hillary is a good example of an infrastructure super PAC. It
raised more than $12 million and made no independent expenditures. Instead,
it developed lists of supporters for a presidential campaign by Hillary
Clinton. Other similar PACs include Battleground Texas, which seeks to
increase the Democratic Party’s footprint in that state, and American
Bridge 21st Century, which provides funding for opposition research on
Republican candidates, neither of which made any independent expenditures
in federal elections.

There are still super PACs that have devoted nearly all of their resources
to federal elections, such as those run by the Sierra Club, the National
Association of Realtors and Ending Spending Action Fund, created to back
fiscally conservative Republicans. The Priorities for Iowa Political Fund,
which was formed in September to oppose Bruce Braley in the Iowa Senate
race, raised $1.2 million and spent 99.9 percent of it on ads. Put Alaska
First, which backed Mark Begich, the Democratic incumbent in the Alaska
Senate contest, put 97 percent of its spending toward trying to re-elect
him.

*National Journal: “Clinton Will Need to Win Over the Black Voters That
Landrieu Couldn't”
<http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/clinton-will-need-to-win-over-the-black-voters-that-landrieu-couldn-t-20141207>*

By Alex Roarty

December 7, 2014

[Subtitle:] The likely Democratic presidential nominee needs to duplicate,
or at least come close to duplicating, Obama's performance among
African-Americans. It's a tall task.

Mary Landrieu lost her runoff race Saturday because President Obama isn't
well-liked, national Democrats abandoned her, and, statewide, Louisiana
pretty much only elects Republicans. But Democrats and their likely
presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton, might squirm the most over her
defeat for a different reason: The longtime senator couldn't get enough
support from African-Americans.

Like Landrieu, Clinton (or whoever becomes the party's standard-bearer)
will try to win over black voters at the same rate Obama did in both of his
presidential campaigns—only in 2016, she will have to do so without the
benefit of the nation's first black president on the ballot. The challenge
proved too daunting for the Louisiana lawmaker, whose 10-point defeat was
in part because of a likely decline in black turnout from her November
all-party primary.

Clinton's task will be easier because black voters (along with Latinos and
young people) traditionally vote at higher rates in presidential races than
midterms. And it's assured that when they vote, she'll win the overwhelming
support of the party's most loyal constituency. At the same time, it's
close to a given that her candidacy, while historically significant in its
own right, won't generate the same enthusiasm in the black community that
Obama's did.

The question, then, isn't whether a post-Obama Democrat will do well with
black voters; it's whether the nominee can do as well with
African-Americans as Obama did during his campaigns, when blacks supported
him at record rates. In a close race, with Democrats already struggling to
hold on other parts of their coalition, even a small decline could prove
fatal.

"Just a little bit of a pull back for a Democratic candidate will make
winning a lot more dicey," said William Frey, a demographer at the
Brookings Institute.

Democrats have to keep two metrics in mind when considering black votes in
2016: blacks' turnout rate and what share of them would vote for Clinton.
An examination of the duo in recent elections sends mixed signals about
Clinton's hopes for matching Obama's performance.

It's true that turnout—a measure of how many people voted relative to how
many are eligible to vote—among blacks in 2012 was the highest it's ever
been since the Census Bureau started tracking turnout rates in 1978.
According to a 2013 Current Population Survey from the Bureau, 66.2 percent
of blacks voted in the last presidential election. (It was also the first
presidential race in which the black turnout rate exceeded the white
turnout rate.) That broke the previous record, set in 2008, when 64.7
percent voted.

But black turnout was increasing every presidential election long before
Obama arrived. It hit a low of 53 percent in 1996 before rising to 56.8
percent in 2000. Four years later, it jumped to 60 percent. It's difficult
to imagine that Obama's popularity didn't push turnout higher in each of
his election, but it's possible that it could have continued rising on its
own even without him.

Obama also won an unusually high share of the black vote—but not by much.
He won 95 percent in 2008 and 93 percent in 2012. Both are marginally
higher than the 88 percent of support John Kerry won in 2004, or the 90
percent Al Gore won in 2000.

