Subject: Correct The Record Wednesday February 18, 2015 Afternoon Roundup
From: Burns Strider <[email-masked]>
To: CTRFriendsFamily <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 15:27:01 -0500
List-Id: <CTRFriendsFamily.americanbridge.org>

*​**Correct The Record Wednesday February 18, 2015 Afternoon Roundup:*

*Tweets:*

*Correct The Record* @CorrectRecord: #ICYMI
<https://twitter.com/hashtag/ICYMI?src=hash>: Rand Paul's Sexist Pinterest
#Fail <https://twitter.com/hashtag/Fail?src=hash> pic.twitter.com/jiCsWNGm7O
<http://t.co/jiCsWNGm7O> [2/18/15, 12:24 p.m. EST
<https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/568098750733914112>]

*Headlines:*

*MSNBC: “Where do Warren voters go? Clinton”
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/where-do-warren-voters-go-clinton>*

“The Warren-less poll likely gives us a better picture of 2016 field
heading into the spring, when several candidates may make formal
announcements. And for the moment at least, Clinton is handily beating
‘anybody but Clinton.’”

*Wall Street Journal: “In 2016 Race, Ted Cruz and Hillary Clinton are the
Titans of Social Media”
<http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/02/18/in-2016-race-ted-cruz-and-hillary-clinton-are-the-titans-of-social-media/>*

“On Twitter, Mr. Cruz is the most-mentioned potential presidential
candidate. On Facebook, Mrs. Clinton wins. Both have significant leads over
the other, according to data provided by the social networks.”

*National Journal: “The Most Valuable Voters of 2016”
<http://www.nationaljournal.com/next-america/newsdesk/the-most-valuable-voters-of-2016-20150218>*

"Where will demographic change most transform the landscape for the 2016
presidential race?"

*MSNBC: “Do people care that Hillary Clinton is a woman?”
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/do-people-care-hillary-clinton-woman-gender-poll>*

“While her gender may not be important for most voters, it would likely
prove helpful among those voters for whom it does matter.”

*CNN: “Two swing states: Rand Paul in dead heat with Hillary Clinton”
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/18/politics/rand-paul-hillary-clinton-virginia-colorado-quinnipiac/>*

“Paul, the libertarian-leaning senator from Kentucky, finds himself within
the margin of error in hypothetical head-to-head contests against Clinton
in Colorado and Virginia, according to a Quinnipiac University poll
released Wednesday. The former secretary of state is considered the
frontrunner for the Democratic nomination, though neither Clinton nor Paul
have formally launched a campaign.”

*The Weekly Standard: “Walker Mocks Hillary's Ivy League Education”
<http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/walker-mocks-hillarys-ivy-league-education_857473.html>*

“Encouraged by Fox News host Megyn Kelly, Governor Scott Walker of
Wisconsin mocked former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for her Ivy
League degree in remarks posted to Kelly's Facebook page.”

*Articles:*

*MSNBC: “Where do Warren voters go? Clinton”
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/where-do-warren-voters-go-clinton>*

By Alex Seitz-Wald

February 18, 2015, 10:32 a.m. EST

What happens to supporters of Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren if she
doesn’t run for president in 2016? Do they join up with Vermont Independent
Sen. Bernie Sanders, or former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, both of whom
are considering bids as liberal insurgents?

Unfortunately for progressives spoiling for a fight against
all-but-declared frontrunner Hillary Clinton, most Warren supporters seem
to be ready to support Clinton, at least at the moment.

That’s one takeaway from the new NBC News/Marist poll, which removed Warren
from its survey of the three early presidential states, citing the
senator’s frequent insistence that she’s not running for president.

Warren captures about 10-15% of Democrats’ support in most polls of the
potential 2016 field that include her name. With Warren removed, the
“lionshare” of her voting bloc appears to go to Clinton, said Lee
Miringoff, the director of the Marist Institute for Public Opinion, which
conducted the poll with NBC.

“There’s no sense that they’ve gone anywhere other than to the well-known
Clinton,” Miringoff said. “She’s cornered the market on liberal Democrats.”

