Correct The Record Wednesday November 5, 2014 Morning Roundup

From:burns.strider@americanbridge.org To: CTRFriendsFamily@americanbridge.org Date: 2014-11-05 11:31 Subject: Correct The Record Wednesday November 5, 2014 Morning Roundup

*​**Correct The Record Wednesday November 5, 2014 Morning Roundup:* *Headlines:* *Yahoo: “How Hillary Clinton won the 2014 midterms” <http://news.yahoo.com/how-hillary-clinton-won-the-2014-midterms-075943434.html>* “Take a closer look at demography, geography and the road ahead for the parties, and it’s clear that the long-term winner of the 2014 midterms wasn’t the GOP at all. The long-term winner, in fact, wasn’t even on the ballot this year. Her name is Hillary Clinton.” *Politico: “After drubbing, all eyes on Hillary Clinton” <http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/hillary-clinton-112568.html>* “For the Democratic Party, Tuesday night was brutal. For Hillary Clinton’s future, however, there were many silver linings.” *CBS News: “How Obama and Clinton candidates fared on Election Day” <http://www.cbsnews.com/news/2014-midterm-elections-how-did-obama-and-clintons-candidates-fare-on-election-day/>* “Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did 45 events for 26 candidates in the two months before Election Day. Her win record was ever so slightly better than Mr. Obama's: 11 of the candidates won, 13 lost, one (Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu) is headed for a runoff, and another (Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper) was still locked in a toss-up race early Wednesday morning.” *Associated Press: “GOP's big election night fuels shift toward 2016” <http://bigstory.ap.org/article/9a07aeaa7fb949b391188de104abd981/gops-big-election-night-fuels-shift-toward-2016>* “In a difficult year for Democrats, some of the former first lady's allies prevailed, including Tom Wolf in Pennsylvania, who defeated Republican Gov. Tom Corbett, and Sen. Jeanne Shaheen and Gov. Maggie Hassan in New Hampshire, who received help from Clinton during the campaign's final weekend. But Tuesday belonged to the GOP.” *Washington Post: “As midterms pass, the 2016 presidential race is about to hit high speed” <http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/as-midterms-pass-the-2016-presidential-race-is-about-to-hit-high-speed/2014/11/04/d6ea5b38-636b-11e4-836c-83bc4f26eb67_story.html>* “Any conversation about what the race to replace Barack Obama will look like has to begin with the woman he defeated in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary: Hillary Rodham Clinton.” *Politico Magazine: “Whose Economy Will It Be in 2016?” <http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/11/2016-elections-economy-obama-112500.html?ml=m_u1_1#.VFlzF_nF98E>* “Tuesday’s elections showed that, for the moment, the economy and public discontent have fueled the GOP. No matter what President Barack Obama and his party argue right now, voters on the whole don’t feel very good about their economic condition. Yet slowly but surely trend lines are emerging that could very easily turn this into the Democrats’ economy—and perhaps Hillary Clinton’s—by 2016.” *Associated Press: “Analysis: Wins give GOP wider Washington influence” <http://bigstory.ap.org/article/bc30205292284363822709961fcbe9ec/analysis-wins-give-gop-wider-washington-influence>* “An announcement from Hillary Rodham Clinton, the political juggernaut who appears poised to run to replace Obama, is expected around the end of the year.” *ABC News: “Midterm Elections 2014: How Clinton-Backed Candidates Fared” <http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/midterm-elections-2014-clinton-backed-candidates-fared/story?id=26694294>* “Normally, it's the president and first lady who are making the campaign rounds during the lead up to a Midterm Election. This year, it was a former president and former first lady taking on the role of party elders. Bill and Hillary Clinton were aggressive campaigners for Democratic candidates across the country in the weeks leading up to Election Day.” *Politico: “How the Clintons’ candidates did (not well)” <http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/2014-elections-clinton-candidates-112559.html>* "They flew into red states to stump for vulnerable Democrats, aided candidates from their home states and campaigned for family friends, former aides and other longtime confidants." *The Hill blog: Ballot Box: “Rand Paul mocks 'Hillary's losers'” <http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/222999-paul-calls-dem-senators-hillarys-losers>* “Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has branded defeated Democratic Senate candidates in Tuesday's midterm elections as ‘Hillary's losers.’ On his Facebook page, Paul posted pictures of Clinton together with Rep. Bruce Braley (Iowa), Michelle Nunn, Alison Lundergan Grimes, and Sens. Kay Hagan (N.C.), Mark Udall (Colo.) and Mark Pryor (Ark.).” *Politico: “Rand Paul: Alison Lundergan Grimes' loss a ‘repudiation’ of Hillary Clinton” <http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/rand-paul-alison-lundergan-grimes-hillary-clinton-election-results-112528.html>* “Republican Sen. Rand Paul on Tuesday called Democratic losses in Kentucky and Arkansas a “repudiation” of Hillary Clinton.” *The Hill blog: Ballot Box: “Paul: Hillary Clinton 'soundly rejected'” <http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/222889-rand-paul-hillary-clinton-soundly-rejected>* “Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Tuesday portrayed the early Senate results as a repudiation of Hillary Clinton, a possible 2016 presidential rival.” *Articles:* *Yahoo: “How Hillary Clinton won the 2014 midterms” <http://news.yahoo.com/how-hillary-clinton-won-the-2014-midterms-075943434.html>* By Andrew Romano November 5, 2014 [Subtitle:] The GOP had a good night. But the map, the math and the reality of Washington dysfunction favor the presumptive Democratic nominee in 2016 The day has finally come. The ballots have finally been cast. And the votes — at least most of them — have finally been counted. So who won the 2014 midterm elections? The easy answer is the Republican Party. On election night, the party managed to seize control of the Senate by picking up at least seven seats previously held by Democrats, a goal that has eluded Republicans since 2006. The GOP also captured at least 13 House races, expanding its already sizable majority to at least 241 seats — the most it's claimed since Herbert Hoover was president. While a dizzying 14 gubernatorial races were tossups heading into Nov. 4, almost all of them broke toward the GOP — meaning that Republican governors will still vastly outnumber Democratic governors on Inauguration Day. And Americans are plainly disillusioned with President Barack Obama; according to the exit polls, a full 54 percent of voters disapprove of his performance as president, and 65 percent say the country is headed in the wrong direction. There was good reason, in other words, for conservative journalist Philip Klein to crow on Twitter that “this is what a wave feels like” — because it is. But here’s the thing: In politics, the easy answer isn’t always the only answer, and the winner of an election isn’t always the one who benefits most. Take a closer look at demography, geography and the road ahead for the parties, and it’s clear that the long-term winner of the 2014 midterms wasn’t the GOP at all. The long-term winner, in fact, wasn’t even on the ballot this year. Her name is Hillary Clinton. Of course the GOP is celebrating right now, as it should. Any election that ends up putting Republicans into the governors’ mansions in Illinois and Maryland is worth getting worked up about. But under the surface, almost everything about last night’s midterm results — and the map, the math and the legislative morass that lies ahead in the run-up to 2016 — suggests that the former first lady and secretary of state will have a better next two years than the party currently guzzling champagne. Which is not to say that Clinton herself will necessarily be an unbeatable candidate. She spent the past two months holding 45 campaign events in 18 hard-fought states, but almost all the big candidates she stumped for lost, from Alison Lundergan Grimes in Kentucky to Bruce Braley in Iowa. Many will say her campaign skills are still rusty — and she certainly won’t be heading into 2016 with many chits to cash in. But that doesn’t change one simple fact: Even a huge GOP victory shows how much catching up the Republican have to do if they want to defeat Hillary in 2016. Let’s start with the map. Sure, the GOP won a remarkable number of races last night. But take another look. How many purple states did Republicans actually pick up? There was Cory Gardner’s victory in Colorado — more on that later. There was Joni Ernst’s victory in Iowa. And there was Thom Tillis’s victory in North Carolina. The rest of the GOP’s Senate flips (Montana, South Dakota, Arkansas, West Virginia) and gubernatorial flips (Arkansas, Maryland, Illinois, Massachusetts) were in states that won’t really be contested in 2016. The Democrats flipped the governorship of Pennsylvania as well. The GOP’s relative underperformance in swing states is a problem going forward because the 2016 landscape is a lot less favorable for Republicans than the 2014 landscape was. Sixteen of this year’s 20 