podesta_email_20283.txt

podesta-emails 9,691 words email

P17 D6 P22 V11 P23

-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- mQQBBGBjDtIBH6DJa80zDBgR+VqlYGaXu5bEJg9HEgAtJeCLuThdhXfl5Zs32RyB I1QjIlttvngepHQozmglBDmi2FZ4S+wWhZv10bZCoyXPIPwwq6TylwPv8+buxuff B6tYil3VAB9XKGPyPjKrlXn1fz76VMpuTOs7OGYR8xDidw9EHfBvmb+sQyrU1FOW aPHxba5lK6hAo/KYFpTnimsmsz0Cvo1sZAV/EFIkfagiGTL2J/NhINfGPScpj8LB bYelVN/NU4c6Ws1ivWbfcGvqU4lymoJgJo/l9HiV6X2bdVyuB24O3xeyhTnD7laf epykwxODVfAt4qLC3J478MSSmTXS8zMumaQMNR1tUUYtHCJC0xAKbsFukzbfoRDv m2zFCCVxeYHvByxstuzg0SurlPyuiFiy2cENek5+W8Sjt95nEiQ4suBldswpz1Kv n71t7vd7zst49xxExB+tD+vmY7GXIds43Rb05dqksQuo2yCeuCbY5RBiMHX3d4nU 041jHBsv5wY24j0N6bpAsm/s0T0Mt7IO6UaN33I712oPlclTweYTAesW3jDpeQ7A ioi0CMjWZnRpUxorcFmzL/Cc/fPqgAtnAL5GIUuEOqUf8AlKmzsKcnKZ7L2d8mxG QqN16nlAiUuUpchQNMr+tAa1L5S1uK/fu6thVlSSk7KMQyJfVpwLy6068a1WmNj4 yxo9HaSeQNXh3cui+61qb9wlrkwlaiouw9+bpCmR0V8+XpWma/D/TEz9tg5vkfNo eG4t+FUQ7QgrrvIkDNFcRyTUO9cJHB+kcp2NgCcpCwan3wnuzKka9AWFAitpoAwx L6BX0L8kg/LzRPhkQnMOrj/tuu9hZrui4woqURhWLiYi2aZe7WCkuoqR/qMGP6qP EQRcvndTWkQo6K9BdCH4ZjRqcGbY1wFt/qgAxhi+uSo2IWiM1fRI4eRCGifpBtYK Dw44W9uPAu4cgVnAUzESEeW0bft5XXxAqpvyMBIdv3YqfVfOElZdKbteEu4YuOao FLpbk4ajCxO4Fzc9AugJ8iQOAoaekJWA7TjWJ6CbJe8w3thpznP0w6jNG8ZleZ6a jHckyGlx5wzQTRLVT5+wK6edFlxKmSd93jkLWWCbrc0Dsa39OkSTDmZPoZgKGRhp Yc0C4jePYreTGI6p7/H3AFv84o0fjHt5fn4GpT1Xgfg+1X/wmIv7iNQtljCjAqhD 6XN+QiOAYAloAym8lOm9zOoCDv1TSDpmeyeP0rNV95OozsmFAUaKSUcUFBUfq9FL uyr+rJZQw2DPfq2wE75PtOyJiZH7zljCh12fp5yrNx6L7HSqwwuG7vGO4f0ltYOZ dPKzaEhCOO7o108RexdNABEBAAG0Rldpa2lMZWFrcyBFZGl0b3JpYWwgT2ZmaWNl IEhpZ2ggU2VjdXJpdHkgQ29tbXVuaWNhdGlvbiBLZXkgKDIwMjEtMjAyNCmJBDEE EwEKACcFAmBjDtICGwMFCQWjmoAFCwkIBwMFFQoJCAsFFgIDAQACHgECF4AACgkQ nG3NFyg+RUzRbh+eMSKgMYOdoz70u4RKTvev4KyqCAlwji+1RomnW7qsAK+l1s6b ugOhOs8zYv2ZSy6lv5JgWITRZogvB69JP94+Juphol6LIImC9X3P/bcBLw7VCdNA mP0XQ4OlleLZWXUEW9EqR4QyM0RkPMoxXObfRgtGHKIkjZYXyGhUOd7MxRM8DBzN yieFf3CjZNADQnNBk/ZWRdJrpq8J1W0dNKI7IUW2yCyfdgnPAkX/lyIqw4ht5UxF VGrva3PoepPir0TeKP3M0BMxpsxYSVOdwcsnkMzMlQ7TOJlsEdtKQwxjV6a1vH+t k4TpR4aG8fS7ZtGzxcxPylhndiiRVwdYitr5nKeBP69aWH9uLcpIzplXm4DcusUc Bo8KHz+qlIjs03k8hRfqYhUGB96nK6TJ0xS7tN83WUFQXk29fWkXjQSp1Z5dNCcT sWQBTxWxwYyEI8iGErH2xnok3HTyMItdCGEVBBhGOs1uCHX3W3yW2CooWLC/8Pia qgss3V7m4SHSfl4pDeZJcAPiH3Fm00wlGUslVSziatXW3499f2QdSyNDw6Qc+chK hUFflmAaavtpTqXPk+Lzvtw5SSW+iRGmEQICKzD2chpy05mW5v6QUy+G29nchGDD rrfpId2Gy1VoyBx8FAto4+6BOWVijrOj9Boz7098huotDQgNoEnidvVdsqP+P1RR QJekr97idAV28i7iEOLd99d6qI5xRqc3/QsV+y2ZnnyKB10uQNVPLgUkQljqN0wP XmdVer+0X+aeTHUd1d64fcc6M0cpYefNNRCsTsgbnWD+x0rjS9RMo+Uosy41+IxJ 6qIBhNrMK6fEmQoZG3qTRPYYrDoaJdDJERN2E5yLxP2SPI0rWNjMSoPEA/gk5L91 m6bToM/0VkEJNJkpxU5fq5834s3PleW39ZdpI0HpBDGeEypo/t9oGDY3Pd7JrMOF zOTohxTyu4w2Ql7jgs+7KbO9PH0Fx5dTDmDq66jKIkkC7DI0QtMQclnmWWtn14BS KTSZoZekWESVYhORwmPEf32EPiC9t8zDRglXzPGmJAPISSQz+Cc9o1ipoSIkoCCh 2MWoSbn3KFA53vgsYd0vS/+Nw5aUksSleorFns2yFgp/w5Ygv0D007k6u3DqyRLB W5y6tJLvbC1ME7jCBoLW6nFEVxgDo727pqOpMVjGGx5zcEokPIRDMkW/lXjw+fTy c6misESDCAWbgzniG/iyt77Kz711unpOhw5aemI9LpOq17AiIbjzSZYt6b1Aq7Wr aB+C1yws2ivIl9ZYK911A1m69yuUg0DPK+uyL7Z86XC7hI8B0IY1MM/MbmFiDo6H dkfwUckE74sxxeJrFZKkBbkEAQRgYw7SAR+gvktRnaUrj/84Pu0oYVe49nPEcy/7 5Fs6LvAwAj+JcAQPW3uy7D7fuGFEQguasfRrhWY5R87+g5ria6qQT2/Sf19Tpngs d0Dd9DJ1MMTaA1pc5F7PQgoOVKo68fDXfjr76n1NchfCzQbozS1HoM8ys3WnKAw+ Neae9oymp2t9FB3B+To4nsvsOM9KM06ZfBILO9NtzbWhzaAyWwSrMOFFJfpyxZAQ 8VbucNDHkPJjhxuafreC9q2f316RlwdS+XjDggRY6xD77fHtzYea04UWuZidc5zL VpsuZR1nObXOgE+4s8LU5p6fo7jL0CRxvfFnDhSQg2Z617flsdjYAJ2JR4apg3Es G46xWl8xf7t227/0nXaCIMJI7g09FeOOsfCmBaf/ebfiXXnQbK2zCbbDYXbrYgw6 ESkSTt940lHtynnVmQBvZqSXY93MeKjSaQk1VKyobngqaDAIIzHxNCR941McGD7F qHHM2YMTgi6XXaDThNC6u5msI1l/24PPvrxkJxjPSGsNlCbXL2wqaDgrP6LvCP9O uooR9dVRxaZXcKQjeVGxrcRtoTSSyZimfjEercwi9RKHt42O5akPsXaOzeVjmvD9 EB5jrKBe/aAOHgHJEIgJhUNARJ9+dXm7GofpvtN/5RE6qlx11QGvoENHIgawGjGX Jy5oyRBS+e+KHcgVqbmV9bvIXdwiC4BDGxkXtjc75hTaGhnDpu69+Cq016cfsh+0 XaRnHRdh0SZfcYdEqqjn9CTILfNuiEpZm6hYOlrfgYQe1I13rgrnSV+EfVCOLF4L P9ejcf3eCvNhIhEjsBNEUDOFAA6J5+YqZvFYtjk3efpM2jCg6XTLZWaI8kCuADMu yrQxGrM8yIGvBndrlmmljUqlc8/Nq9rcLVFDsVqb9wOZjrCIJ7GEUD6bRuolmRPE SLrpP5mDS+wetdhLn5ME1e9JeVkiSVSFIGsumZTNUaT0a90L4yNj5gBE40dvFplW 7TLeNE/ewDQk5LiIrfWuTUn3CqpjIOXxsZFLjieNgofX1nSeLjy3tnJwuTYQlVJO 3CbqH1k6cOIvE9XShnnuxmiSoav4uZIXnLZFQRT9v8UPIuedp7TO8Vjl0xRTajCL PdTk21e7fYriax62IssYcsbbo5G5auEdPO04H/+v/hxmRsGIr3XYvSi4ZWXKASxy a/jHFu9zEqmy0EBzFzpmSx+FrzpMKPkoU7RbxzMgZwIYEBk66Hh6gxllL0JmWjV0 iqmJMtOERE4NgYgumQT3dTxKuFtywmFxBTe80BhGlfUbjBtiSrULq59np4ztwlRT wDEAVDoZbN57aEXhQ8jjF2RlHtqGXhFMrg9fALHaRQARAQABiQQZBBgBCgAPBQJg Yw7SAhsMBQkFo5qAAAoJEJxtzRcoPkVMdigfoK4oBYoxVoWUBCUekCg/alVGyEHa ekvFmd3LYSKX/WklAY7cAgL/1UlLIFXbq9jpGXJUmLZBkzXkOylF9FIXNNTFAmBM 3TRjfPv91D8EhrHJW0SlECN+riBLtfIQV9Y1BUlQthxFPtB1G1fGrv4XR9Y4TsRj VSo78cNMQY6/89Kc00ip7tdLeFUHtKcJs+5EfDQgagf8pSfF/TWnYZOMN2mAPRRf fh3SkFXeuM7PU/X0B6FJNXefGJbmfJBOXFbaSRnkacTOE9caftRKN1LHBAr8/RPk pc9p6y9RBc/+6rLuLRZpn2W3m3kwzb4scDtHHFXXQBNC1ytrqdwxU7kcaJEPOFfC XIdKfXw9AQll620qPFmVIPH5qfoZzjk4iTH06Yiq7PI4OgDis6bZKHKyyzFisOkh DXiTuuDnzgcu0U4gzL+bkxJ2QRdiyZdKJJMswbm5JDpX6PLsrzPmN314lKIHQx3t NNXkbfHL/PxuoUtWLKg7/I3PNnOgNnDqCgqpHJuhU1AZeIkvewHsYu+urT67tnpJ AK1Z4CgRxpgbYA4YEV1rWVAPHX1u1okcg85rc5FHK8zh46zQY1wzUTWubAcxqp9K 1IqjXDDkMgIX2Z2fOA1plJSwugUCbFjn4sbT0t0YuiEFMPMB42ZCjcCyA1yysfAd DYAmSer1bq47tyTFQwP+2ZnvW/9p3yJ4oYWzwMzadR3T0K4sgXRC2Us9nPL9k2K5 TRwZ07wE2CyMpUv+hZ4ja13A/1ynJZDZGKys+pmBNrO6abxTGohM8LIWjS+YBPIq trxh8jxzgLazKvMGmaA6KaOGwS8vhfPfxZsu2TJaRPrZMa/HpZ2aEHwxXRy4nm9G Kx1eFNJO6Ues5T7KlRtl8gflI5wZCCD/4T5rto3SfG0s0jr3iAVb3NCn9Q73kiph PSwHuRxcm+hWNszjJg3/W+Fr8fdXAh5i0JzMNscuFAQNHgfhLigenq+BpCnZzXya 01kqX24AdoSIbH++vvgE0Bjj6mzuRrH5VJ1Qg9nQ+yMjBWZADljtp3CARUbNkiIg tUJ8IJHCGVwXZBqY4qeJc3h/RiwWM2UIFfBZ+E06QPznmVLSkwvvop3zkr4eYNez cIKUju8vRdW6sxaaxC/GECDlP0Wo6lH0uChpE3NJ1daoXIeymajmYxNt+drz7+pd jMqjDtNA2rgUrjptUgJK8ZLdOQ4WCrPY5pP9ZXAO7+mK7S3u9CTywSJmQpypd8hv 8Bu8jKZdoxOJXxj8CphK951eNOLYxTOxBUNB8J2lgKbmLIyPvBvbS1l1lCM5oHlw WXGlp70pspj3kaX4mOiFaWMKHhOLb+er8yh8jspM184= =5a6T -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- *​**Correct The Record Wednesday November 5, 2014 Afternoon Roundup:* *Tweets:* *Correct The Record’s Burns Strider* @BStrider: .@HillaryClinton <https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton> campaigned for Dems nationwide because she believes in building an all-incusive national party http://correctrecord.org/the-clintons-on-the-campaign-trail/ … <http://t.co/ScvLzvqZWz> [11/4/14, 3:38 p.m. EST <https://twitter.com/BStrider/status/529734366822686720>] *Correct The Record* @CorrectRecord: The Clintons logged more than 50k miles campaigning for Democrats in 2014. See where they went on our map! #GoVote <https://twitter.com/hashtag/GoVote?src=hash> http://correctrecord.org/the-clintons-on-the-campaign-trail/ … <http://t.co/oamfDnjthg> [11/4/14, 3:57 p.m. EST <https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/529739169703010305>] *Correct The Record* @CorrectRecord: .@HillaryClinton <https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton> campaigned for 10 Senate, 12 gubernatorial, 4 House candidates in 20 states #HRC365 <https://twitter.com/hashtag/HRC365?src=hash> http://correctrecord.org/the-clintons-on-the-campaign-trail/ … <http://t.co/oamfDnjthg> [11/4/14, 2:01 p.m. EST <https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/529709981356916738>] *Headlines:* *CNN: “Get ready: 2016 starts now” <http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/05/politics/2016-starts-now/index.html>* “The constellation of groups with ties to Clinton-world — the Ready For Hillary super PAC, Correct The Record, the Center for American Progress, Priorities USA Action, the super PAC co-chaired by former Obama campaign manager Jim Messina — appear primed to ramp up for a presidential run now that the midterms are in the books.” *BuzzFeed: The 8 Questions Everyone Is Asking About Hillary Clinton <http://www.buzzfeed.com/rubycramer/the-8-questions-everyone-is-asking-about-hillary-clinton>* “Correct the Record will be the one to watch as Clinton potentially adds to her staff, including a possible communications director, ahead of a campaign.” *AP via Newsday: “Incumbent Maloney tops GOP's Hayworth for US House” <http://www.newsday.com/news/region-state/incumbent-maloney-in-close-race-with-gop-hayworth-1.9586166>* “The national Democratic Party threw its support behind Maloney. Among those stumping for him was former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. Maloney is a former aide of President Bill Clinton.” *New York Times: “The Democrats’ Southern Problem Reaches a New Depth” <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/06/upshot/the-democrats-southern-problem-reaches-a-new-depth.