That’s bad news for everyone not named Clinton in the primary, who
desperately need Warren’s bloc of voters in their camp. With the former
secretary of state capturing close to 70% of the vote in a Warren-less
field, challengers will have to start stripping away big chunks of her base
to be competitive. The “anybody-but-Clinton” vote is simply nowhere near
big enough at the moment.

First, some caveats: A lot could change in the year between now and the
Iowa Caucus. Clinton could stumble or a challenger could start to eat into
her support, even just by boosting their own name ID, as voters look for
choices. Polls also consistently show that Democrats want a contested
primary, so anyone who challenges Clinton will likely gain some steam.

Sanders in particular is counting on would-be Warren voters flocking to his
candidacy, and Sanders adviser Tad Devine cautioned against reading too
much into early polls “The polls, to me, are completely irrelevant,” he
told msnbc last week. “In Iowa and New Hampshire, give us two months of TV
[advertising] and we’ll see where the polls are.”

It’s also tricky to compare results from different pollsters, which use
different methodologies, and especially of polls in individual states,
since they tend to have smaller sample sizes.

Nonetheless, the results seem pretty clear. When NBC removed Warren from
the field, they found Clinton’s support to be about 10 percentage points
higher than in previous polls that included Warren, while other candidates
received no major boost.

In Iowa, Clinton gets 68% in the Warren-less NBC poll, compared to 56% in a
January Des Moines Register/Bloomberg poll and 48% in a January Loras
College poll, both of which included Warren.

In New Hampshire, Clinton gets 69% in the NBC poll without Warren, compared
to 58% from a January WMUR poll and 56% in a Bloomberg/Saint Anselm College
poll, which also included Warren.

South Carolina has been polled less frequently, and the  most recent poll,
from June, did not include Warren. The new NBC poll of the state found
Clinton earned 69% of the vote, with Vice President Joe Biden in second
place at 20% in the more conservative state.

Meanwhile, other candidates don’t seem to have gained much with the removal
of Warren.

In Iowa, support for Biden, Sanders, O’Malley and former Virginia Sen. Jim
Webb holds roughly steady across the polls that included Warren and the NBC
poll that did not.

In New Hampshire which neighbors Sanders’ Vermont, the senator got 13% in
the NBC poll versus 6% in the WMUR poll and 8% in the Bloomberg poll. That
could represent a bump, but it’s smaller than Clinton’s apparent bonus.
Biden’s support, meanwhile held steady at 8% and O’Malley and Webb remained
in the low single digits across all three polls.

Of course, Warren might still change her mind, but she’s so far taken none
of steps necessary for a run. She’s told staff privately that she’s not
running, has not been working to bolster her weak foreign policy
credentials, and has told donors, via her fundraisers, that she’s not
interested.

So the Warren-less poll likely gives us a better picture of 2016 field
heading into the spring, when several candidates may make formal
announcements.

And for the moment at least, Clinton is handily beating “anybody but
Clinton.”

*Wall Street Journal: “In 2016 Race, Ted Cruz and Hillary Clinton are the
Titans of Social Media”
<http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/02/18/in-2016-race-ted-cruz-and-hillary-clinton-are-the-titans-of-social-media/>*

By Natalie Andrews

February 18, 2015, 11:26 a.m. EST

If name mentions on social media were a gauge of how well a candidate’s
message was being received, the 2016 race would be a battle between Hillary
Clinton and Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Texas).

On Twitter, Mr. Cruz is the most-mentioned potential presidential
candidate. On Facebook, Mrs. Clinton wins. Both have significant leads over
the other, according to data provided by the social networks.

The two differ on their approach to social media almost as much as they
differ in politics. Mr. Cruz, with more than 404,000 followers, tweets
about 31 times a week. As contrast, Mrs. Clinton has 2.83 million followers
on Twitter and tweets about once a week. On Facebook, Mr. Cruz has more
than two million likes when his two Facebook pages are combined. Mrs.
Clinton does not maintain a Facebook presence.

While he has not taken directly to jabbing his likely 2016 rivals, as Sen.
Rand Paul (R., Ky.) has done, Mr. Cruz does consistently attack President
Barack Obama on health care, immigration and foreign policy. A recent tweet
about Mr. Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was retweeted
more than 4,000 times.