contested Senate seats were held by Democrats heading into the election — and six of those Democrats were from states that Obama lost in 2012. This gave Republicans a huge advantage. The map was already red. But that map will be upended in 2016, when 23 of the 33 seats at stake will be held by Republicans. Six of them will be in states that Obama won in 2008 and 2012 (Illinois, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida and Wisconsin). Two will be in states Obama won in 2008 (Indiana, North Carolina). Two are held by senators who may be retiring (John McCain in Arizona, Chuck Grassley in Iowa). And two are held by senators who may be running for president, which means they can’t run for re-election (Marco Rubio in Florida, Rand Paul in Kentucky). In other words, for every Senate seat that Republicans flipped in 2014, there’s one — or more — that’s likely to flip back to the Democrats in 2016. The chances that the GOP will still control the upper chamber of Congress after 2016 are slim. How does this help Clinton? By giving her an added boost on an electoral playing field that already favors a Democratic presidential nominee. In the last six elections, 18 states (plus Washington, D.C.) have voted for the Democratic candidate every single time. This means that Clinton, assuming she’s the nominee, will start out with 242 electoral votes in 2016; she’ll need only 28 of the remaining 183 tossups to win the election. To defeat her, the Republican candidate will basically have to run the table in the purple states — “not a game plan with a high probability of success,” according to Republican pollsters Glen Bolger and Neil Newhouse. Making matters worse is the fact that Republican senators will already be playing defense in several of these states, attracting additional Democratic attention and resources that will ultimately bolster the candidate at the top of the ticket as well. The math is just as bad for Republicans — and just as good for Clinton. In 2012, Mitt Romney won 59 percent of white voters, a higher share than Ronald Reagan's in 1980 and George W. Bush's in 2004. But Romney still lost to Obama. Why? Because America’s minority electorate is growing every year. To hit 50.1 percent in 2016, the Republican nominee will have to win a whopping 64 percent of the white vote on Election Day — or significantly improve the party’s standing among nonwhite voters, especially Hispanics. Otherwise, he or she will lose just like Romney. For all the justifiable ecstasy among Republicans right now, there’s little evidence that their next presidential nominee will be able to accomplish this death-defying feat. In fact, much the opposite. According to the national exit polls, Republicans won 60 percent of white voters this year — only 1 percentage point better than Romney’s finish in 2012 and 4 points shy of their 2016 target. The GOP’s performance among Latinos yesterday (35 percent) wasn’t significantly better than John McCain’s performance among Latinos in the 2008 presidential contest, either. It was also worse than the party’s performance among Latinos in 2010. That year, Republicans won 38 percent of the Latino vote. Then their Latino backing fell to an abysmal 27 percent in 2012. Republican support among Latinos tends to peak in midterms and plummet in presidential elections. There’s no reason to think it won’t follow the same pattern in 2016. In short, it’s one thing to win an election in a nonpresidential year, when minorities and young people stay home and older, whiter voters make up a disproportionate share of the electorate. It’s another thing to win when a Democratic presidential candidate is luring the party’s base back to the polls — especially when that candidate is Hillary Clinton, the most popular Democrat in America. The question facing Republicans as they assume control of both houses of Congress is whether they’re willing — or, more accurately, able — to do anything to weaken Clinton’s advantage heading into 2016. Fifty-four percent of Americans may disapprove of Obama’s performance, but 56 percent have an unfavorable view of the Republican Party, and 61 percent are dissatisfied or even angry with the GOP leaders in Congress. More of the same — more gridlock, more obstructionism, more kneejerk opposition — won't cut it; voters expect the newly empowered GOP to work with Obama and govern. But while Kentucky Republican Mitch McConnell, the incoming Senate majority leader, says he wants to compromise with Democrats, it’s hard to imagine that he’ll be able to control his party’s vehement Just Say No caucus for long. If he fails, Clinton may be able to run as the solution to D.C. dysfunction — and the GOP’s 2016 nominee may suffer, especially if he’s a senator such as Rand Paul or Ted Cruz. That’s why, when the bright lights of election night fade and the chattering class calms down, the GOP’s substantial new Senate majority and surprising gubernatorial rout may no longer seem like the most important things that happened on Nov. 4, 2014. As 2016 approaches, one election in particular — the election of Sen. Cory Gardner — could begin to loom larger. In Colorado, pot is legal. Young coastal types, especially Californians, are flocking to the Denver metro area. The Latino population is surging. As a result, Republicans haven’t won a top-line election there since 2004. Until last night. Gardner isn’t a moderate; he’s a pro-life Republican who ranked as the 10th most conservative House member in 2012. He has opposed Republican immigration reform efforts, voted to shut down the government unless Planned Parenthood was defunded and supported Cruz’s efforts to gut Obamacare. But over the course of the campaign, the polished, chipper Gardner repackaged himself for a changing Colorado. He emphasized compromise and displayed a remarkable, Bill Clintonesque talent for triangulation on immigration, abortion and birth control. In the process, Gardner may have provided the GOP with its biggest lesson of the night: A Republican can still win in a purple state — if he’s the right kind of Republican. It’s a lesson Gardner’s GOP colleagues would be wise to learn before 2016. Otherwise, they may never catch Clinton. *Politico: “After drubbing, all eyes on Hillary Clinton” <http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/hillary-clinton-112568.html>* By Maggie Haberman November 5, 2014, 4:00 a.m. EST For the Democratic Party, Tuesday night was brutal. For Hillary Clinton’s future, however, there were many silver linings. As Democrats wake up this morning reeling from an electoral spanking, the 2016 presidential race will unofficially begin — with the main focus on the woman who is all but certain to seek her party’s nomination a second time. With that in mind, here are POLITICO’s takeaways on what the midterm drubbing means for Clinton and the Democrats heading into the next White House race. *Clinton will face enormous pressure to declare – and fast* Even before networks officially declared a Republican majority in the Senate, Democrats were openly saying they hope Clinton will declare for 2016 soon after Election Day. That sentiment is about to become overwhelming, as the party tries to recover from an election night hangover that’s worse than most operatives on either side had anticipated. The evening, almost entirely devoid of bright spots for Democrats, was a shellacking for President Barack Obama. It will only accelerate the party’s look ahead to its next leader, especially among donors, who want someone to rally around. Clinton has spent two years as the prohibitive Democratic frontrunner in the polls despite keeping politics largely at arm’s length until the end of the midterms. Some of her advisers have suggested opening an exploratory committee this year to allow her to raise money sooner, while others are adamant that she should wait until next year. Some Democrats said Tuesday night that Clinton will want to wait a bit to let the 2014 midterms pass, and to get some distance between herself and a bloodbath for her party. She also genuinely doesn’t seem ready to flip a switch on a campaign: A number of decisions still remain about staffing and, more importantly, messaging. But others believe Clinton can’t afford to be coy about her intentions beyond the next few weeks, and forming an exploratory committee without an official announcement will not satisfy some donors and activists. *She can run against Washington more easily now* Clinton’s major problem was always going to be running as the candidate of the two-term party in power. Separating from Obama poses major risks for a Democrat who had trouble with portions of the base in 2008 and who served in the administration for four years. The fact that Tuesday’s election that was seen largely as a statement against Obama may give Clinton some wiggle room with her own base to create distance from him. But a newly-minted Republican Senate helps her to solve the problem of how to run against Washington. Regardless of whether Senate moderates try to keep tea party officials and potential presidential hopefuls like Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) in line, Democrats are cheering on a fight on that side of the aisle. A GOP-held Senate gives her a clear point of contrast to run against. Democrats are banking on Republicans getting mired in intra-party gridlock amid a still-unresolved civil war between