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=1>* “It raises serious doubts about whether a future Democratic presidential candidate, like Hillary Clinton, can count on faring better among Southern white voters than President Obama, as many political analysts have assumed she might.” *National Journal: “Christie and Cuomo Won the Midterms. Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Rand Paul Didn't.” <http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/christie-and-cuomo-won-the-midterms-hillary-clinton-biden-and-rand-paul-didn-t-20141105>* “President Obama took a beating Tuesday night, and therefore, so did Clinton. The midterm results represented a blistering rebuke of Obama, and it's fantasy to think his former secretary of State and Democratic heir apparent doesn't feel the second-hand sting.” *MSNBC: “Midterm voters rate potential 2016 presidential candidates” <http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/voters-not-enthusiastic-about-2016-presidential-outlook>* “Just 43% of midterm voters said Clinton would make a good president.” *Time: “Rand Paul Says Hillary Clinton Is ‘Yesterday’s News’” <http://time.com/3558477/rand-paul-hillary-clinton-midterms-2014/>* “Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky took to the airwaves Tuesday night as the GOP celebrated its regaining of Senate control, linking Republican victories to putative dissatisfaction with possible 2016 contender Hillary Clinton.” *Articles:* *CNN: “Get ready: 2016 starts now” <http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/05/politics/2016-starts-now/index.html>* By Peter Hamby November 5, 2014, 12:50 p.m. EST Attention Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush, Rand Paul, Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and everyone else "seriously considering" a run for president. You can stop pretending now. The midterm elections, which traditionally double as the unofficial starting gun for the next presidential race, are finally over. But the truth is that the 2016 campaign has been underway for two years. It started the moment President Barack Obama vanquished Mitt Romney two Novembers ago, when a multitude of Republicans began assigning blame for the loss and not-so-subtly offering themselves up as the future of the party. And Democrats started looking toward Hillary Clinton, the party's presumed standard-bearer, who was just months away from stepping down as secretary of state and wading back into the churn of the political world. In a broad sense, the basic contours of the race have changed little since then. The choice in 2016 continues to look like a clash between Clinton and whichever Republican can emerge from a huge pack of ideologically diverse candidates. But the internal dynamics of the Democratic and Republican races are shifting dramatically. For Clinton, a two-year run on the lucrative paid-speaking circuit and a rocky national book tour renewed questions about her political instincts, and provided new ammo to Republicans eager to raise fresh questions about a historic political figure whose reputation is fairly well baked in to the public consciousness. But only a handful of Democrats seem willing to challenge her for the nomination, and none of them boast the kind of star power that Obama tapped to overcome the Clinton juggernaut in 2008. Republicans, meanwhile, are still figuring out how to communicate with a changing electorate that — even after the Republican tsunami on Tuesday — still favors Democrats in presidential years. The party is bracing for an electoral free-for-all, the likes of which it has not seen since 1964 when conservative Barry Goldwater emerged from the Republican convention in San Francisco as the nominee. Unlike recent cycles, there is no de-facto frontrunner — and even Romney has seen his name floated by Republicans anxious about a presidential field that is as unpredictable today as it was two years ago. 'Wide open' field "The Republican field is wide open but a little more competitive than last time," said former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, a GOP candidate in 2012. "While the Republican field was big last time, a lot of the folks running didn't have all the tools in the toolbox to put together a successful campaign. That's in contrast to this cycle, where the people being mentioned today have an existing reputation, can raise an incredible amount of money, and have more serious public policy credentials and positions." Though the Republican names being tossed around have more prestige and thicker resumes than the GOP cast of characters in 2012, the party has also endured scandals and stumbles over the last two years that have tarnished some of their brightest hopes. One early golden boy, Christie, was sullied by the "Bridgegate" scandal in New Jersey and political compromises, like the New Jersey DREAM Act, that scored points with the public at large but rankled activists on the right. His sinking reputation opened the door for Bush to fill the space as the preferred choice of the Republican establishment, especially its powerful donor class. Still, as chairman of the Republican Governors Association, Christie regained some political mojo this week after helping lift GOP governors to impressive wins in blue states like Maryland and Illinois. Another young star, Rubio, a Cuban-American senator from Florida, saw his luster fade after he introduced an immigration bill that landed with a resounding thud on the right. Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, an Indian-American Rhodes scholar, is a health care policy specialist who chided the GOP after the 2012 race as "the stupid party." But he undercut his thinking-man brand by diving headfirst into hot-button cultural fights — Google "Jindal" and "Duck Dynasty" — that seem more fit for cable news than the executive mansion. There's Paul, rooted in controversial libertarian politics, who emerged in the Senate as one of the more thought-provoking public figures in recent memory, with calls to expand to the party's reach to younger people and minorities. His biggest asset — a sometimes undisciplined shoot-from-the-hip authenticity — might also be his biggest liability. Cruz, a Harvard-educated conservative legal mind, captured the hearts of social conservatives and tea party activists, but earned the enmity of Republican leadership in Washington by becoming the face of the government shutdown. Those are just a few of the Republican faces vying for spots on the national stage with 15 months until the Iowa caucuses — and none of them have a lock on the nomination. "We are going to have a very large field, and there won't be a true frontrunner," said Haley Barbour, the former Mississippi governor and veteran GOP strategist. Former presidential candidates Rick Perry, Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee are eyeing repeat bids, and other ambitious Republican governors like Jindal, Ohio's John Kasich, Indiana's Mike Pence, Wisconsin's Scott Walker are considering the idea, too. Kasich and Walker both won big on Tuesday. The bench goes even deeper, to Ohio Sen. Rob Portman, a budget whiz and the rare Republican who supports same-sex marriage, neurosurgeon Ben Carson, a conservative author and fixture on the conservative speaking circuit, and South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, a foreign policy hawk. Hillary Clinton As it stands now, at the end of 2014, all of them will be vying for the right to Clinton, the Democratic heir apparent once again. Despite her unquestioned status as the early frontrunner for the Democratic nomination and the White House in 2016, Clinton's re-emergence on the political scene, covered ad nauseum by the press, has not been smooth. She defended her buck-raking lecture tour — which took her to private equity firms and interest groups that have opposed Obama's agenda in Washington — by saying that she and her husband, former president Bill Clinton, needed the money because they were "dead broke" after they left the White House. She delivered an impatient and defensive answer in June when pressed about her "evolution" on same-sex marriage, a reminder of her