Helping Clinton will be the fact, according to the demographer Frey, that
the African-American community continues to grow as a share of the
country's total population. So even at lower turnout rates, blacks could
continue to make up the same share of the overall electorate.

Nonetheless, he adds, it will be hard to Clinton to match or exceed Obama's
performance.

"Obama is an incredibly charismatic candidate," said Frey. "He came out of
nowhere largely because of his charisma and what he stood for. I think any
candidate would have a hard time repeating his performance in that kind of
situation."

Clinton does have some things going for her as she begins courting the
black voting bloc. African-American women, for one, could identify with the
first female presidential nominee of a major party. The Republican
presidential nominee might alienate black voters during a heated
presidential primary, either rhetorically or with part of his platform. And
while her husband, former President Bill Clinton, strained relations with
the black community during the 2008 Democratic presidential primary, he
possesses a revoir of goodwill leftover from his two terms in office.

Former advisers to Hillary Clinton say she doesn't start from scratch with
blacks, but she does need to craft a message and agenda that appeal to the
community.

"They have a built-in level of credibility," said Silas Lee, a Democratic
pollster who has worked for the Clintons before. "But you can never take
that granted. She has to reintroduce herself."

But the difficulty Landrieu faced in her own race this year demonstrates
how Clinton's attempts to appeal to the black community can backfire on her
candidacy. The senator earned an incredibly high share of Louisiana's black
vote on Election Day last month, according to exit polls. Ninety-four
percent of blacks voted for her—higher even than what Obama received in his
last election.

What hurt Landrieu was her performance among white voters—just 18 percent
of them backed her. And that's not a coincidence, some of the state's
political experts say, because the diligent effort she made to attract
African-Americans had an equal reaction of pushing away white voters.

Landrieu backed expanding background checks on some gun sales and refused
to denounce her vote for Obamacare—ostensibly because doing so would harm
her support within the black community. And before the election, she said
racism contributed to Obama's unpopularity in the state.

"If you do what Mary Landrieu did and you make so much of your campaign
about turning out the black vote, then you get in big trouble with the
white vote," said Elliott Stonecipher, a nonpartisan political analyst in
Louisiana. "And that is exactly what happened here."

He added that he already sees evidence of Clinton making the same mistake.
Following the decision of a Staten Island grand jury not to indict the
police officers after the death of Eric Garner, the former secretary of
State delivered a speech in which she talked about the "hard truths" that
African-American men are disproportionately targeted by the criminal
justice system.

"I think many people watched her comments last night and she was over the
line," Stonecipher said. "I think that's the kind of thing she's not going
to be able to do."

It's debatable whether Stonecipher is right: Garner's case has not elicited
a racially polarized reaction, certainly not the same degree that Michael
Brown's death in Ferguson, Mo., did.

*Bloomberg: “Rand Paul Keeps Up His Obsession With Hillary Clinton”
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2014-12-08/rand-paul-keeps-up-his-obsession-with-hillary-clinton>*

By Steven Yaccino

December 8, 2014, 5:45 a.m. EST

[Subtitle:] More than any other possible 2016 presidential candidate, the
senator from Kentucky is ready for Hillary bashing.

These days, it seems as though Rand Paul never misses an opportunity to
take a dig at Hillary Clinton.

After Republican Bill Cassidy beat Senator Mary Landrieu in a Louisiana
run-off election this weekend, Paul did not hesitate to lay blame at the
feet of the former Secretary of State.

Before sending a congratulatory tweet to Cassidy—a new colleague who, like
Paul, is also a physician—the Kentucky senator first sent out two messages
on Saturday about the former secretary of state, not forgetting to add his
trademark #HILLARYSLOSERS hashtag.

The latest chiding tweets are part of a series that Paul began after the
midterm elections in which a wave of incumbent Democrats supported by
Clinton fell to Republican challengers, a result that Paul sees, at least
in part, as a repudiation of the presumed Democratic presidential
front-runner.