The data from Facebook or Twitter looks solely at name mentions and it does
not reflect if the messages are positive or negative. However, a look at
the most-shared tweets mentioning the names shows that the majority of the
time, the most popular tweets are either news articles about the candidate
or tweets that share the candidate’s message.

Social media provides an opportunity to dance around the question of
whether the politician is running for president. One of these
conversation-generating moments came as most Americans connected over
football. For the Super Bowl, Mr. Paul encouraged his fans to download
paper footballs emblazoned with “Rand 2016.” Fans of Mr. Paul took selfies
with their paper footballs and Mr. Paul’s Twitter account retweeted many of
the images.

When asked if the paper footballs were a clever presidential announcement,
Mr. Paul pointed out that in 2016 he’s on the ballot in Kentucky for
re-election in the Senate.

“It could be either or both, we’re not quite certain yet,” he told Fox News
Host Sean Hannity.

*National Journal: “The Most Valuable Voters of 2016”
<http://www.nationaljournal.com/next-america/newsdesk/the-most-valuable-voters-of-2016-20150218>*

By Ronald Brownstein

February 18, 2015

Where will demographic change most transform the landscape for the 2016
presidential race?

Over the past two weeks, Next America has documented the evolving
demography of the swing states at the tipping point of American politics,
using data exclusively provided by the States of Change: Demographics and
Democracy Project. That's a joint initiative of the American Enterprise
Institute and the Center for American Progress in collaboration with
demographer William Frey of the Brookings Institution. (For more on the
project, the data sources used, and the basis of its projections, click
here.) We have catalogued how social and political change is shifting the
balance in presidential elections across the Southeast, the Southwest, the
Rust Belt, and the "reach" states that rapid demographic change could
eventually bring into play.

In the charts below, we summarize the two demographic trends that may most
affect the political landscape in the 11 states that both parties now treat
as decisive swing contests. As the charts show, all of these states are
simultaneously growing more racially diverse and older. But these twin
transformations are operating at very different rates in the states likely
to decide the next presidential election. While diversity is the key
dynamic in the swing states across the Sunbelt, aging is the defining
characteristic of the Rust Belt battlegrounds.

Though the pace of demographic change across these states is steady rather
than sudden, the cumulative effect, particularly of growing racial
diversity, can be profound. In 2012, President Obama won key battlegrounds
like Ohio, Florida, and Virginia that Al Gore lost to George W. Bush in the
razor-thin election of 2000--even though Obama attracted the same share, or
even less, of white voters in each state than Gore did then.

The declining white vote share across the swing states represents "a huge
change," says Jim Messina, Obama's 2012 campaign manager and the
co-chairman of Priorities USA Action, a "super-PAC" that has organized to
support a likely 2016 bid from Hillary Rodham Clinton. "The reason why is
because America is still very close in presidential elections. We haven't
had a blow-out since 1988. And so in close national elections like these, a
three- or four-point [decline in the white vote share] in a battleground
state can shift the entire thing."

In 2008, Obama won all eleven of the battleground states. In 2012, he
carried each of them except North Carolina, although his margin of victory
declined in all of the other ten. While other states might slip into the
mix--Arizona and possibly Georgia for Democrats, conceivably Minnesota and
New Jersey for Republicans--it's likely that in 2016, these 11 states will
again top each side's target list.

The dynamics of these 11 swing states could be complex in 2016. In Hillary
Rodham Clinton, a white woman who will be 69 years old by next November,
the Democrats could pick a candidate who is well positioned to minimize
their disadvantages in the aging Rust belt states, but challenged to fully
turn out the minority and youth coalition the party relies upon in the
growing Sunbelt states. "On paper it feels like she's better in the Rust
Belt than she is in the Sunbelt, because I still just worry about the
turnout stuff," says one top Democratic strategist who asked not to be
identified. "She has a really good message for Rust Belt people."

The first chart below shows that in all eleven states, minorities are
expected to constitute a larger share of the adult population eligible to
vote next year than when Obama was first elected in 2008. That's according
to Census Bureau data from 2008 and 2012, and projections for 2016 from the
States of Change project.