fraught relationship with the news media. In a CNN town hall that same month, she said the government should deport children from Central America who illegally crossed the border seeking refugee status, a position that put her at odds with Hispanics lobbying for a more humane immigration policy. Clinton's return to the campaign trail this fall has been considerably smoother. At event after event for Democrats in tough midterm races, she rallied voters with punchy and well-received speeches, though one recent flub — saying that businesses don't create jobs — suggests she isn't entirely comfortable channeling the populist fervor that's taken hold among the Democratic grassroots. Unlike 2008, when she shied away from the history-making potential of her gender, she has been unafraid to embrace women's issues in her stump speeches, talking about issues like abortion rights, access to contraception and paid sick leave. Her efforts meant little, though: Hillary and Bill Clinton campaigned in 25 states for more than 30 candidates at 75 campaign events. And in a wipeout year for Democrats, pretty much everyone they shared a stage with lost. The same was true for any Democratic surrogate but the klieg lights shine brighter on the Clintons. Exits polls signaled a harsh rejection of the status quo and the Obama administration, raising a number of questions for Clinton, both about her rationale for running and how she plans to address her relationship with the unpopular president during a campaign. But the more immediate question now swirling around Clinton is not if she will run — but when. Some Democrats have urged Clinton to signal her intentions quickly, perhaps by forming an exploratory committee sometime over the holidays, allowing her to begin hiring staff and laying groundwork for a national campaign apparatus. A presidential announcement in the New Year— in January, for instance — would also deny some oxygen to other Democrats flirting with a run. Others say Clinton can afford to wait much longer — perhaps until the the spring — and are urging her to do so to avoid being dragged into the muck of campaigning too early. "Those who are urging her to start running now are those who think she has to respond to every attack or allegation or question from a reporter," said Donna Brazile, the Democratic strategist who managed Al Gore's campaign in 2000 and a CNN contributor. "She does not. She has the luxury of time. She can focus on what kind of candidate she wants to be. She can test her message. The last thing we need is a candidate who comes rushing out of the box to start appearing at J-J Dinners. She needs to take some time off and recap," Brazile said. The constellation of groups with ties to Clinton-world — the Ready For Hillary super PAC, Correct The Record, the Center for American Progress, Priorities USA Action, the super PAC co-chaired by former Obama campaign manager Jim Messina — appear primed to ramp up for a presidential run now that the midterms are in the books. Politico reported last week that David Plouffe, Obama's longtime political guru, recently advised Clinton and two of her top confidantes, Cheryl Mills and John Podesta, on how to build out a campaign organization and avoid the kind of self-inflicted blunders that plagued her in 2008. Other Democrats Though most of the Democratic Party's rising stars are deferring to Clinton when it comes to 2016, a handful of others say they will make a decision about the race whether Clinton runs or not. Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley, who has compiled a progressive record on social and economic issues in his home state but is little-known nationally, is the most serious of them. He has logged more miles campaigning for Democratic candidates in 2014 — more than Clinton or anyone else in the party — collecting chits for a potential campaign in the process. He took a serious hit on Tuesday when his lieutenant governor and hand-picked successor in Maryland, Anthony Brown, was felled by a Republican who ran almost exclusively against O'Malley's record on taxes. The Democratic Party's biggest grassroots star, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, has said repeatedly that she will not run, but those statements have been ignored by progressives who demand that she join the race and address her signature issues — income inequality, student loans and financial sector reform among them. Tuesday's election revealed a deep well of economic discontent in the country that Warren seems primed to tap into. Vice President Joe Biden, all-too-aware of Clinton's strength with the party establishment and mindful that launching a campaign would immediately emasculate an already-diminished president, does not seem close to making a decision about the race even though he insists it's under consideration. Other potential candidates like Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders or former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb would, at first glance, enter the race as protest candidates, hoping to tap into simmering anxiety about Clinton's moderate policy inclinations and her ties to Wall Street. Democratic voters, in Iowa and elsewhere, have been telling reporters for months that a contested but not-too-divisive nomination fight would be healthy for the party and the primary process. A Clinton-versus-whoever primary would allow other Democratic up-and-comers a chance to introduce themselves, ensure a debate over the hot-button issues of the day, and give operatives the ability to keep the party's mechanics in working order. Even with token opposition, a primary would help keep Clinton in fighting shape ahead of the general election. The chances of Clinton losing the nomination again are at this point slim, even though her poll numbers have slipped with the general public since leaving the State Department and re-entering politics. But polls also show that her reputation is sturdier among Democrats than it was at this point six years ago — and her lead over potential foes is even larger. Competitive primary "A strong competitive primary would be important and helpful," said Matt Sinovic, the executive director of Progress Iowa, a grassroots progressive organization in the caucus state. "But if there is a primary, it would be mostly stylistic, because she is such a known quantity. Look at the issues we care about, like raising the minimum wage, protecting Social Security, getting immigration reform done. Clinton is strong on every one of those issues." The Republican race is less predictable, and dramatically so. Lording over the Republican race from balmy Florida is Bush. The son of one president and younger brother to another, Bush's last name continues to be something of a liability with the American public, even as memories of his brother's troubled presidency fade. But his family pedigree is also an asset within the Republican establishment and the political insiders whose opinions matter greatly in the early stages of a presidential race. Bush is a known commodity to GOP donors and a trusted and pragmatic voice on policy issues — especially immigration reform — for Republicans who want to expand the party's appeal beyond its conservative base and bring Hispanics into the fold. "There are probably two people who have the capacity to define the Republican race very quickly," said Tom Rath, an influential Republican attorney in New Hampshire. "One is Mitt Romney. If he got in, he would be the unquestioned leader. But he is not going to do it. The other is Jeb." Bush, the 61-year old former Florida governor, is genial, well-liked by Republican donors and professionals and earnest to a fault about his 2016 thought process and whether he can run for president "with joy in my heart." In the words of one Republican donor who spent time with him at a South Carolina fundraiser last month, "people just like being around him." "Jeb would immediately tap into the single biggest group of fundraisers, he would do that in a big way," Rath said. "There is a cachet that goes with his name. The aura around him is that he is the serious one." Though he barely cracks double digits in hypothetical 2016 polls, Bush would immediately command the attention, and the dollars, of the GOP establishment. That would mean less early running room for other Republicans, like Christie, Rubio or Kasich, hoping to tap