conservatives and the establishment. Even if that doesn’t happen, Clinton is certain to campaign as if it will. Leading into Tuesday, some Clinton allies were predicting a miserable night for Democrats – and saying it would ultimately benefit her. The bigger problem for Clinton? The election results signal a restless country that dislikes both parties but badly wants leadership. That gives her an opportunity to run as an experienced, Margaret Thatcher-type fighter who can govern in an ungovernable moment – but that also means suppressing the caution that Democrats say has hobbled her in the past. Exit polls showed voters are anxious about the economy, meaning Clinton will need to formulate a broad economic message that appeals to the Democratic base without turning off independents who’ve backed her before. *A Clinton ally has a tougher hill to climb* Anthony Brown’s loss in the Maryland governor’s race has serious implications for the outgoing governor, Martin O’Malley, who has been laying the groundwork for a presidential race of his own for months. Brown, O’Malley’s lieutenant governor, was favored to win for months. His victory was expected to be an affirmation of the O’Malley record, a decidedly progressive checklist of passing the DREAM Act and legislation allowing same-sex marriage. But O’Malley’s numbers in his own state have faltered, and Brown’s loss was widely seen as a serious setback for a governor who had planned to sell his brand of leadership. A source close to O’Malley said the outgoing governor had sounded “alarm” bells about the Brown campaign strategy many weeks ago, amid a sense that the candidate was trying to glide to a win despite running a “poorly-exeucted campaign that deviated from O’Malley’s winning strategies in the past two elections.” O’Malley never ran on social issues, the source said, winning twice in a row and doubling his margin the second time, while Brown focused heavily on them. O’Malley urged Brown’s team to change strategy, the source said, but he never did. Nonetheless, Brown has now gone from being a sought-after ally to an albatross for O’Malley’s national ambitions. *Florida comes with pain* The Clintons campaigned in a number of states where Democrats went down, earning chits for loyalty despite a tough climate. The fact that Arkansas has turned back to red is a point of personal pain for Bill Clinton in particular. And Republicans are already gleefully painting the night as a clear problem for the Clintons, tethering them to Obama in painting them all as responsible for the losses. In reality, it was a wave election. But the loss by Charlie Crist in the Florida governor’s race was the worst of the night in terms of Hillary Clinton’s future. The Clintons campaigned hard for Crist, beginning with Bill Clinton months ago. Crist, a party flipper who trashed Bill Clinton during the impeachment days in the late 1990s, became a Democrat to run for his old seat. But Bill Clinton decided to back Crist, appearing in Florida for him down to the wire this week. Hillary Clinton kept a bit more distance, raising money for him at a private event. But Rick Scott, the Republican incumbent, held onto the seat in a state that will play a critical role in deciding the next president. It means, as New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie recently put it, that the GOP will control the “voting mechanisms” in a state where that mattered in a recent presidential election (looking at you, 2000 White House race). To that end, Christie had a strong night – riding the wave as head of the Republican Governors Association and going three-for-three in Florida, Michigan and Wisconsin. Even though Christie’s own problems as a candidate remain, he will be a loud critic of Clinton heading into next year – and is certain to take a very long victory lap in the coming days. *Joni Ernst is a Hawkeye State headache* One of the draws of competing hard in Iowa in 2016, unlike when she ran in 2008, was that she would have a rallying cry heading into the caucuses — Iowa had never elected a woman statewide. Until last night. In a cycle in which Democrats focused heavily on turning out women, Joni Ernst, a former soldier who gained traction after cutting an ad in which she boasted about castrating hogs, won a seat held by Democrat Tom Harkin for nearly three decades. That makes Ernst the first woman elected statewide in Iowa, eliminating a milestone for Clinton. It also elevates her as a Republican surrogate within the state, who can be helpful taking swings at Clinton. The flip side of that? If Democrats want to stop Clinton, it will have to be in Iowa. The results in New Hampshire, where Gov. Maggie Hassan easily won re-election and where Sen. Jeanne Shaheen squeaked by, provide a bulkhead where women hold statewide office. Clinton won there in 2008, and her support remains strong. *Minimum wage ballot initiatives will be back* Among the only bright spots for Democrats were the success of minimum wage ballot initiatives in two red states, Arkansas and Nebraska. Hillary Clinton talked about raising the minimum wage in every stump speech she gave over the past two months, and it’s become a touchstone of new Democratic populism. The success of the ballot initiatives in two red states, including one in which Democrats took a major thumping, ensure that the Democratic Party will seek such measures in as many states as possible in 2016. The initiatives boost turnout – but for Clinton, they will also ground her in an economic fairness argument that she will need to sharpen into a broad message if she runs. *Virginia is for Clinton lovers* As of 1 a.m., the race between Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) and challenger Ed Gillespie hadn’t been called. Warner was expected to ultimately be declared the winner, but by a stunningly small margin. Even if Warner wins, his political clout has been badly eroded after this race, which Gillespie made closer than anyone anticipated. Warner has long been a thorn in Hillary Clinton’s side – he made noise about running against her in 2008 before ultimately taking a pass, but his political brand has remained strong. He’ll emerge from Tuesday evening deflated, and the state’s governor, Terry McAuliffe, will unequivocally be the top Democrat in Virginia. That’s good news for Clinton, both because a close ally is stronger, and because Virginia is another purple state that’s critical in a presidential race. *Anti-immigration groups lost in New Hampshire* To the extent that immigration was used as an issue by Republicans in statewide races, New Hampshire was their Waterloo. Scott Brown was the first candidate to air an ad focusing on the border crisis over the summer, and it helped him gain traction. Groups opposing immigration reform planted a flag in New Hampshire and vowed to push Brown over the finish line. That didn’t happen, although they came close. The Mark Zuckerberg-funded group FWD.us sent out an email to reporters saying, “In High-Stakes NH-Sen, Anti-Immigrant Rhetoric Loses Big.” Democrats are banking on Republicans fighting each other over immigration in the primaries, and the border crisis proved it’s still a base motivator for Republicans. But until the White House takes executive action on immigration reform, both Obama and Clinton will be the targets of activists. *CBS News: “How Obama and Clinton candidates fared on Election Day” <http://www.cbsnews.com/news/2014-midterm-elections-how-did-obama-and-clintons-candidates-fare-on-election-day/>* By Rebecca Kaplan November 5, 2014, 5:34 a.m. EST Wary of President Obama's low approval ratings heading into the midterm elections, the White House limited his exposure on the campaign trail. Steering clear of the many Democratic Senate candidates running in red states where the president was particularly unpopular, Mr. Obama stuck to only blue states where he was more likely to help rather than hurt. Did the president ultimately hurt the nine candidates he campaigned with in the lead-up to Election Day? That's hard to say. He certainly didn't help much: Five of the nine candidates lost their races, and that number could rise to six if Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy does not eke out a last-minute win in his re-election race. Plus, all the time he spent fundraising for Democrats did not result in their maintaining Senate control. The upper chamber is now firmly in the grasp of Republicans. Of course, the president wasn't the only high-profile Democratic surrogate who came out to help those in his party. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did 45 events for 26 candidates in the two months before Election Day. Her win record was ever so slightly better than Mr. Obama's: 11 of the candidates won, 13 lost, one (Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu) is headed for a runoff, and another (Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper) was still locked in a toss-up race early Wednesday morning. One Republican in particular was not about to let Clinton get away with such an unsuccessful record in the 2014 elections. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, made it personal when he tweeted, "You didnt think it could get worse than your book tour? It did. Courtesy of the U.S. voters." He linked to a Facebook page that shows Clinton campaigning for and sometimes arm and arm with six Democratic Senate candidates and incumbents who lost on Tuesday, with the damning hashtag, "HillarysLosers." Paul, one of the several Republicans who has already begun trying to tear Clinton down before there are any official candidates in the 2016 election, is unlikely to let the meme go in the coming months. Mr. Obama only ventured out of Washington in the final weeks of campaigning. On the stump, he would argue the economy was faring better under his and other Democrats' leadership and that only Democratic candidates would look out for all Americans by working to pass legislation to raise the minimum wage and ensure equal pay for men and women. "Mary Burke doesn't believe that the minimum wage 'serves no purpose' -- as one Republican said. She knows the difference it can make to some hardworking mom who's working already and having to take care of her kids. And she's trying to make ends meet. That makes a difference to her," Obama said last week at a rally for Burke, the Democrat who was running to replace Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, a Republican who had already survived a recall election in 2010 following his initial election in 2010. Burke ended up losing to Walker by about 8 percent. Mr. Obama also made a trip to heavily Democratic Maryland, where he won nearly 62 percent of the vote in 2012, to help Democrat Anthony Brown in his surprisingly tight re-election bid. Despite Mr. Obama telling voters that Brown had "devoted his entire career to fighting for you," Brown got clobbered in the governor's race by Republican Larry Hogan, who was winning by nine points early Wednesday morning. Mr. Obama's effect on the election was mixed. Just under half of voters (46 percent) said the president was not factor in the vote they cast for House candidates, according to CBS News exit polls, compared to 39 percent who said President George W. Bush was not a factor in their votes in 2006. But those who were voting based on their feelings for Mr. Obama were far more likely to cast their ballot as a negative statement than a positive one: One-third of voters said their vote was in opposition to the president, and only 20 percent said their vote was in part to show support of the president. Mr. Bush's numbers were 36 percent and 22 percent respectively in 2006. *Associated Press: “GOP's big election night fuels shift toward 2016” <http://bigstory.ap.org/article/9a07aeaa7fb949b391188de104abd981/gops-big-election-night-fuels-shift-toward-2016>* By Steve Peoples and Will Weissert November 5, 2014, 3:08 a.m. EST Even before the polls had closed on Election Day, Republicans had shifted their focus to 2016 and the party's top target: Hillary Rodham Clinton. And by the end of the night, the GOP had claimed victories in Senate contests and governor races that will serve as a White House launch pad for the party's most ambitious. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who has acknowledged presidential aspirations, won his third election in four years, while Ohio Gov. John Kasich and Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder earned second terms amidst White House whispers of their own. The governors and their Senate allies won with the backing of high-profile Republicans thinking about the next election: New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul. And lest there be any doubt what those Republicans were thinking about on this Election Day, Paul offered an analysis that pointed firmly to the next. "Tonight was really a referendum not only on the president's policies, but really a referendum on Hillary Clinton," Paul said in an interview with The Associated Press. The Democrats' midterm struggles, he said, represent "an epic failure of the Clintons." Paul is among several leading Republicans who have spent months laying the groundwork for presidential campaigns, often while also helping GOP colleagues campaign in the midterms. But in the crowded Republican field, party insiders believe as many as three candidates may form presidential exploratory committees by the end of January — with several more joining them in the subsequent months. "They're going to need to get out there quickly," said Republican National Committee chief of staff Mike Shields, predicting a rash of presidential activity in November, December and January as candidates compete for the same pool of staff and donors. The RNC, he said, already has eight to 10 staffers focused exclusively on weakening Clinton's potential candidacy. The overwhelming Democratic frontrunner should she run, Clinton is expected to announce her decision around the end of the year. The former secretary of state did not appear publicly Tuesday, but spent recent weeks campaigning extensively for Democrats in competitive races for Senate and governor, appearing at 45 political events during a two-month run through 19 states. Republicans noted Clinton's ties to two of the biggest defeats for the party — Arkansas Sen. Mark Pryor's loss to Republican Rep. Tom Cotton and Alison Lundergan Grimes' defeat to Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell in Kentucky. Clinton headlined fundraisers for both and made appearances in Kentucky for Grimes. In a difficult year for Democrats, some of the former first lady's allies prevailed, including Tom Wolf in Pennsylvania, who defeated Republican Gov. Tom Corbett, and Sen. Jeanne Shaheen and Gov. Maggie Hassan in New Hampshire, who received help from Clinton during the campaign's final weekend. But Tuesday belonged to the GOP. "It will be beneficial not just to Republicans, it will be beneficial to the country," said Kansas Republican Sen. Jerry Moran, who leads the Senate GOP campaign arm. "But it also sets the stage to demonstrate that Republicans can be trusted to be elected to the presidency in 2016." Walker told The Associated Press minutes after his race was called that any decision about whether he will run for president "will have to wait long after" he works with Wisconsin lawmakers to pass the next state budget. "The bottom line is people elected me to get the job done in Wisconsin," he said. In Texas, three prospective presidential candidates gathered at a Republican celebration in downtown Austin. Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who is weighing a second presidential bid, joined former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush as his eldest son, George P. Bush, was elected Texas land commissioner. The elder Bush, a leading contender should he run, did not speak publicly Tuesday night. At the same event, Cruz said the 2016 field would begin forming as soon as January. "In all likelihood we will see a crowded field next year. And that's a good and healthy thing," Cruz said. "The test that I think Republican primary voters should apply is who is standing up and leading." New Jersey Gov. Christie spent much of the last year helping to reelect GOP governors — while courting donors and key activists — as chairman of the Republican Governors Association. His organization had a big night, winning seats previously held by Democrats in Maryland, Massachusetts, Arkansas and Illinois. Christie's midterm effort, he said, "helps to get me and Mary Pat and our children used to what it would be like to be on the road so much. And that's a huge part of deciding whether you want to run for president or not — it's the effect it has on your family." "I know people don't believe this, but we have not had the time, been together enough, to talk about it in any kind of serious way," Christie said while campaigning Monday in New Hampshire. "But we will." *Washington Post: “As midterms pass, the 2016 presidential race is about to hit high speed” <http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/as-midterms-pass-the-2016-presidential-race-is-about-to-hit-high-speed/2014/11/04/d6ea5b38-636b-11e4-836c-83bc4f26eb67_story.html>* By Chris Cillizza November 4, 2014, 7:24 p.m. EST The 2016 election is only 734 days away! That might seem like a very long time from now. And that might seem like a very good thing for those of you in Florida, North Carolina, Iowa and New Hampshire who have seen enough 2014 election ads to last a lifetime. But the reality of modern-day politics is that the race to be the next president began long before a single ballot was cast in the midterm elections. Now that the midterms are over, what was largely behind-the-scenes maneuvering will go public. And quickly. Any conversation about what the race to replace Barack Obama will look like has to begin with the woman he defeated in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary: Hillary Rodham Clinton. Clinton’s travel schedule — she did 45 events in 54 days — is indicative of how she has approached the intense speculation about 2016. No, no I haven’t made up my mind yet, Clinton says, while throwing a symbolic wink with her actions to assure supporters that, yeah, she’s going to do it. There is already a virtual campaign-in-waiting for Clinton, an effort that has grown larger and more active as she has given us every reason to believe she’s running. Priorities USA, a super PAC formed to support President Obama’s reelection in 2012, is now working in service of Clinton. Correct the Record, another super PAC, works as a rapid-response mechanism to push back against Republican attacks against Clinton. (Yes, Republicans have an opposition-research operation — called America Rising — that is heavily focused on Clinton.) Ready for Hillary, yet another super PAC, is organizing grass-roots support for Clinton in early-voting states. One look at polling in the 2016 Democratic presidential primary and you see why so much attention is being paid to Clinton. In the most recent Washington Post-ABC News poll from October, Clinton takes 65 percent of the vote to Vice President Biden’s 13 percent. Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who has said she won’t run and has endorsed Clinton’s potential bid, takes 10 percent. No other candidates break into double digits. Clinton is a far-stronger front-runner than she was eight years ago, when it was clear from early polling that while she started ahead, her path to the nomination would not be without challenges. This time around, it’s difficult to see a serious challenge to Clinton emerging. That doesn’t mean, of course, that other people won’t run. (Remember that not everyone runs for president with the expectation or even the goal of winning.) Outgoing Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) is likely to run, having spent much of the past two years staking out a liberal agenda in his home state while traveling relentlessly to Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. Socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who caucuses with Democrats in Congress, is also likely to run as a populist alternative — with a heavy emphasis on the issue of campaign finance reform — to Clinton. Biden seems likely to stay on the sidelines if Clinton runs, although he has been aggressive about insisting she won’t push him out. If the Democratic race looks like a coronation, the Republican field is more like an episode of “Game of Thrones,” with a panoply of ambitious aspirants falling all over one another to claim the crown. The best-known potential candidate is former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, the son and brother of past presidents. Bush has been mum about his plans, although his own son, George P., suggested late last month that his dad was more likely than not to run. Polling suggests Bush would be the narrowest of front-runners in the GOP field, but his support of Common Core, a nationalized standard of student testing, and his backing of comprehensive immigration reform put him on the wrong side of the party’s base on two issues likely to be hotly debated in the primary process. In contrast to Bush’s reticence about his interest in the race is Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, who has been saying and doing all of the sorts of things you do when you are running for president. Paul has sought to build bridges with the establishment wing of the party, running ads in support of people such as Sens. Mitch McConnell (Ky.) and Pat Roberts (Kan.) and meeting with major donors across the country to talk about his coming candidacy. He is also trying to show that he is willing and able to expand the Republican party’s reach — courting black voters and younger voters, two groups that have moved heavily away from Republicans. Paul’s Senate colleague Ted Cruz (Tex.) is also very likely to run, emphasizing his doesn’t-play-well-with-others status in the Senate as a sign of how he represents the grass roots of the party. Cruz is also likely to cast himself as the most electable social conservative in the race, although 2012 candidate Rick Santorum might have something to say about that. Aside from Jeb Bush, the candidates likely to duke it out for the mantle of establishment favorite include Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.), Gov. Chris Christie (N.J.), Gov. John Kasich (Ohio), Sen. Rob Portman (Ohio) and Gov. Scott Walker (Wis.). *Politico Magazine: “Whose Economy Will It Be in 2016?” <http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/11/2016-elections-economy-obama-112500.html?ml=m_u1_1#.VFlzF_nF98E>* By Zachary Karabell November 4, 2014 [Subtitle:] The next election might hinge on whether voters can start to believe the good news. The ugly midterm campaign season provided one area of common ground: Americans and their candidates were almost universal in their disdain for the country’s economic performance over the past six years. Democrats have learned the hard way this election that if you have to give speeches to convince people that things are going well, then things aren’t going well. The funny thing, though, is that nearly all the data show that the economy is, in fact, doing well, even while the Democrats aren’t. Tuesday’s elections showed that, for the moment, the economy and public discontent have fueled the GOP. No matter what President Barack Obama and his party argue right now, voters on the whole don’t feel very good about their economic condition. Yet slowly but surely trend lines are emerging that could very easily turn this into the Democrats’ economy—and perhaps Hillary Clinton’s—by 2016. This year’s campaign proved the degree to which our big-picture economic indicators simply fail to capture the multifaceted realities of a country with 320 million souls and nearly as many distinct individual experiences. As much as we rely on those indicators to frame our discussion, one-size-fits-all economic numbers simply cannot capture the disparity of experiences that see a metropolis such as Detroit imploding (and perhaps reinventing itself) and other communities, ranging from Silicon Valley to Nebraska, enjoying multiyear boom times. Still, how that “big picture” economic sentiment develops over the next two years will, in ways big and small, shape the narrative of the 2016 presidential race, and looming big question looms: Will the Democratic nominee, whether it’s Hillary Clinton or someone else, be boosted or punished by what is widely perceived as Barack Obama’s economy? In a midterm campaign season with precious few signs of common ground, Americans and their candidates were almost universal in their disdain for the country’s economic performance over the past six years. Even as Obama made an effort this fall to defend the economic record of his administration, few seem persuaded. Gallup’s weekly poll of economic conditions continues to show that more than half of those surveyed reject the notion that economic trends are improving. In fact, according to Rasmussen, 44 percent of Americans still think that we are in a recession. In state after state, race after race, candidates ran on a promise that they would do everything possible to reverse the decline of the American middle class, address the problem of stagnant wages, and, above all, depart from economic policies that enjoy bipartisan scorn for failing the middle class. Yet there is an almost inverse relationship between the political narrative and the actual numbers. Almost every single piece of data that we collectively use to gauge “the economy” has pointed consistently and steadily up, not just recently but steadily over recent years. Unemployment is at its lowest level, statistically, in many years. GDP growth might be unexciting, but it has been steady and consistent at about 2.5 percent annually. Inflation, statistically speaking, is nonexistent. Housing prices have recovered much of their 2008-09 collapse. None of this has dented public anger, and the primary explanation is that wage growth has been unimpressive. The ancillary explanation is that the story of unimpressive wage growth has been loudly and consistently told, along with an emphasis on underemployment, long-term unemployment and millions of workers unable to find meaningful jobs. This election cycle has feasted on public discontent. The question for the next two years heading into the presidential election is: How long will public sentiment remain grimly negative about all things economy? If a majority of Americans continue to view the economic landscape through dark-tinted glasses, it hardly bodes well for Hillary Clinton or anyone associated with what so many deem “failed” policies. The Republican narrative is that big government policies epitomized by Obamacare have crippled the middle class, to which Democrats respond somewhat defensively that things are improving under their watch and that better policies are needed to allow those gains to be shared more widely. They have a tough sell. No one who is anxious about the morphing employment trends or changing wage landscape is likely to be swayed by a good GDP report, or by a politician or pundit telling them that “the economy” is doing better. If a plurality of voters is still convinced two years from now that “the economy” is getting worse, an entire smorgasbord of economic indicators isn’t going to convince them otherwise. After all, if you’re staring down looming bills and fears about your retirement savings, how comforting is it to know that the nation’s “total seasonally adjusted nonfarm payroll employment” has risen steadily over the past 52 months? *** This yawning gap between what our numbers say and what most people feel is both extreme and increasingly unprecedented. For much of the 20th century, when the lattice of economic numbers painted a positive picture, that was reflected in how most people viewed their present and future—not because the numbers shaped their experience, but because the numbers represented it. The crisis of 2008-09 was sufficiently jarring that it’s understandable that it will take a long time before a majority