This change is leaving the deepest imprint across the new swing states of
the Sunbelt: Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida in the Southeast, and
Colorado and Nevada in the Southwest. In each of those states except
Colorado, the States of Change model projects that the white share of
eligible voters will dip below 70 percent in 2016. In all five states, the
model projects that by 2016, the white eligible voter share will drop at
least three percentage points from its level as recently as 2008. Over
those eight years, the model foresees the biggest decline in the white
eligible vote in Nevada (down 7.3 points) and Florida (down 4.5 points).

Like Messina, veteran Republican pollster Whit Ayres says that while those
changes may not sound large, their impact "is huge. It totally changes the
calculus of the kind of coalition that can win."

Florida may be the best example of the power of demographic change to tip a
state's political balance. In 2000, according to exit polls, Gore won 40
percent of Florida whites during his fiercely fought virtual dead-heat
there with Bush; 12 years later, Obama won just 37 percent of whites and
carried the state by nearly 75,000 votes. The biggest difference: while
whites constituted 78 percent of actual voters in 2000, they had tumbled to
just 67 percent by 2012. (Obama also benefited from a shift in the Hispanic
population toward non-Cubans like Puerto Ricans who are more receptive to
Democrats).

Likewise, according to exit polls, Obama in 2012 won exactly the same share
of whites as Gore did in North Carolina (31) and Virginia (37). Yet while
Gore lost both states badly, Obama won Virginia and he lost North Carolina
by only one-quarter the votes that the former vice-president did. As in
Florida, increased margins for Obama among minority voters contributed to
these changes--but declines in the white share of the voting pool were
central, too. In Nevada, similarly, Obama in 2012 exactly matched the 43
percent of the white vote that John Kerry won in 2004; but while Kerry lost
the state by 21,000 votes, Obama won it by about 68,000. (The white share
of actual voters fell eight points in North Carolina and four in Virginia
from 2000 to 2012, and fully 13 points in Nevada from 2004 to 2012.) In
Colorado, Obama improved on Gore's white showing and flipped the state from
red to blue.

In a measure of the Obama campaign's success at mobilizing its coalition,
the Census surveys found that from 2008 to 2012, minorities actually
increased more rapidly as a share of actual voters than they did in the
eligible voter pool in Nevada, Florida, and North Carolina. In Virginia,
minorities grew as a share of actual voters about half as fast as they did
among eligible voters. Only in Colorado among the Sunbelt swing states did
the increase in the minority pool of eligible voters fail to generate a
meaningful change in the actual roster of voters on Election Day in 2012.

Across the battleground states, Messina says, the Obama campaign concluded
it was easier and more cost-effective to change the electorate by
increasing minority and youth turnout than to build a winning majority from
the traditional electorate by persuading enough uncommitted white voters.
Gaining even two or three points among white voters in many of these
states, "is a much harder challenge than doing what we did in '12, which
was saying 'We are better off expanding the electorate than we are focusing
everything on the persuasion [of swing voters],'" Messina says. "In the old
days, Democrats focused everything on persuasion. But when you have such a
polarized electorate, getting from 41 to 43 [among whites] is much harder
than figuring out how to put the math together in various coalitions to
expand the electorate."

In 2016, a critical question facing both sides is whether the eventual
Democratic nominee can "continue to energize and turn out non-white voters"
as effectively as Obama did, notes Alan Abramowitz, an Emory University
political scientist. But whatever happens in 2016, the long-term trend is
that more minorities in the pool of potentially eligible voters will
translate into a rising minority share of the actual vote on Election Day.
"This is a very long-term trend that has been going on over many
elections," says Abramowitz. "If you project beyond 2016, to 2020 and 2024,
there is no question the white share of the electorate is going to keep
declining. It's just math."

Obama's share of the vote among whites dropped in all five Sunbelt swing
states from 2008 to 2012. Democrats are optimistic that Hillary Rodham
Clinton, as potentially the first female nominee, could reverse that
decline in 2016. But if Democrats can't stop their slide among whites (who
also broke sharply toward Republicans in each of these states in 2014), the
central question across the Sunbelt next year might be: which declines
more--the share of the white vote Democrats are attracting, or the share of
the white vote they need to win?