More than any other potential 2016 Republican candidate, Paul has been
relentless about rubbing salt in the wound of every perceived Clinton
misstep. Attempting to raise doubts about whether Clinton is fit to lead
the country at every opportunity, Paul has, for months, used speeches and
media interviews to lambast Clinton's foreign policy credentials,
statements about her finances, as well her climate change positions. He has
also publicly questioned whether Hillary is physically up for the job.

“I think all the polls show if she does run, she’ll win the Democrat
nomination,” he told Politico last month. “But I don’t think it’s for
certain. It’s a very taxing undertaking to go through. It’s a rigorous
physical ordeal, I think, to be able to campaign for the presidency.”

Neither Clinton nor Paul has announced whether they will mount bids for the
White House in 2016. But Paul will be nothing if not well practiced should
the two candidates end up facing off in the general election.

*The Hill: “2016 rivals woo Silicon Valley”
<http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/226151-2016-rivals-woo-silicon-valley>*

By Julian Hattem

December 7, 2014, 3:36 p.m. EST

Contenders for the White House are cozying up to Silicon Valley ahead of
the 2016 elections.

Potential candidates on the Republican side are cultivating allies in the
tech sector at a frenetic pace, making frequent trips to California for
fundraising dinners, company tours and bull sessions.

With the presidential race expected to be a multi-billion dollar endeavor,
the well-heeled executives of the tech world are in high demand — not only
for their campaign cash, but also their ability to recruit the high-skilled
talent needed for a modern campaign.

“All smart candidates want to associate themselves with the golden goose,”
said Bruce Mehlman, head of the Technology CEO Council and a partner at the
lobby firm Mehlman Castagnetti.

"If you want to be president, you need the nation to believe that you
understand what makes the economy tick and you have ideas for driving
growth.”

While the San Francisco Bay Area is known for being a liberal stronghold,
rising concerns in the tech industry about government spying, regulations
and Washington gridlock could provide an opening for some Republican
hopefuls.

So far, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has made the most aggressive attempts to win
support among the Internet elite.

The libertarian lawmaker is widely expected to announce his bid for
president in coming months, and is in the midst of opening an office in the
Silicon Valley area.

“With the people who are considered likely to run, I think Rand is pretty
far ahead,” said Reed Galen, a California-based Republican strategist. “I
think he’s put more energy into coming out here and really cultivating
relationships.”

“They’ve been pretty savvy on that front.”

Still, despite securing early support from industry icons such as PayPal
co-founder Peter Thiel, Paul could face some skepticism.

The Kentuckian is one of the loudest congressional critics of government
spying — a major issue for the tech sector, which has lost business due to
revelations about National Security Agency (NSA) spying — yet he voted
against a Senate bill to rein in the spying.

The bill did not go far enough to rein in the NSA, Paul said.

That argument might not hold water with tech companies, who lobbied hard
for the legislation, viewing it as their last, best hope for change this
year.

Paul has also been critical of net neutrality, the notion that federal
rules should require Internet service companies such as Comcast or Verizon
to treat all online traffic equally. The concept has strong support among
many in the tech sector.

The net neutrality issue could be problematic for Republicans across the
board, as most of them have lambasted President Obama’s call for the
Federal Communications Commission to reclassify broadband Internet service
so that it can be regulated like a utility.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) has called the notion “ObamaCare for the Internet,”
and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) has also opposed the plan.

Both senators appear to be making other attempts to win tech’s favor.

Cruz has also been one of biggest opponents in Congress of allowing states
to collect sales tax for items purchased on the Internet — a proposal that
has split the industry — and has loudly called for lawmakers to extend a
widely popular ban on local and state taxes for Internet access. He was
also one of the cosponsors of the NSA reform bill.