into the same financial network. Bush versus conservatives But aides to other potential candidates have eagerly pushed the idea that the moderate and easy-going Bush, who last ran for office in 2002, is out of step with the conservative bent of today's Republican Party and the frenzied pace of today's hyper-active media environment, fueled by outside political spending, social media and a new generation of political reporters. "If Jeb gets in, a lot of the money will go there right away, sure," said an adviser to another potential GOP candidate. "But a significant amount will still be there. Look, we will have to see if the Bush name still works. If Jeb is able to understand how the game is played now compared to when he was last playing in the majors. If he can hit those fastballs." Two of the issues precious to Bush and his admirers in the Republican establishment — education and immigration reform — are poison pills for a passionately vocal slice of the Republican base. A champion of charter schools and education vouchers, Bush is a defender of the Common Core academic standards that many conservatives view as federal intrusion into local schools. And sweeping immigration reform has been a non-starter among right-leaning activists for almost a decade, so much so that another Republican presidential wannabe, Rubio, backed away from the very same immigration overhaul he co-sponsored in the Senate after grassroots conservatives revolted over the bill. "There are three issues that are non-starters with conservatives," said Steve Deace, a nationally syndicated conservative talk radio host based in Iowa. "Don't even show up if you support Obamacare, Common Core or amnesty. And Jeb Bush is the poster child for two of those three." Echoing a long-held view of conservative activists, Deace said the Republicans must nominate an unapologetic fiscal and social conservative in 2016 — someone like Cruz — or risk alienating the party's base in the general election. Nominating Bush or Christie, he said, would spell disaster. "Whatever pagan deity the Clintons pray to, they are on their knees praying to run against a Bush or a Christie in 2016," Deace said. "If one of those guys was the nominee, their base turnout models would make what McCain and Romney did look like the the charge of light brigade. They would be lucky to get to 40 percent in a general election." The enduring tension between the GOP's conservative and pragmatic wings — a feature of the party since the earliest Taft-Dewey clashes of the 1940s — will again be at play in 2016. The primary will test whether tea party conservatives like Cruz still have the kind of firepower, and megaphone, that they did in 2010 and 2012. The Republican establishment, which has tried to bring order to a volatile nomination process that they believe wounded Romney in 2012 by forcing him to tack too far right before the general election, will also be challenged. There are some things GOP leaders cannot control, namely the unpredictable power of outside money and the ability of a single donor to prop up a candidate of his or her choosing, even long-shots. Wild card That wild card has the potential to throw campaigns wildly off-message and needlessly drag out a divisive primary fight, especially in media-saturated political environment that rewards over-the-top statements and fuels silly micro-controversies. But even the most by-the-book candidates must bow to this new campaign reality, Pawlenty said. "Money, celebrity, and schtick will matter," said Pawlenty. "And having billionaire friends who can fund Super PACs is probably key, too." But GOP leaders and their allies in the business community, who largely succeeded in sidelining controversial conservative voices in 2014, are working to reign in the nomination process. The Republican National Committee imposed new rules to shorten the nominating calendar and reduced the number of GOP debates in an effort to keep the intra-party battling to a minimum. "There is a clear risk of having too many subgroups who don't agree with each other," Barbour said. "We must avoid that. We have to nominate somebody who can unite our party and attract a large numbers of independents and moderates and conservatives." Though their grassroots base may disagree, Republicans in Washington have also been blunt about the need to expand the party's reach beyond white voters, whose share of the national vote shrinks ever year. At the same time, the country's Hispanic and Asian populations are on the rise. Among the potential candidates, Bush, Christie and Paul have been blunt about the need for Republicans to temper hardline rhetoric on immigration and do more to appeal to Hispanics, a rapidly-growing piece of the electorate that broke 3-1 for Obama over Romney in 2012. What GOP leaders know all-too-well is that the voting population looks very different — younger and less white — in a presidential year than it does in a midterm. The Republican National Committee's "Growth and Opportunity Project" — the so-called GOP "autopsy" issued in the wake of their 2012 loss — said the party has to drastically change the way it talks to Hispanic voters. "If Hispanic Americans perceive that a GOP nominee or candidate does not want them in the United States (i.e. self-deportation), they will not pay attention to our next sentence," the report said. Javier Palomarez, the president of the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, said that roughly 60,000 Hispanic-Americans turn 18 every month. Another way of looking at that figure: Every 30 seconds, a Hispanic becomes eligible to vote. "These numbers speak for the themselves," Palomarez said. "They tell the tale. What I have personally told President Obama is that never before has the Hispanic vote been more critical in electing an American president, and to me, never again will an American president be elected without openly courting the Hispanic vote." Barbour, who flirted with running for president himself in 2012, expressed confidence that Republicans have learned from their mistakes after a six-year hiatus from the White House, and will be willing to overlook ideological differences to get behind a nominee who can win. "Our party is so concerned with the direction President Obama has taken us these last six years," Barbour said. "I am reminded of the Democratic Party in 1992, when they were out in the wilderness. They had been out of the White House for 12 years, and they were not about to be left outside again. It gets cold outside." *BuzzFeed: The 8 Questions Everyone Is Asking About Hillary Clinton <http://www.buzzfeed.com/rubycramer/the-8-questions-everyone-is-asking-about-hillary-clinton>* By Ruby Cramer November 5, 2014 8:43 a.m. EDT [Subtitle:] It’s all about her now. As election results rolled in on Tuesday, Democrats lost key race after key race after key race. They lost the ones they saw coming, the ones they hoped wouldn’t. They lost the ones they thought were safe wins. They lost almost everything. There were a couple bright spots — New Hampshire, Michigan. But the midterms put the President Barack Obama’s party under water. (“A tidal wave,” as one Democrat put it. “A tsunami,” said another.) What’s next for this beleaguered Dems? The next, higher-stakes set of national elections in 2016. And specifically: Hillary Clinton. People close to the former First Lady, Senator, and Secretary of State say she still hasn’t made the “decision.” But for Clinton’s allies, advisers, friends, and former staff, the question is no longer whether she’ll run for president a second time. It’s when, how, with whom, and with what message. These questions may seem small. But if Clinton does go through with another campaign, the slightest shade of difference in the way she answers them will influence the shape and success of her next presidential campaign. There are about 60 days until 2015. And Clinton will be making a number of these decisions between now and then, and moving into early next year. Here are some things to watch: 1. Who will be in charge? This question will determine major staffing choices. It could determine timing of a launch… And for the many Democrats obsessing about a Clinton campaign, it’s the biggest question out there. And it’s twofold: Who will be in charge? And will anyone be in charge? Six years ago, when Clinton lost the Democratic nomination to Obama, her