of the populace feels secure about its economic future. While many people still believe the economy is headed south, fewer people believe it than did last year or the year before or the year before. The gap might still yawn wide between economic perception and statistical reality, but it is slowly narrowing. But will the lines cross before 2016? Will more people at the end of next year think that the American system is thriving? And what will that do to the election narrative? How does that affect the primaries in the first half of the year, and the general election in November? What happens if those lines cross sometime between when people vote for the nominees and when they vote in the general election? By about this time next year, the various contenders for the presidency will each begin to develop a story about the economy. Yes, other issues will matter, as they do now. But unless Ebola becomes a domestic contagion, or the Islamic State overruns Iraq, or there is some dramatic domestic terrorism incident, national security is likely to be trumped by the economy. Social issues also appear to loom less large on the national stage, simmering tensions over race, reproductive rights and the definition of marriage notwithstanding. That leaves the economy. It wasn’t always so. Bill Clinton may famously have won on the slogan, “It’s the economy, stupid,” but that was remarkable in part because it departed from the previous post-World War II elections, few of which hinged in any material way on “the economy.” Even Jimmy Carter’s defeat in 1980 to Ronald Reagan, when the United States was mired in stagflation and malaise, rested as much on the feeling that America was slipping in the Cold War and was being humiliated by a hostage-taking, embassy-seizing Iran. The problem for today’s political cycles is that for all the sophistication of vote-getting and message-targeting, campaign narratives are not as fluid, flexible and dynamic as the world itself. In 1991, George H.W. Bush and his team approached the 1992 election with a sense of confidence born of high poll numbers for the victory in the first Gulf War, only to be felled by a rapidly deteriorating economy. What appeared to be a very close race hinging on character and foreign policy in 2008 turned into a fairly easy Obama victory in the face of a crumbling financial system. Given the tenor of the midterms, it’s likely that most candidates will start gaming out 2016 with the presumption that current economic trends of decent GDP growth and lousy wage growth will continue, which will mean little abatement of today’s anger and discontent. That is certainly possible, especially given that large companies can produce output that helps boost GDP without needing to hire many workers or invest much capital. Such is the nature of the efficiency revolution driven by technology, and the wage revolution driven by globalization. If so, then the Republicans could have a starting advantage hammering the message that the Obama administration—even with an oppositional or inert Congress after 2010—has failed the middle class and added layers of government bureaucracy that have kept us back. Resting on that argument, however, is probably a mistake. Economic systems can and do shift rapidly. To wit: There are signs in the past few months that wages are indeed growing. Consumer confidence, not really a good gauge of how people behave but a decent snapshot of how they feel, has been climbing to highs not seen since before the financial crisis. While the decline of manufacturing jobs in America has been a multidecade phenomenon, with only about 12 million manufacturing jobs left, the power of that story is waning. Bluntly, we have already lost most of those jobs, and while that base might continue to erode slowly, it will be challenging to use that decline as political fuel. At some point in the 20th century, you could no longer whip up electoral passions by pointing to the plight of farmers—there were simply too few left, and agribusiness was producing more than enough food. And while it’s true that numbers such as the unemployment rate fail to account for the millions on disability payments and the millions more who have simply dropped out of the workforce, the numbers also don’t quite capture potent trends such as self-employment and entrepreneurial activity. It’s easy enough to dismiss those trends as marginal, but something is fueling this stealth recovery, and it isn’t just retailers hiring part-timers or fast-food restaurants opening more franchises. If, then, the economic picture a year from now continues to brighten statistically, it is likely that attitudes will also start to shift, not toward bushy-tailed optimism but away at least from muttering pessimism and simmering rage. There will be plenty of that, no doubt, but not enough to carry a campaign. It’s also possible, of course, that economic matters unravel, that China really does implode and brings the world economy down with it, or that the structural weaknesses of the global financial system are unable to adjust to a new euro crisis or a debt bubble somewhere. But that too would upset whatever narrative the contesting campaigns set in place and set the stage for a scenario similar to 2008, when the year began with the assumption that the election would be referendum on the national security legacy of George W. Bush and instead became an election about who could best save the middle class from a global financial implosion. What’s most important here is a version of “Stein’s law.” Named (perhaps erroneously) after economist Herbert Stein, it goes something like this: “If something cannot go on forever, it will stop.” Republicans might be confident that two years from now a substantial portion of the electorate will be just as angry, just as struggling and just as willing to affix blame on the Democrats. Many Democrats might believe that the surest path to victory in 2016 lies in channeling that anger and anxiety toward Republicans. But already, there are signs that this common and accepted narrative about the economy is fracturing. It is fracturing because there is no one single truth here. Unemployment is high; wages are not what people expect; but multiple regions are flourishing, as are large numbers of people. Looking ahead to 2016, it will not be a winning formula to run as if everything is still a mess. That’s because absent a crisis (always possible and never truly predictable), everything won’t be. No, we won’t be revisiting the giddy (and unreasonable) optimism of the 1990s anytime soon, even if the stock market remains on a startlingly upward path. Yet the crisis atmosphere of this election cycle cannot be fed endlessly by rhetoric without enough real-world resonance. Most likely, heading into 2016 we face an overall economic picture that is just good enough to counter the message of collapse and crisis, but not nearly good enough to lead to an era of good feelings. Maybe, and just maybe, that will offer an opening to someone finally willing to talk not just of two Americas but of many Americas, some struggling mightily, some succeeding admirably and multitudes in between. That would be a powerful message, because it would be real and true. Of that we have had precious little of late, but it might prove a winning formula for 2016. *Associated Press: “Analysis: Wins give GOP wider Washington influence” <http://bigstory.ap.org/article/bc30205292284363822709961fcbe9ec/analysis-wins-give-gop-wider-washington-influence>* By Julie Pace November 5, 2014, 5:29 a.m. EST WASHINGTON (AP) — With sweeping victories that exceeded their own sky-high expectations, the GOP has dealt President Barack Obama and Democrats the most devastating electoral defeat of his presidency. Their prize is full control of Congress, and with it, the power to shape the direction of America's government in the next two years. Both parties talked Tuesday about need to compromise, but they will face tough obstacles in following through. The list is long: the already looming 2016 elections, persistent divisions within the Republican Party, and the frosty relationship between Obama and Sen. Mitch McConnell, who won re-election in Kentucky and is likely to ascend to majority leader. "I don't expect the president to wake up tomorrow and view the world any differently than he did this morning," McConnell said at his victory party Tuesday night. "He knows I won't either." The election puts Republicans back in power in the Senate for the first time in eight years, and alongside a GOP-led House, the party will set a legislative agenda unlike anything that would come from Obama's White House. The president's top advisers have spent weeks planning for how to deal with a Republican-led Senate, and Obama and congressional leaders plan to meet Friday at the White House. In the rosiest of scenarios, McConnell and Obama can look for common ground in areas where their parties have overlapping interests: overhauling the nation's complicated tax code, repairing crumbling roads and bridges, and inking free-trade agreements with the European Union and Asia-Pacific nations. "This is a new chapter in the presidency and it doesn't have to be a defeated one," said Bill Burton, a former Obama White House and campaign adviser. "We lost in a lot of places, but the truth is this could open up some real opportunity to actually get some things done." For