Rubio, meanwhile, has launched a number of legislative initiatives to get
more of the nation’s airwaves into private hands, and has praised
innovative companies such as Uber for going against the grain of local
regulations.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R), another leading 2016 contender, has won
some favor with Facebook co-founder Mark Zuckerberg, who hosted a
fundraiser for the governor last year and pledged $100 million to support
schools in the city of Newark.

The Republican hopefuls could find themselves competing for support against
former Hewlett Packard head Carly Fiorina, who says she is considering a
presidential bid of her own.

It’s unclear how much support Fiorina would have in the tech industry, as
she moved to Virginia some years ago while becoming a prominent figure in
the GOP. She also still owes about $500,000 from her failed 2010 bid to
represent California in the Senate.

The potential Republican candidate who might make the biggest splash in
Silicon Valley is former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush.

Bush “understands a lot of tech,” and has hit a nerve among many with his
focus on education reform, said San Jose State University political science
professor Larry Gerston.

“There’s a really wonderful connection that can draw the industry and a
national imperative together. I would fully expect him to be making moves
out here really soon if he jumps in.”

For Democrats, Hillary Clinton’s flirtation with a presidential campaign
has paralyzed many other would-be contenders. Several major Silicon Valley
donors have already pledged support if she runs.

Salesforce co-founder Marc Benioff and his wife, Lynn, have contributed
$50,000 to the pro-Clinton Ready for Hillary super-PAC, and other icons
such as Craigslist founder Craig Newmark have said they would be onboard.

Clinton has made multiple trips to Silicon Valley in recent months, taking
time to visit the headquarters of Twitter, Facebook and Google.

In February, she will give the keynote address at the Watermark Silicon
Valley Conference for Women, an event focused on professionals.

Perhaps the biggest question for Clinton is, in the language of tech
startups, whether she can come across as an innovator rather than a
political dinosaur.

“If she succeeds it’ll be because she’s the iPhone of the party,” said
Mehlman, “and if she fails it’s because she’s the PalmPilot.”

*The Hill blog: Ballot Box: “For 2016, who will jump in first?”
<http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/226266-for-2016-who-will-jump-in-first>*

By Elise Viebeck

December 8, 2014, 6:00 a.m. EST

That’s the phrase the political world is waiting to hear from the dozens of
Republicans and some Democrats who are considering a run for the White
House in 2016.

The starting gun for what could be the most competitive presidential
primary in recent memory will be fired once a big-name candidate announces,
and political insiders are placing their bets on who will be first out of
the gate.

On the Republican side, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Kentucky Sen. Rand
Paul and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal are said to be looking at the calendar
— and over their shoulders — in preparation for announcements this spring.

Other GOP contenders, such as Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, Texas Gov. Rick
Perry and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, are circling the wagons. And a decision
is expected soon from former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, which would ripple
across the Republican field whether he gets in or stays out of the race.

For Democrats, the spotlight is fixed squarely on former secretary of State
Hillary Clinton.

Few expect her to enter the race in early January, as she did at the
equivalent point eight years ago. Clinton announced her candidacy almost
one year before the 2008 Iowa caucuses and two years to the day before the
inauguration of the 44th president.

But groups on the left are increasingly vocal about their desire for a
challenger to a front-runner whom they see as too centrist and Wall
Street-friendly.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) is clearly at the top of the left’s wish
list. Clinton might want to declare fairly soon in the hope of choking off
the chances of Warren or any other progressive rival.

In the meantime, Vice President Biden and Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley are
waiting in the wings, ready to pounce should Clinton make the surprise
decision to stay out.

On the right, the packed stable of GOP hopefuls is creating a nightmare for
strategists tasked with positioning their candidates to the best advantage.

“I have been doing this for 50 years and this is the first time I haven’t
got a clue what will happen,” said veteran GOP strategist Ed Rollins, who
added that he is staying out of the 2016 fray.

“There are 20 people sitting in their offices around the country today
thinking of running for president, and everyone is waiting for the next
shoe to drop.”

The clock is already ticking.