bloated, ill-advised campaign operation received the large share of blame in the election post-mortems. She had a campaign manager — Patti Solis Doyle, who was fired and replaced late in the primary. But Mark Penn, her pollster, was the one in charge, if always jostling with other officials and Clintonworld mainstays with their own pockets of power, spread out across campaign and the country. This time around, Clinton will face the same challenge: establishing a campaign structure that works. According to one person familiar with the Clinton operation under construction, some see a “flat” structure taking shape — with a campaign manager, a chair, and senior advisors all playing influential roles. From the sprawling network of Bill and Hillary Clinton, four names come up with some consistency when people talk about the campaign manager job. One is Guy Cecil, the executive director of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, the apparatus for electing and recruiting candidates to the upper chamber. In 2008, Cecil served as the national political and field director on the Clinton campaign. He also used to work at Dewey Square Group. Another is Ace Smith, a California strategist who represents most of the state’s major Democrats and is known for his background in opposition research. A third contender mentioned is Stephanie Schriock, the president of EMILY’s List, a national nonprofit that supports women running for office who support abortion rights. The Clinton watchers who trade these prognostications say that Schriock has less of a personal relationship with Clinton than the others — and that Smith is expected to have a role on a campaign, but perhaps not in the manager role. With Cecil, people in the Clinton orbit have said midterm losses wouldn’t hurt his chances at the role. But the damage to Democrats on Tuesday was worse than anticipated. 2. Is Robby Mook the man? And then there is Robby Mook, the man whose name now comes up most in conversations about running a Clinton campaign. Mook ran and won three states for Clinton in 2008. He then went to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, or DCCC, before managing the race of a longtime Clinton family friend, Terry McAuliffe, last year. Mook helped McAuliffe, a longtime fundraiser, eke out a two-point win to become governor of Virginia. Insider speculation about a campaign manager often comes down Cecil and Mook. For months, people speculated: one was up, one was down; one was in, the other was out. But increasingly, Mook has been discussed in a somewhat separate category. One sign of his unique position: Cecil, Smith, and Schriock all plan to attend a confab in New York later this month hosted by Ready for Hillary, the super PAC that has led early Clinton efforts this year from the outside, gathering a long list of supporters who would back her campaign the day she announces. Mook will not be attending, and has had no involvement with the group. His efforts on behalf of Clinton have been viewed as more from the inside than out. After managing the McAuliffe race, Mook did not jump on a 2014 campaign. Instead, he continued work for McAuliffe through the governor’s PAC, Common Good VA, according to filings showing payments to Mook this year. If Clinton does select Mook as campaign manager, one thing to watch: Who comes with him. In 2008, a tight-knit group of friends on the campaign — the so-called “Mook Mafia” — developed around him. Most followed him from Nevada to Ohio to Indiana, where he served as state director. The group remains close. 3. When will she announce? If the campaign manager is one of the biggest questions facing Clinton now — the other is about timing. When does she launch a campaign? Does she start with an exploratory committee — a vehicle through which she could delay an official “announcement,” but start raising money — or does she just dive right in? Does she get going before the end of the year? Right after? Later in the spring? In recent weeks, Clinton supporters and advisers have frayed on the topic. Two basic schools of thought exist about how and when Clinton could announce. First are the people who believe she should get in before the start of next year — in the next 60 days. The idea: that Clinton should get in now and start raising money, that people already know what’s coming — so why play coy any longer? On a logistical level, a campaign or exploratory committee would provide Clinton with a conduit to finance her own political activity, rather than pay for her own personal staff or have other campaigns foot the bill for her travel expenses. People who think Clinton should wait until after the New Year say there’s no need to start fundraising now: She’ll be able to get money no matter when she announce. And if Clinton wants donors to line up significant contributions on the day she announces — a group of fundraisers in New Jersey are already planning to bundle $5 to $10 million to have ready on day one — then she could use more time. If Clinton announced before the end of the year, she would have to file her first fundraising report with the Federal Election Commission by January. 4. Will she take the blame for “#HillarysLosers”? Clinton campaigned for almost the majority of competitive Senate candidates on the Tuesday’s ballot. As soon as the election night wound down, and it was clear the Democrats would lose hold of the Senate, Republican operatives and potential rivals criticized Clinton on Twitter as an ineffective surrogate. Sen. Rand Paul, who is expected to run for president, spent the last two weeks on the campaign trail attacking Clinton in his stump speeches. Just after midnight on Tuesday, he set up a “#Hillary’s Losers” album on his Facebook page. Did Clinton move the dial more or less than any surrogate this year? Probably not. But expect Republicans to keep talking about her losing candidates. On Wednesday morning, the Republican National Committee also sent a research memo to reporters headlined, “Hillary’s Policies Were On The Ballot.” 5. Will she embrace Obama — or criticize him? What Clinton says about Obama in the next 60 days will portend to what extent the onetime rivals will stay in lockstep moving forward into the next election. When Democrats blame the president for their losses, will Clinton do the same? The former secretary of state did not talk about Obama much at all during her swing through the country on behalf of Democratic candidates this fall, though her aides maintain a regular backchannel to the White House. She spoke more often about the economic policies of a different White House: her husband’s. Clinton’s stump speeches did not touch at length on Obama’s record in office, and so she has two options. She can use her service in President Obama’s cabinet to link herself closely to him and to Democratic voters,, and to focus contrasts on her differences with Congress, now fully controlled by Republicans to Democratic voters. Or she can focus on well-known internal disputes over foreign policy, in which she took a relatively hawkish line, and raise new ones on domestic policy. Every word she says about the current president will be carefully crafted, and watched. 