Obama, who has grown resentful of his diminished political standing, the prospect of reaching accords with a GOP-led Congress is a consolation prize that could help salvage his flailing second term. Republican Senate leaders may also see something to gain by showing Americans they can govern effectively, given that voters expressed dissatisfaction with their party as well with Obama, according to exit polls conducted for The Associated Press and television networks. But McConnell and Republicans are likely to have plenty on their to-do list that doesn't match Obama's plans for his final years in office, including cutting budget deficits, making changes to Obama's signature health care law and approving construction of the contentious Keystone XL pipeline from Canada. "We will send the president bill after bill until he wearies of it," said Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul, a tea party favorite and potential 2016 presidential candidate. That fast-approaching campaign likely leaves McConnell and Obama a short window in which to make progress on any compromise legislation. McConnell will be fending off pressure from prospective White House hopefuls, including Paul and Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, who see little incentive to compromise with a Democratic White House as they appeal to the conservative voters who decide GOP primaries. Republican opposition to the president is likely to only deepen if the president accelerates his use of executive actions, including presidential directives on immigration that are expected before the end of the year. Obama, too, will be battling internal party politics. He may no longer be able to count on full support from Democrats who are unlikely to want to help the GOP look effective in governing during the lead-up to a presidential contest. Tuesday's elections also strip him of some of the more moderate members of his caucus, such as Sen. Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Sen. Kay Hagan of North Carolina, leaving him with more liberal members who have fewer overlapping priorities with Republicans. The White House was silent as Republicans racked up one win after another Tuesday and won control of the Senate hours — if not days — before almost anyone expected. Privately, there was frustration among some advisers that Democrats wary of being associated with Obama largely sidelined the increasingly unpopular president throughout the campaign. That strategy did little to stem losses in places where Obama showed prowess in his runs for president, including Colorado, Iowa and Florida. For Democrats, the one silver lining in Tuesday's elections is that they are now over. Attention can now turn to 2016, when the Senate contests will largely take place in states that are traditionally more favorable to Democrats. And while they may still fret about being saddled with an unpopular president at their party's helm, many are already prepared to move on. An announcement from Hillary Rodham Clinton, the political juggernaut who appears poised to run to replace Obama, is expected around the end of the year. *ABC News: “Midterm Elections 2014: How Clinton-Backed Candidates Fared” <http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/midterm-elections-2014-clinton-backed-candidates-fared/story?id=26694294>* By Meghan Keneally November 4, 2014, 11:27 p.m. EST Normally, it's the president and first lady who are making the campaign rounds during the lead up to a Midterm Election. This year, it was a former president and former first lady taking on the role of party elders. Bill and Hillary Clinton were aggressive campaigners for Democratic candidates across the country in the weeks leading up to Election Day. Between President Obama's low approval rating and Hillary Clinton's widely expected 2016 presidential ambitions, the campaign trail was an open, easy way for the Clintons to shore up some national goodwill. Representatives for both the former President and the former Secretary of State released their respective lists of campaign stops, though there is an important difference between the two. Bill Clinton's list dates back to February and Hillary Clinton's list only includes stops she made from Sept. 9 on, in spite of the fact that she was making campaign appearances for much of the summer. As such, Hillary Clinton's list includes nearly half as many candidates as her husband, but all told she did travel to 20 states during the course of the campaign. Their makeshift scorecard of how many of their picks did well at the polls will be updated throughout the night, but they had one notable early upset. Both Clintons made more than one visit to Kentucky on behalf of Alison Lundergan Grimes, the Democrat who ran-- and lost-- against Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell. The Clintons are known for their long-lasting memories, and they were sure to help out old friends. New York governor Andrew Cuomo, who was the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development during President Clinton's term, was one such pal who received visits from both Clintons. Here's a running tally of the Clinton's 2014 scorecards, based on the campaign events released by Bill and Hillary's respective representatives: Hillary Clinton's scorecard: Alison Lundergan Grimes, KY-Sen: Loss Michelle Nunn, GA-Sen: Loss. Mark Pryor, AR-Sen: Loss. Al Franken, MN-Sen: Win. Gary Peters, MI-Sen: Win. Tom Wolf, PA-Gov: Win. Mark Udall, CO-Sen: Loss. Andrew Cuomo, NY-Gov: Win. Jeanne Shaheen, NH-Rep: Win. Maggie Hassan, NH-Gov: Win. Mary Landrieu, LA-Sen: Run off. Mark Dayton, MN-Gov: Win. Gina Raimondo, RI-Gov: Win. Anne Kuster, NH-Rep: Win. Mark Schauer, MI-Gov: Loss. Nita Lowey, NY-Rep: Win. Bruce Braley, IA-Sen: Loss. Pat Quinn, IL-Gov: Loss. Carol Shea-Porter, NH-Rep: Loss. Charlie Crist, FL-Gov: Loss. Kay Hagan, NC-Sen: Loss. Mike Michaud, ME-Gov: Loss. Martha Coakley, MA-Gov: Loss. Anthony Brown, MD-Gov: Loss. Bill Clinton's scorecard: Alison Lundergan Grimes, KY-Sen: Loss. Mike Ross, AR-Gov: Loss. Michelle Nunn, GA-Sen: Loss. Mark Pryor, AR-Sen: Loss. Al Franken, MN-Sen: Win. Gary Peters, MI-Sen: Win. Mary Burke, WI-Gov: Loss. Tom Wolf, PA-Gov: Win. Mark Udall, CO-Sen: Loss. Andrew Cuomo, NY-Gov: Win. Jeanne Shaheen, NH-Rep: Win. Patrick Murphy, FL-Rep: Win. Mary Landrieu, LA-Sen: Run off. Mark Dayton, MN-Gov: Win. Mark Schauer, MI-Gov: Loss. Fred DuVal, AZ-Gov: Loss. Bruce Braley, IA-Sen: Loss. James Lee Witt, AR-Rep: Loss. Bonnie Watson Coleman, NJ-Rep: Win. Tim Bishop, NY-Rep: Loss. Pat Quinn, IL-Gov: Loss. Charlie Crist, FL-Gov: Loss. Kay Hagan, NC-Sen: Loss. Erin Bilbray, NV-Rep: Loss. Dan Maffei, NY-Rep: Loss. Mike Michaud, ME-Gov: Loss. Martha Coakley, MA-Gov: Loss. Gwen Graham, FL-Rep: Win. Dina Titus, NV-Rep: Win. Andrew Romanoff, CO-Rep: Loss. Anthony Brown, MD-Gov: Loss. Staci Appel, IA-Rep: Loss. *Politico: “How the Clintons’ candidates did (not well)” <http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/2014-elections-clinton-candidates-112559.html>* By Seung Min Kim November 5, 2014, 1:11 a.m. EST Bill and Hillary Clinton were the most sought-after surrogates on the campaign trail this cycle – criss-crossing the country to stump for Democrats in places where President Barack Obama couldn’t. They flew into red states to stump for vulnerable Democrats, aided candidates from their home states and campaigned for family friends, former aides and other longtime confidants. Their itineraries included several stops in the politically significant states of Iowa and New Hampshire for Democrats in competitive Senate and House races. But not even the Clinton’s political star power could spare Democrats from Tuesday’s bloodbath. Just 17 candidates backed by either Clinton won, compared to 31 who lost. One race will go into a December runoff, and 9 races had yet to be called as of early Wednesday. While Republicans, including potential 2016 rival Rand Paul, tried to cast the results as a referendum on the Clintons, the former first couple can’t defy political gravity. No one expected all — or even most — of their endorsed candidates to win in such a bad year for Democrats. It’s a safe bet that the Clintons went in knowing many of them would fall short. With that in mind, here’s a look at how candidates whom the Clintons went to bat for fared: *House races* The Clintons’ House endorsements were concentrated largely in a handful of locations – the Northeast, California, and in Arkansas, where Bill served as governor before heading to the White House. Their New York allegiances were clear – between them, the Clintons boosted 10 Democratic candidates from the Empire State. Some were longtime loyalists such as Rep. Nita Lowey and Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney, a senior adviser to Bill Clinton at the White House. The former president was also a popular surrogate for Democratic incumbents who suddenly found themselves in political trouble – such as Rep. Steven Horsford in Nevada, who hosted Bill Clinton for a get-out-the-vote rally last week. The Clintons already began election night with two losses on their midterm scorecard: In May, Marjorie Margolies, mother-in-law of daughter Chelsea, fell short in a House Democratic primary in Pennsylvania. And in March, Bill Clinton recorded a robocall in Florida for Democrat Alex Sink, who ultimately lost in a special election to Republican