The Iowa caucuses are a little more than a year away, and it’s only nine
months until the first GOP primary debate, at the Reagan Library in
California. Strategists expect the candidates to engage in an arms race for
donors, staff and media attention, and are mindful of the deadlines for
reporting campaign cash.

Within both parties, early signs of fundraising prowess can help candidates
build credibility, as was the case when then-Illinois Sen. Barack Obama ran
neck-and-neck — and dollar-for-dollar — with Clinton from the start of
their epic battle. Obama’s success in the “money primary” throughout 2007
was the first concrete evidence of how serious a threat he posed to the
early favorite.

Procrastination can be fatal. An announcement from one candidate could have
the effect of pulling others into the race or knocking them out, depending
on their niche within their respective parties.

If, for instance, Warren were to enter the race, she would instantly
undermine the rationale for a campaign by left-wing firebrand Sen. Bernie
Sanders (I-Vt.).

On the Republican side, a potential Bush candidacy looms large.

Both Christie and Rubio have much at stake in the former governor’s
decision.

While Rubio has said that his former mentor’s decision won’t affect his
own, strategists believe the Florida senator might sit out 2016 if Bush
decides to run. Christie, meanwhile, would want to jump in immediately
after Bush, for fear of seeing the establishment mantle seized by someone
else.

With no single Republican candidate looming over the race, a sense of
watchfulness pervades the GOP field.

“Rand and [Texas Sen. Ted] Cruz are sort of shadow-boxing,” said Matt
Mackowiak, a Republican strategist from the Lone Star State. “Walker,
[Indiana Gov.] Mike Pence, and [Ohio Gov.] John Kasich are watching each
other. No one is making timeline decisions on their own.”

Some candidates are weighing a detour from politics. Perry, for one, is
said to be considering a quick trip into the private sector after he leaves
the Texas governor’s office in 2015, while former Arkansas Gov. Mike
Huckabee is expected to hold on to his talk show at Fox News for as long as
possible.

“We’ll have candidates starting later this cycle than what people may have
thought,” said John Weaver, a senior adviser to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.)
during his presidential bids. “It’s going to be late winter to early spring
announcements, as opposed to late December through February.”

Weaver, who served as chief strategist for former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman’s
2012 campaign, said it would be a free-for-all once candidates begin
declaring.

“It’s like dominos,” he said. “The first semi-serious domino that falls,
[then] you’ll see others start falling. The discipline just goes out the
window.”

Campaigns-in-waiting will spend the holiday season feeling out donors,
planning strategy for the early primary states and tallying up favors.

Democrats will also be seeking as clear an answer as they can get to two
key questions: Is Clinton definitely running and, if so, who can mount the
most serious challenge to her?

Among Republicans, less work is to be done for candidates like Paul and
Bush, who would benefit from their families’ wide bases of support, and
Christie, who built up goodwill and allies as head of the Republican
Governors Association.

Ford O’Connell, an alumnus of McCain’s 2008 campaign, predicted the
announcements might not start to come until the spring, after the April 15
quarterly filing deadline for fundraising.

That would be a major change from 2008, when the stampede of candidates
began right after Christmas.

“It’s chaotic right now because these calculations are so complex, and
there is no front-runner for the first time in 50 years,” O’Connell said.
“Last time, everyone knew their target was Mitt Romney. It was Mitt
Romney-or-blank. Now, it could be anyone.”

*Associated Press: “Bachmann ready to leave Congress, but not politics”
<http://bigstory.ap.org/article/5dbeec48ac364f4bbb3feebe07de788c/bachmann-ready-leave-congress-not-politics>*

By Henry C. Jackson

December 7, 2014, 10:43 a.m. EST

WASHINGTON (AP) — An audacious conservative, Rep. Michele Bachmann stood
out from the moment she was first elected to Congress in 2006. Democrats
were ascendant and Bachmann was a stridently Republican new arrival with a
homespun Minnesota twang.

Four terms later, Bachmann is leaving just as Republicans take control of
Congress for the first time since she was first elected. After a turbulent
career dotted by fights with the left and her own party, and a fast-rising
and fast-fading presidential campaign, Bachmann said she is ready to leave,
her work in Congress complete.