6. What will John Podesta do? One way to tell what Clinton is doing: Watch John Podesta. John Podesta, a longtime advisor to both Clintons, is expected to serve in the chairman role, as first reported in Politico earlier this fall. More than one former Clinton adviser has stressed Podesta’s importance. His voice, one source said, would carry great weight no matter who fills other staffing roles. Last year, Podesta was in talks to co-chair Priorities USA Action, the pro-Obama super PAC that has realigned itself behind a potential Clinton candidacy. But that fell through when he agreed to join the White House senior staff as a counselor. Podesta has said he agreed to serve in that role for a full year. He hits the one-year mark on January 1, 2015. One former campaign aide suggested Clinton wouldn’t announce her campaign until he could leave the White House and assume his expected role as chair. Podesta, who served as Bill Clinton’s chief of staff, founded the liberal think-tank, the Center for American Progress, now run by Neera Tanden, a former Clinton advisor who stayed close with the former secretary of state and her work this year. 7. What happens to the Clinton shadow groups? There are three groups that have promoted Clinton, defended Clinton, and encouraged people to get excited about Clinton: That’s Ready for Hillary, the self-described grassroots super PAC; Correct the Record, a project focused on shielding Clinton from partisan attacks and making a case for her in the press; and Priorities USA, the super PAC poised to start raising large amounts of money. The first of these groups, Ready for Hillary, started up at the beginning of last year. At the time, Clinton was just stepping down at from the State Department. She kept a low profile, gave paid speeches, accepted some awards. This summer, Clinton was back in the press, promoting a new memoir. Even then, Clinton felt one step removed from politics. Ready for Hillary filled that void. The group harnessed real enthusiasm for the idea of her candidacy. Fans had a venue for it. And they gathered endorsements from lawmakers that helped freeze the Democratic field. But Clinton has since reemerged on the political scene. She campaigned aggressively for Democrats in competitive races, holding a total of 45 rallies and fundraisers in 20 states since September, according to her staff. People are no longer ready and waiting for Hillary. She’s here. So what happens to the super PAC? They shut down. The plan, according to sources familiar with it, is to close shop as soon as Clinton sets up her own campaign. Ready for Hillary has events planned through December so far. Priorities USA will gear up fundraising after a period of inactivity during the midterm races. Correct the Record will be the one to watch as Clinton potentially adds to her staff, including a possible communications director, ahead of a campaign. 8. And what will she be doing in the meantime? We know the answer to this one. One thing that’s on Clinton’s agenda this year no matter what happens: finish a campaign to fundraise for the Clinton Foundation endowment, which the family would like to build up to $250 million. If Clinton runs, the family won’t be able to focus as much on the foundation. In particular, Bill Clinton, a one-man fundraising machine, would likely be unable to sustain his efforts to solicit money each year. A bolstered endowment would help sustain the foundation through an election and far longer, ensuring that it outlives both Bill and Hillary Clintons. According to one person familiar with the status of the endowment push, the last 60 days of the year will be a “race to the finish.” The foundation has nearly met the goal, the source said. *AP via Newsday: “Incumbent Maloney tops GOP's Hayworth for US House” <http://www.newsday.com/news/region-state/incumbent-maloney-in-close-race-with-gop-hayworth-1.9586166>* By The Associated Press November 5, 2014, 11:15 a.m. EST ALBANY, N.Y. - (AP) -- Democratic incumbent Sean Patrick Maloney has defeated Republican challenger Nan Hayworth in a rematch in New York's 18th Congressional District. The result was a replay of his first victory against her two years ago. Hayworth was in her first term when Maloney ousted her then. The national Democratic Party threw its support behind Maloney. Among those stumping for him was former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. Maloney is a former aide of President Bill Clinton. Hayworth is an ophthalmologist. She had the support of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in her campaign. The district covers suburban counties in the Hudson Valley north of New York City. *New York Times: “The Democrats’ Southern Problem Reaches a New Depth” <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/06/upshot/the-democrats-southern-problem-reaches-a-new-depth.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=1>* By Nate Cohn November 5, 2014 For generations, Southern Democratic politicians could count on doing better at the ballot box than the national party, which had long been abandoned in the South in presidential elections. No longer. Despite attempts to distance themselves from President Obama, every Democratic Senate candidate in the South failed to run well ahead of his 2012 results. Democrats lost Senate races, sometimes by wide margins, in Kentucky, Georgia, Louisiana, Arkansas and North Carolina, most of which were thought to be competitive for much of the year. They nearly lost in Virginia, where they were thought to be heavy favorites. The New York Times has not yet projected a winner in that state’s Senate race. The inability of Southern Democrats to run well ahead of a deeply unpopular Mr. Obama raises questions about how an increasingly urban and culturally liberal national Democratic Party can compete in the staunchly conservative South. It raises serious doubts about whether a future Democratic presidential candidate, like Hillary Clinton, can count on faring better among Southern white voters than President Obama, as many political analysts have assumed she might. The Democrats running in the South on Tuesday night were not weak candidates. They had distinguished surnames, the benefits of incumbency, the occasional conservative position and in some cases flawed opponents. They were often running in the states where Southern Democrats had the best records of outperforming the national party. Black turnout was not low, either, nearly reaching the same proportion of the electorate in North Carolina, Louisiana and Georgia as in 2012. Yet neither Mary Landrieu, Alison Lundergan Grimes, Michelle Nunn, Kay Hagan, Mark Pryor or Mark Warner was able to run Tuesday more than a few points ahead of President Obama’s historically poor performance among Southern white voters in 2012, according to the exit polls. There were some predominantly white counties in every state where the Senate candidates ran behind Mr. Obama, even in the former Democratic strongholds Kentucky and Arkansas. Perhaps most symbolic of the Democratic struggle was Ms. Nunn. She was the strongest Democratic Senate nominee of the cycle by some accounts: the daughter of a popular former Senator and a prodigious fund-raiser. She had never run for office and thus had no record for which she could be easily attacked. And her opponent, David Perdue, was a corporate executive who once said that he was proud of his record of outsourcing. Yet Ms. Nunn was defeated by nearly eight percentage points in Georgia — nearly the same margin by which Mr. Obama lost to Mitt Romney in the state two years ago. She may have fared somewhat better than Mr. Obama among white voters, but not by much. She ran no better than Mr. Obama — or even behind him — in many of the state’s whitest counties. The most surprising result was probably the close race in Virginia, where Mark Warner leads by just a half percentage point after having been favored by a wide margin. Some election watchers weren’t even paying attention to Virginia coming into Election Day. Mr. Warner had a long record of performing well among the state’s culturally southern voters. His success in appealing to so-called “Nascar voters” appeared in nearly every media profile over the last decade. The lore was well founded in the results: Mr. Warner swept the southern half of the state when he won the governor’s mansion in 2001 and then he won nearly every county in his 2008 Senate race. But Mr. Warner’s standing in southern Virginia was reduced to that of just any other Democrat. He barely outperformed Mr. Obama in his traditional strongholds, and underperformed Mr. Obama elsewhere. Ms. Grimes of Kentucky was a third Senate candidate who seemed well positioned to outperform Mr. Obama. She too was a political novice, free to craft a platform distinct from the national party. She was critical of the Obama administration’s policies on coal, and refused to say whether she voted for him. Her opponent, Mitch McConnell, may have been an incumbent, but he entered the campaign with approval ratings in the 30s. Yet Ms. Grimes only ran three points ahead of Mr. Obama, winning just 41 percent of the vote. Ms. Grimes’s inability to avoid Mr. Obama’s baggage was perhaps most evident in the heavily unionized stretches of eastern Kentucky coal country, which was among the most reliably Democratic areas of the country in the 20th century. But the so-called war on coal has dealt a devastating blow to Democratic fortunes in the region, and by extension, to Democrats seeking office in states like Kentucky and West Virginia. Ms. Grimes did