Diversity is also spreading, but much more slowly, in the six Rust Belt
swing states (Iowa, Michigan, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and
Wisconsin). Compared to 2008, the model projects that by 2016 the white
eligible voter share will drop in a range from Pennsylvania at the high end
(3.1 percentage points), to New Hampshire at the low end (1.2 points).
Behind strong Obama turnout efforts, from 2008 to 2012 minorities in Ohio
and Pennsylvania grew even faster as a share of actual voters than as
eligible voters. That helped Obama to win Ohio in 2012, despite attracting
exactly the same share of the white vote (41 percent) that Gore did and
less than Kerry did (44 percent) when each lost the state in 2000 and 2004
respectively. (Obama also held Pennsylvania, despite winning considerably
less of the white vote than either Gore or Kerry, who both carried the
state.) But, overall, racial change is not nearly as big a factor in these
brawny battlegrounds as in the Sun Belt swing states.

In those critical Rust Belt states, the key demographic change is the one
captured in the second chart: the population's aging. In all six Rust Belt
swing states, the model projects that adults aged 50 and older will
constitute at least 45 percent of eligible voters by 2016; for each state
except Pennsylvania, that would be an increase of at least 2.3 percentage
points since 2008. New Hampshire leads the list with an increase of 3.6
percentage points in the over-50 share of eligible voters; the model
projects Pennsylvania, which started with the oldest eligible population,
to increase the least at 1.8 percentage points. (The Sunbelt swing states
are also aging, but generally not quite as fast as the Rust Belt
battlegrounds.)

The tendency of older adults to outpunch their weight in the actual voting
pool magnifies the implications of these changes. Across these states,
adults 50 and older consistently represented an even larger share of actual
than eligible voters in recent elections. In 2012, for instance, Michigan
adults 50 and older represented 44 percent of eligible, but fully 55
percent of actual, voters. In Ohio, the numbers were 45 and 53. With the
States of Change model projecting that the senior share of eligible voters
will rise from 2012 to 2016 in all six Rust Belt swing states, that group's
share of actual voters is virtually guaranteed to increase across these
critical battlegrounds as well.

That shift could pose an intensifying challenge for Democrats. These Rust
Belt states loom as the great exception to a national trend that has seen
Democrats lose ground since the 1990s among older whites. In these states
Democrats generally remain more competitive with older voters than almost
anywhere else. As Abramowitz notes, while the staunchly conservative Silent
Generation dominates today's senior population, Democrats may benefit over
time as more of the early baby boomers, who lean somewhat more left in
their preferences, move into retirement. And Clinton could be better suited
than Obama to compete for older whites. In the near-term, however, the
graying of these closely divided Rust Belt states may be the best
demographic news for Republicans anywhere in 2016.

Ayres, author of the new e-book 2016 and Beyond: How Republicans Can Elect
a President in the New America, says that in the next election, Republicans
must find a way to loosen the Democratic hold on both sets of swing states.
Deploying a metaphor widely used to describe the Democratic political
situation during the 1980s, Ayres says Republicans now are effectively
competing for so few swing states that reaching an Electoral College
majority "is kind of like drawing an inside straight." For 2016, he adds,
"the key point is that Republicans have to expand the map and put the swing
states of the Sunbelt back into play, as well as the Democratic-leaning
states of the Great Lakes."

*MSNBC: “Do people care that Hillary Clinton is a woman?”
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/do-people-care-hillary-clinton-woman-gender-poll>*

By Alex Seitz-Wald

February 18, 2015, 12:17 p.m. EST

A new poll of three Democratic-leaning battleground states suggests Hillary
Clinton’s gender will not have a major impact on the voters in the 2016
presidential election, but it might not tell the whole story.

Quinnipiac asked registered voters in Colorado, Iowa, and Virginia if the
fact that if Clinton were to run she would be the first female president
makes them more likely, less likely, or have no impact on voting for
Clinton. At about the same rate in each state – 74%, 77%, and 76%,
respectively – respondents said it would not impact their vote.

When Clinton ran for president in 2008, pollster Mark Penn and other
advisers saw similar numbers and advised Clinton to downplay her gender and
promote strength and experience instead.

Clinton largely avoided the issue, right up to end of the campaign. When
Clinton conceded her candidacy, she gave a famous speech about the “glass
ceiling” she almost broke, but even that speech was controversial in her
inner circle and almost didn’t happen.