"I didn't get sucked into the system of Washington," she said in an
interview with The Associated Press. "I didn't become a politician. I was a
constitutional conservative."

That role Bachmann carved for herself often placed her in the spotlight
during her eight years in office. She provided a consistently conservative
voice on television on issues ranging from health care to immigration, and
even delivered a "tea party response" to President Barack Obama's State of
the Union address in 2011 that overlapped with her party's official
rebuttal.

Speaking on MSNBC in 2008, she said that Obama "may have anti-American
views." The comment led to a flood of donations to her opponent and a
narrow, three-point victory in one of Minnesota's most conservative
congressional districts. In recent years, she has said Obama's policies put
America on a path to "Marxism."

Bachmann has rarely walked anything back. "I don't have a lot of regrets
from my time here," she said.

Democrats alternated between derision and anger at her outlandish comments,
which even some former members of her staff say stretched the truth or were
outright false. "Who cares?" Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi once responded,
when asked about Bachmann's response to a Supreme Court ruling that allowed
gay marriages to go forward in many states.

Bachmann began her career as a tax attorney. She lost her first election, a
bid for a school board seat, in 1999, but the next year her devout
following of cultural conservatives first lifted her to victory in a
competitive state Senate primary and again, when the 6th Congressional
District seat opened, put her ahead of three other candidates at a
nominating convention in 2006. No one challenged her in the primary that
year. She successfully campaigned on conservative values and talked proudly
of raising five children and 23 foster children.

"I think her major innovation was in politics," said Larry Jacobs, a
professor at the University of Minnesota. "I don't think she leaves behind
a traditional legacy in terms of monuments and buildings — I think she
showed again and again her ability to mobilize new forces in politics."

Jacobs said Bachmann talked about issues that ardent conservatives wanted
addressed.

Listing her own career highlights, Bachmann offers a mix of local projects
and conservative flashpoints. Among her proudest moments, she said, were
opposing her own party during the 2008 financial bailout and leading the
House opposition to Obama's health care overhaul. One of her most vivid
memories, she said, is thousands of opponents of the health care law coming
to Washington and marching near the Capitol waving signs and flags.

But she's equally quick to draw attention to her district in the Twin
Cities suburbs. Bachmann said would have run again if Congress had not
approved a $700 million bridge over the St. Croix River linking Stillwater,
Minnesota with Houlton, Wisconsin. She is also proud of her work on
adoption and foster care issues. One of her last official trips as a member
of Congress, over the Thanksgiving holiday, was to an orphanage in Haiti.

As she wrapped up her congressional business this past week, Bachmann said
she is determined to play a role in the next presidential election. The
possibility of Democrats nominating Hillary Rodham Clinton will make the
voices of Republican women more important than ever, she said.

"I occupy a very unique space," she said. "I am the only woman who has been
in presidential debates on the Republican ticket."

Her own presidential bid began in June 2011 and peaked with a win in a key
Iowa straw poll, but she never found traction with voters as real ballots
were cast. While she has "no intention right now of running for president,"
she also won't rule it out.

"I think it will develop as we go what my level of involvement will be,"
she said.

*Calendar:*

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

·  December 8 – New York, NY: Sec. Clinton attends a wildlife conservation
event co-hosted by The Royal Foundation and the Clinton Foundation (The Hill
<http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/226134-prince-william-to-visit-white-house>
)

·  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>
)

·  January 21 – Saskatchewan, Canada: Sec. Clinton keynotes the Canadian
Imperial Bank of Commerce’s “Global Perspectives” series (MarketWired
<http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/former-us-secretary-state-hillary-rodham-clinton-deliver-keynote-address-saskatoon-1972651.htm>
)

·  January 21 – Winnipeg, Canada: Sec. Clinton keynotes the Global
Perspectives series (Winnipeg Free Press
<http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/Clinton-coming-to-Winnipeg--284282491.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>
)