everything she could to distinguish herself from Mr. Obama on coal policy. But she was crushed even in the once reliably Democratic counties of eastern Kentucky. She lost Knott County by a 21-point margin. John Kerry, by contrast, won the county by 27 points in 2004. In Arkansas, Mark Pryor, a two-term Senate incumbent whose father was also a senator, won just 39.5 percent of the vote — less than 3 points better than Mr. Obama. Arkansas was perhaps the Southern state that held on to its Democratic tradition the longest after the 1960s, but it is hard to detect any tradition left today. The state also voted overwhelmingly for a Republican governor. There was no winner in Louisiana, where Senator Mary Landrieu and the Republican Bill Cassidy will go to a runoff. But Ms. Landrieu, who is widely expected to lose the runoff, ran less than two points ahead of Mr. Obama. In North Carolina, Ms. Hagan’s inability to outperform Mr. Obama in North Carolina was less surprising. She was a first-term incumbent, she was a liberal, and her approval ratings were poor. But she led in nearly all of the pre-election polls over the final few months of the race, and yet she too was defeated by a two-point margin — the same as Mr. Obama in the state in 2012. There were a few other bright spots for Democrats in the South. Gwen Graham defeated the Republican Steve Southerland in Florida’s Second Congressional district, an area that votes strongly for Republicans in presidential elections with a large number of registered Democrats. But the newly re-elected Republican governor Rick Scott made some of his largest gains over his prior performance in the same area. It remains to be seen whether Democratic weakness in the South will outlive the Obama years. The national Democratic Party has fully embraced and even defined itself in terms of cultural liberalism — on gun control, gay rights, immigration, abortion, environmental policy and other issues. Generational and demographic change are likely to push the Democrats further in this direction, if anything. If that’s true, it will be very hard for Democrats to win back the House, and it may even be hard for them to win back the Senate. *National Journal: “Christie and Cuomo Won the Midterms. Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Rand Paul Didn't.” <http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/christie-and-cuomo-won-the-midterms-hillary-clinton-biden-and-rand-paul-didn-t-20141105>* By Tim Alberta November 5, 2014 [Subtitle:] A postmortem on 2016 hopefuls' roles this election cycle. Plenty of 2016 contenders had something at stake in the midterms. As we transition into a wide-open presidential cycle, here's who gained ground, and here's who didn't. Winners: SCOTT WALKER The Wisconsin governor didn't just win reelection Tuesday; he solidified his legacy as the most battle-tested and successful Republican candidate of the Obama era. Walker has now won three elections in four years, all of which were nationalized and bitterly contested in a blue state that hasn't backed a GOP presidential candidate since 1984. Armed with his impressive electoral record and a political profile that checks virtually every box for Republican primary voters, Walker is all but certain to run for the White House. If he does, look for him to make the case that from his executive branch he united a fractured GOP around core issues the party agrees on—cutting taxes, reducing spending, balancing budgets, diminishing the clout of organized labor—and won a battleground state three times because of it. CHRIS CHRISTIE As chairman of the Republican Governors Association, Christie understood—and even drew attention to the reality—that Tuesday's gubernatorial contests would be perceived as a test of his national political mettle. To say the New Jersey governor passed that test would be an understatement. On Christie's watch, Republicans not only retained power in key battleground states (Ohio, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, Wisconsin), they also staged hostile takeovers in traditionally Democratic territory (‎Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts) and hung onto governorships in dark-blue states (Maine, Michigan, New Mexico). Christie, who shelled out millions of dollars to winning candidates in these races, now has plenty of favors to call in as he prepares his all-but-imminent 2016 campaign. JOHN KASICH Ohio voters have correctly picked the past 13 presidential races. For that reason alone, any seismic electoral development there demands attention. And make no mistake: Gov. John Kasich winning reelection by 31 points—and a margin of nearly a million votes—qualifies as seismic. Yes, he faced an inferior opponent. But it hardly would have mattered who Democrats ran against Kasich; the scope of his popularity in Ohio is stunning. An October Quinnipiac survey showed Kasich's favorable-unfavorable at 54 percent to 30 percent, including 54 percent to 31 percent among independents, and 52 percent to 32 percent among women. Unlike Walker and Christie, it's unclear whether Kasich will consider a White House bid. But those numbers—and Tuesday's results—speak to an "electability" argument he could make as convincingly as any Republican in the field. BRIAN SANDOVAL and SUSANA MARTINEZ Neither the Nevada governor nor his New Mexico counterpart is likely to run for president in 2016. But both have long been viewed as prime running-mate material, and their reelection victories Tuesday will do little to quell that speculation. Sandoval, who's also thought to be mulling a 2016 Senate bid, won more than 70 percent of the vote in Nevada—a stunning performance in a state Obama carried by 7 points two years ago. Martinez wasn't quite as convincing but still bested her Democratic opponent by an impressive 15-point margin. Their strong electoral results aside, Sandoval and Martinez possess qualities that make them attractive options for a national ticket. Both are Hispanic and relatively young; they also hail from the Southwest, a region where Republicans feel pressured to make inroads ahead of 2016. If it wasn't already, Tuesday's results in Nevada and New Mexico make clear that Sandoval and Martinez will be top contenders for their party's vice presidential nomination in 2016. ANDREW CUOMO Considering the scope of Tuesday night's Republican rout, it may be a stretch to label any Democrat a "Winner." One exception is Cuomo, who after winning reelection will enter the 2016 cycle with two attributes that may suddenly be in demand among a startled Democratic base: executive experience and distance from Obama. Cuomo's 13-point margin of victory might prove less than inspiring for some party heavyweights, but considering the national environment, it could have turned out a lot worse. This isn't to say Cuomo will definitely run in 2016, or that he's suddenly a Democratic favorite. But bottom line: Cuomo emerged from Tuesday's Democratic bloodbath as a twice-elected governor with deep support among his base and dynastic resources to mount a viable bid for his party's nomination, should he so choose. Losers: HILLARY CLINTON President Obama took a beating Tuesday night, and therefore, so did Clinton. The midterm results represented a blistering rebuke of Obama, and it's fantasy to think his former secretary of State and Democratic heir apparent doesn't feel the second-hand sting. Clinton remains the highest-profile appointment of the Obama administration. She played a major role in crafting and executing the president's foreign policy. And her likely presidential campaign, fairly or unfairly, is already viewed as an attempt to secure "Obama's third term." That's dangerous territory for Clinton, with exit polls showing two-thirds of voters saying the country's on the wrong track, and a clear majority disapproving of Obama's performance. Clinton already has made several calculated moves to distance herself from the unpopular president. Expect those efforts to take on newfound urgency beginning Wednesday. ELIZABETH WARREN In some ways, Warren, whose 2016 demurrals have noticeably softened, benefits from Obama's—and Clinton's—terrible Tuesday night. After all, she's the antiestablishment hero uniquely capable of channeling progressive discontent with this year's Democratic platform and pushing for an extreme makeover heading into 2016. Still, as a prominent member