But if Clinton runs for president again, she’s not likely to repeat the
strategy. While her gender may not be important for most voters, it would
likely prove helpful among those voters for whom it does matter.

A Gallup poll from March of last year found that respondents picked the
fact that Clinton would be the first woman president to be the most
positive thing about her. Only 18% chose the option, but it easily beat out
other options, like her foreign policy experience.

The chance to make history also excites some Democratic base voters, women,
and young people. Not surprisingly, in the Quinnipiac survey, women were
more likely to say that Clinton’s gender is a bonus than men.

Meanwhile, the downsides seem minimal. While Republicans were
overwhelmingly likely to say that being the first female president would
make them less likely to vote for Clinton – 24% of GOPers in Iowa said less
likely versus 2% who said more likely – they probably weren’t going to vote
Democratic anyway.

And Clinton has a strong head start among college-educated white women, the
fastest growing group of white voters. That’s could be a huge advantage,
according to the National Journal’s Ron Brownstein.

So while most voters might not care about Clinton’s gender, the right
segments of voters might.

*CNN: “Two swing states: Rand Paul in dead heat with Hillary Clinton”
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/18/politics/rand-paul-hillary-clinton-virginia-colorado-quinnipiac/>*

By Jeremy Diamond

February 18, 2015, 10:09 a.m. EST

Rand Paul could keep competitive with Hillary Clinton in the swing states
of Colorado and Virginia if poll numbers released Wednesday hold.

Paul, the libertarian-leaning senator from Kentucky, finds himself within
the margin of error in hypothetical head-to-head contests against Clinton
in Colorado and Virginia, according to a Quinnipiac University poll
released Wednesday. The former secretary of state is considered the
frontrunner for the Democratic nomination, though neither Clinton nor Paul
have formally launched a campaign.

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, the leading GOP establishment prospect, also
ties Clinton in Virginia and social conservative favorite former Gov. Mike
Huckabee comes within three points of Clinton's 44 percent edge.

Wisconsin's Gov. Scott Walker, who is having a bump in polling following a
positively received Iowa speech last month, also pulls a virtual tie
against Clinton in Colorado.

None of the potential Republican candidates included in the Quinnipiac
survey come close to matching Clinton's support in the crucial state of
Iowa where Bush, Huckabee, Paul, Walker and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie
all face 7- to 10-point deficits against Clinton.

Christie is struggling the most of the five Republican candidates,
according to the poll, trailing Clinton by at least five points in each of
the three states.

President Barack Obama beat the Republican nominee in all three states in
both 2008 and 2012, though the wins were among Obama's tightest margins.

As in past polls, Bush continues to face the burden of his family name:
about 4-in-10 Colorado voters and 35 percent of voters in Iowa and Virginia
said they were less likely to support Bush because his brother and father
have both been president.

Clinton's family ties aren't as much of an issue for her, with less than a
quarter of voters in each of the three states less likely to vote for her
because Clinton's husband, Bill, was president.

*The Weekly Standard: “Walker Mocks Hillary's Ivy League Education”
<http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/walker-mocks-hillarys-ivy-league-education_857473.html>*

By Daniel Halper

February 18, 2015, 7:04 a.m. EST

Encouraged by Fox News host Megyn Kelly, Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin
mocked former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for her Ivy League degree
in remarks posted to Kelly's Facebook page.

"You know," Kelly told Walker after he brough up Clinton, "she went to
Yale."

Walker laughed. "All the more reason to put someone in who's a fighter, not
just an Ivy Leaguer. Someone who's a fighter."

Kelly replied with a chuckle, "As I say about my own Syracuse undergrad and
Albany law school education, you know, we can see items clearly because we
don't have all that ivy in our eyes."

"I think there's a lot of Americans who have looked at some of the leaders
we've had over the last few years who've come out of those Ivy League
schools and said, 'Maybe it's time we got people who are in touch with
people all across the rest of the America,'" Walker replied.

Walker, a probable 2016 Republican presidential candidate, has recently
been criticized in some liberal circles for never having obtained an
undergraduate college degree.

Clinton, a probable 2016 Democratic presidential candidate, has an
undergrad degree from Wellesley and a law degree from Yale.