David Jolly. —Pete Aguilar (California): No call —Aimee Belgard (New Jersey): Loss —Ami Bera (California):No call —Erin Bilbray (Nevada): Loss —Rep. Tim Bishop (New York): Loss —Julia Brownley (California): No call —Bonnie Watson Coleman (New Jersey): Win —Sean Eldridge (New York): Loss —John Garamendi (California): No call —Gwen Graham (Florida): Win —Patrick Henry Hays (Arkansas): Loss —Rep. Steven Horsford (Nevada): No call —Mark Lester (Alabama): Loss —Rep. Annie Kuster (New Hampshire): Win —Rep. Nita Lowey (New York): Win —Rep. Dan Maffei (New York): Loss —Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (New York): No call —Marjorie Margolies (Pennsylvania): Loss in primary —Rep. Patrick Murphy (Florida): Win —Rep. Charlie Rangel (New York): Win —Domenic Recchia (New York): Loss —Kathleen Rice (New York): Win —Martha Robertson (New York): Loss —Andrew Romanoff (Colorado): Loss —Rep. Raul Ruiz (California): No call —Rep. Carol Shea-Porter (New Hampshire): Loss —Alex Sink (Florida): Loss in March special election —Rep. Dina Titus (Nevada): Win —James Lee Witt (Arkansas): Loss —Aaron Woolf (New York): Loss *Senate races* Red-state Democrats fled from Obama, but eagerly counted on Clintons to come to their rescue. Democrat Alison Lundergan Grimes in Kentucky – whose father, Jerry Lundergan, is a Clinton family friend — was an early beneficiary of the Clintons’ political largesse. As was Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), a longtime friend whom Bill Clinton hosted a fundraiser for in June. In the final weeks of the campaign, nearly every endangered Democrat brought the Clintons along on the stump – from Kay Hagan in North Carolina to Mary Landrieu in Louisiana, Mark Udall in Colorado to Mark Pryor in Arkansas. But it was a overwhelming wipeout — of the Clinton-backed candidates in the closest Senate races, only Shaheen hung on. —Bruce Braley (Iowa): Loss —Sen. Dick Durbin (Illinois): Win —Sen. Al Franken (Minnesota): Win —Alison Lundergan Grimes (Kentucky): Loss —Sen. Kay Hagan (North Carolina): Loss —Sen. Mary Landrieu (Louisiana): Advances to runoff —Michelle Nunn (Georgia): Loss —Gary Peters (Michigan): Win —Sen. Mark Pryor (Arkansas): Loss —Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (New Hampshire): Win —Sen. Mark Udall (Colorado): Loss *Governor races* The Clintons also doled out their political star power in key gubernatorial battles nationwide – races that could’ve been the Democrats’ lone bright spots on Election Night. Democrat Tom Wolf – who both Clintons campaigned for in October — soundly defeated sitting Republican Gov. Tom Corbett in Pennsylvania. The Clintons also rallied on behalf of Democratic candidates in Wisconsin and Florida who mounted tough challenges to GOP incumbent governors, but ultimately lost. Bill Clinton was even the campaign closer for Democrat Charlie Crist in Florida – appearing at a get-out-the vote rally for him on Monday. —Anthony Brown (Maryland): Loss —Mary Burke (Wisconsin): Loss —Martha Coakley (Massachusetts): Loss —Charlie Crist (Florida): Loss —Gov. Andrew Cuomo (New York): Win —Wendy Davis (Texas): Loss —Gov. Mark Dayton (Minnesota): Win —Fred DuVal (Arizona): Loss —Gov. Maggie Hassan (New Hampshire): Win —Gov. John Hickenlooper (Colorado): No call —Gov. Dannel Malloy (Connecticut): No call —Mike Michaud (Maine): Loss —Pat Quinn (Illinois): Loss —Gina Raimondo (Rhode Island): Win —Mike Ross (Arkansas): Loss —Mark Schauer (Michigan): Loss —Tom Wolf (Pennsylvania): Win *The Hill blog: Ballot Box: “Rand Paul mocks 'Hillary's losers'” <http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/222999-paul-calls-dem-senators-hillarys-losers>* By Peter Sullivan November 5, 2014, 2:45 a.m. EST Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has branded defeated Democratic Senate candidates in Tuesday's midterm elections as "Hillary's losers." On his Facebook page, Paul posted pictures of Clinton together with Rep. Bruce Braley (Iowa), Michelle Nunn, Alison Lundergan Grimes, and Sens. Kay Hagan (N.C.), Mark Udall (Colo.) and Mark Pryor (Ark.). Over each photo is the tag #Hillaryslosers. Clinton had campaigned across the country for Democratic Senate candidates, and Paul is arguing their losses are a referendum on Clinton, a possible 2016 presidential rival. "Today, voters sent a message to President Obama and Hillary Clinton, rejecting their policies and many of their candidates," the post says. *Politico: “Rand Paul: Alison Lundergan Grimes' loss a ‘repudiation’ of Hillary Clinton” <http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/rand-paul-alison-lundergan-grimes-hillary-clinton-election-results-112528.html>* By Lucy McCalmont November 4, 2014, 10:23 p.m. EST Republican Sen. Rand Paul on Tuesday called Democratic losses in Kentucky and Arkansas a “repudiation” of Hillary Clinton. “I think here in Kentucky I think it was a referendum, not only on the president, but on Hillary Clinton,” Paul (R-Ky.) said on Fox News after Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell easily won reelection against Democrat challenger Alison Lundergan Grimes. “Mrs. Grimes ran as a Clinton Democrat, she tried to disassociate herself from the president, so she tried to attach herself to Hillary Clinton. But turns out, Hillary Clinton doesn’t have many coattails in Kentucky,” said Paul, who is widely considered a possible 2016 presidential candidate for the GOP. Hillary Clinton, also expected to run for the Democratic nomination in 2016, campaigned for Grimes as did Bill Clinton. Both of the Clintons are good friends with Grimes’ father, prominent Democrat Jerry Lundergan. However, despite the Clinton star power in the Bluegrass State, McConnell led Grimes 55 percent to 41 percent with over 90 percent of precincts in, according to The Associated Press. Paul predicted further Senate wins for Republicans on Tuesday and took another jab at the Clintons, who he said were “soundly rejected” in Kentucky. “I think it is a repudiation basically of the president’s policies, but also of Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton have been all over the place, they’re trying to make it out as if they’re somehow better for Democrats, well in Kentucky, they were soundly rejected.” *The Hill blog: Ballot Box: “Paul: Hillary Clinton 'soundly rejected'” <http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/222889-rand-paul-hillary-clinton-soundly-rejected>* By Peter Sullivan November 4, 2014, 9:15 p.m. EST Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Tuesday portrayed the early Senate results as a repudiation of Hillary Clinton, a possible 2016 presidential rival. "I think we’re going to pick up enough [seats] to take over the Senate, and I think it is a repudiation basically of the president's policies, but also Hillary Clinton," Paul said on Fox News Tuesday night. "Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton have been all over the place. They’re trying to make out as if they’re somehow better for Democrats, but in Kentucky they were soundly rejected." As President Obama stayed away from the Senate campaign trail, both Hillary and former President Bill Clinton campaigned hard, particularly in Kentucky and Arkansas. But both Democratic Senate candidates are projected to lose in those states. Paul also pointed to Iowa, a key presidential state. "They campaigned in Kentucky very heavily, and in Arkansas, and in Iowa, so I think the facts are the facts," he said on Fox News Tuesday night. "Did the Clintons help their ticket? So far, I don’t think they have." Paul also criticized Kentucky Democrat Alison Lundergan Grimes for linking herself to Clinton. "It turns out Hillary Clinton doesn’t have too many coattails in Kentucky," he said. *Calendar:* *Sec. Clinton's upcoming appearances as reported online. Not an official schedule.* · November 14 – Little Rock, AR: Sec. Clinton attends picnic for 10thAnniversary of the Clinton Center (NYT <http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2014/10/17/?entry=2674&_php=true&_type=blogs&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0> ) · November 15 – Little Rock, AR: Sec. Clinton hosts No Ceilings event (NYT <http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2014/10/17/?entry=2674&_php=true&_type=blogs&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0> ) · November 21 – New York, NY: Sec. Clinton presides over meeting of the Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves (Bloomberg <http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2014-11-02/clinton-aides-resist-calls-to-jump-early-into-2016-race> ) · November 21 – New York, NY: Sec. Clinton is honored by the New York Historical Society (Bloomberg <http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2014-11-02/clinton-aides-resist-calls-to-jump-early-into-2016-race> ) · December 1 – New York, NY: Sec. Clinton keynotes a League of Conservation Voters dinner (Politico <http://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/hillary-clinton-green-groups-las-vegas-111430.html?hp=l11> ) · December 4 – Boston, MA: Sec. Clinton speaks at the Massachusetts Conference for Women (MCFW <http://www.maconferenceforwomen.org/speakers/>) · December 16 – New York, NY: Sec. Clinton honored by Robert F. Kennedy Center for Justice and Human Rights (Politico <http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/hillary-clinton-ripple-of-hope-award-112478.html> )