of her party, if not a prospective presidential candidate, Warren should be wary of the ramifications of investing in losing races. As a surrogate this cycle, she tallied both notable wins (Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon) and losses (Colorado, Iowa). But the lasting memory of her 2014 surrogacy will likely be stops in West Virginia and Kentucky, where she stumped for pro-coal, gun-toting Democrats who combined to lose by 42 points Tuesday. Being a team player is nice, but it can be perilous to willingly associate with losing campaigns—especially those where your involvement sends mixed signals about commitment to principle. MARTIN O'MALLEY Let's be clear: Nobody considering a 2016 campaign had a worse night than O'Malley. The Maryland governor has made no secret of his plans to run for president, hiring staffers in Iowa, and paying repeated trips to early-nominating states. The case for his candidacy rests upon his transformation of Maryland into a liberal utopia, complete with stricter gun laws and legalized gay marriage, the elimination of the death penalty, and higher taxes to pay for investments in education. The only problem? Maryland voters just rejected O'Malley's legacy, electing Republican businessman Larry Hogan over Lt. Gov. Anthony Brown in a race that turned into a referendum on O'Malley's governance. And, to be clear, Brown didn't just lose. He lost by 10 points. In Maryland, one of the nation's Democratic fortresses. That result was perhaps the single most surprising of Election Day 2014 and could cripple O'Malley's campaign before it even gets off the ground. JOE BIDEN Although Hillary Clinton is more commonly viewed as Obama's heir apparent, Biden is keeping himself very much in the conversation—which isn't always a good thing. The vice president was already going to have a bad Election Day; he made it considerably worse by going on a Kansas radio station Tuesday and declaring that independent Greg Orman—who has avoided any affiliation with D.C. Democrats—would "be with us" if elected to the Senate. Biden's gaffe prompted Orman's campaign manager to issue this statement: "Greg's never spoken to the vice president in his life." Ouch. The incident likely had little impact on the final outcome, as Orman wound up losing to Republican Sen. Pat Roberts by 10 points. But it provided yet another reminder of Biden's infamous lack of discipline. RAND PAUL Election Day 2014 was a spectacular success for the Republican Party overall, but it presented a unique setback for the Kentucky senator. The commonwealth's election laws currently prohibit anyone from running simultaneously for state and federal office; Paul, who's up for reelection in 2016, worked feverishly to elect a GOP supermajority in the statehouse that could pass a bill amending that restriction. Alas, Democrats retained control of the lower chamber, ensuring that any such changes won't happen ahead of 2016. Paul has several options of recourse, including challenging the law in court. But if those efforts are unsuccessful, Paul, like Sen. Marco Rubio in Florida, will be forced to choose—in the not-so-distant future—between running for president and seeking reelection to the Senate. *MSNBC: “Midterm voters rate potential 2016 presidential candidates” <http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/voters-not-enthusiastic-about-2016-presidential-outlook>* [No Writer Mentioned] November 5, 2014, 12:45 a.m. EST The end of the 2014 midterm election means that the next presidential race is just around the corner. The NBC News national exit poll of voters suggests they are divided on which party should occupy the White House after President Obama leaves office. And they are not particularly enthusiastic about the presidential qualifications of the potential contenders. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is considered the prohibitive favorite for the Democratic nomination, while the Republican field is wide open. In a hypothetical matchup between Clinton and an unnamed Republican, the GOP candidate has the support of 40% of voters, while Clinton takes 34%. Twenty-four percent of voters said it would depend. Of course, the race is contingent on who will eventually be the Republican candidate to face Clinton, if she should decide to run and is able to secure the Democratic nomination. Clinton also trailed the hypothetical GOP candidate in two key presidential swing states – by 36% to 32% in Florida, and by 36% to 34% in Ohio. Just 43% of midterm voters said Clinton would make a good president. She can take solace in the fact that this percentage is higher than for any of four potential 2016 Republican candidates also asked about in the NBC News national exit poll. Among those GOP possibilities, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush did slightly better than others, with 29% of voters saying he would make a good president. Bush is followed by Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul at 26%, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie at 24% and Texas Gov. Rick Perry at 24%. The eventual Republican nominee will first need to run the gauntlet of early caucus and primary states, where GOP base voters carry more weight than independents. Among tea party-aligned Republicans, 56% said Perry would make a good president. Fifty-two percent feel the same about Bush, and 51% say the same about Paul. However, only 38% of tea party Republicans see Christie as White House material. About half of white evangelical Republicans see Bush – 51% – and Perry – 49% – as making good presidents. Forty-one percent say the same about Paul, but only 33% of this GOP base group feel the same about Christie. NBC News also asked voters in seven different states to give their thoughts on the presidential potential of 10 home-grown possibilities in the Republican field. Of these contenders, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee gets the biggest vote of confidence from his home state, with 50% of voters there saying he would make a good president. At the other end of the spectrum, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, who ran unsuccessfully for the GOP presidential nomination in 2012, is least likely – at 23% – to be seen as White House material by voters in his home state. Just under half of Wisconsin voters give a thumbs up to Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin – 45% – who was the party’s nominee for vice president in 2012 and to their current governor Scott Walker – 42% – who just won re-election Tuesday. In Florida, 39% of voters said that former Gov. Bush would make a good president, and 36% said the same about current Sen. Marco Rubio. In Texas, outgoing Gov. Perry got a positive presidential report from 34% of voters there, while Sen. Ted Cruz is also seen as making a good president by a similar 34%. In Kentucky, 34% of voters said Sen. Paul would make a good president. NBC News state exit polls also found that 27% of Louisiana voters feel Gov. Bobby Jindal would make a good president. Visit NBC News Decision 2014 for more exit poll results and election returns. *Time: “Rand Paul Says Hillary Clinton Is ‘Yesterday’s News’” <http://time.com/3558477/rand-paul-hillary-clinton-midterms-2014/>* By Sam Frizell November 5, 2014, 11:23 a.m. EST [Subtitle:] After GOP won Senate control on Tuesday night Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky took to the airwaves Tuesday night as the GOP celebrated its regaining of Senate control, linking Republican victories to putative dissatisfaction with possible 2016 contender Hillary Clinton. Paul, also a presumptive candidate for the 2016 GOP presidential nomination, pointed to Clinton’s campaigning for failed Democratic candidates including Georgia’s Michelle Nunn, Iowa’s Bruce Braley, North Carolina’s Kay Hagan and Kentucky’s Alison Lundergan Grimes. Paul even initiated the hashtag #HillaryLosers on his Facebook page and Twitter feed. “Somebody should ask Hillary Democrats why they got wiped out tonight. Clearly, Hillary is yesterday’s news,” Paul said in an email to Breitbart News. He added that the midterm elections on Tuesday should be viewed as a rejection of the former Secretary of State’s track record. Clinton has not held office since she left the Obama administration as Secretary of State in 2013 but is widely considered to be mulling a run in 2016.