Mediaboss Marketing

John Sommers II/Reuters Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton addresses a crowd in Louisville, Kentucky Oct. 15, 2014.

Hillary Rodham Clinton, who wont yet say whether she is running for president, is assembling a massive campaign team-in-waiting that outstrips anything on a Republican side that remains factionalized and focused on knocking off one another.

At this point, without so much as an announcement, she has settled on at the least a campaign chairman, a campaign manager, a chief strategist and lead pollster, another pollster, a lead media adviser, a communication director, a deputy communications director, a focus group director and a communications strategist.

Shes also closing in on a New York City campaign headquarters and a date to make all of this official.

Some senior staff are signing on without nailing down the usual conditions of a new job, such as a salary or starting date. Recruiting is led by White House senior adviser John Podesta and manager-designate Robby Mook, with Clinton making many of the final decisions herself.

Clinton faces no competition for Democratic campaign talent and is said to prefer to wait as long as possible to begin campaigning, but has assured senior advisers that she would put the legal framework of a campaign in place this spring.

The advanced stage of her organization is one of many signs that Clinton is the heir apparent for the Democratic nomination, a status that has scared off serious rivals and allowed her to postpone perhaps until summer the day she has to begin rigorous campaigning.

Her effort at this stage looks a lot like an incumbents reelection campaign: She will be running largely in support of a sitting president and his agenda and is busy hiring many of President Obamas former aides.

Jim Messina, who helped engineer Clintons downfall in 2008 as a senior aide to Barack Obamas campaign, now runs a super PAC devoted to supporting her in 2016. Its her turn and her time, he said on MSNBC this week. ...Were going to do whatever it takes to make sure shes the president of the United States.

No Republicans now moving toward active candidacies can say they are as far along in staffing the upper ranks with the kind of experienced people that Clinton is bringing aboard. Shes also locking in wealthy donors and has a head start on other ground organizing and fundraising thanks to the efforts of outside groups supporting her.

Read more:
Official or not, Hillary Clintons 2016 campaign is already well underway

New Hampshire has been very good to the Clintons, making Bill Clinton the "comeback kid" in its1992 primary and helping Hillary Clinton to a badly neededvictory after Barack Obama won Iowa in 2008. And Hillary Clinton is a strong favorite there again this year -- as she is nearly everywhere.

But as we enter the 2016 campaign, it's worth remembering that New Hampshire likes to surprise us.And there are plenty ofreasons to keep an eye on the Granite State when it comes to Clinton's supposed "inevitability" as the Democratic nominee.

Despite vast coverage of Clinton's dominance in lining upfora presidential run,three in four likely New Hampshire Democratic primary votersin a newWMUR Granite State Pollsay they're "still trying to decide" who they'll vote for in the state's 2016 primary. Just 7 percent say they've"definitely decided."

The widespread lack of commitment in the poll, conducted by the University of New Hampshire, is unsurprising roughly one year before voting. But it isa reminderthere's ampleroomfor volatility in aDemocratic race which thus farhas looked like a looming Clinton rout. People are at least open-minded.

Between the courting of top strategists and Democratic donors,polls asking how Democrats would vote "if the election were held today" have found Clinton dominating other hopefuls.Indeed, 58 percent in the same sample of Democrats said they would support Clinton today, withSen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) in a distant second at 14 percent and Vice President Biden at 8 percent. Thisdoes not imply muchhemming and hawing, but the "still trying to decide" number assures she hasn't put the Democratic nomination on ice just yet (nor should we expect her to have done so).

The lack of final decision is not itself worrisome for Clinton; voterssimply don't decide this early. At this point in 2011, the Republican field was in a very similar situation, with 78 percent of Republican likely voters in February 2011survey still trying to decide who to support -- even as Mitt Romney held a 30-point lead over other potential contenders in a state he wound up dominating in 2012.Romney won by 16 points over RonPaul, smaller than his initial edge but still a no-doubted from the beginning.

But thesurvey offers other clues as to Clinton'svulnerabilities among primary voters and makes clearDemocratic voters are not thrilled abouttheir options so far. Fewer than one in five Democratssay they're "very satisfied" with the choice of candidates for the Democratic nomination (18 percent);63 percent take poll choiceequivalent of "meh," saying they are "somewhat satisfied." Anddespite nearlysix in 10 preferring her to other Democrats, just 32 percent say she is the most likable and 31 percent say she's the most believable. No other candidate, though, beats her on these attributes.

The rest of the poll is gravy for Clinton's prospects, and bodes particularly poorly for Joe Biden, one of her strongest potential rivals. More thaneight in 10have a favorableimpression of her (83 percent) and just 9 percent are unfavorable -- by far the best favorable-unfavorable margin(+74).Others like Warren and Sanders are similarly well-liked by those who know them, but aren't as well-known.

Biden's image is weakeraccording to the poll.His favorability margin is a modest +23 (53 percent favorable/30 percent unfavorable), which far weaker than Warren or Clinton and worse than surveys by the same pollster in October and July (+32 and +47 favorabilitymargins, respectively.) Biden isless popular in New Hampshire than Iowa, where a Des Moines Register/Bloomberg Politics poll found a 78/20 percent favorable/unfavorable split on general impressions.

The poll underscores how much Clinton's candidacy banks on otherDemocrats failing to makestrong impression ahead of primaries this fall, and the importance of maintaining herown positive image. When New Hampshire voters do begin to decide, she'll want voters' opinionsto look a lot they do rightnow.

Read the original:
The Fix: New Hampshire, and the case for Hillary Clinton not quite being inevitable

Hillary Rodham Clinton, who wont yet say whether she is running for president, is assembling a massive campaign team-in-waiting that outstrips anything on a Republican side that remains factionalized and focused on knocking off one another.

At this point, without so much as an announcement, she has settled on at the least a campaign chairman, a campaign manager, a chief strategist and lead pollster, another pollster, a lead media adviser, a communication director, a deputy communications director, a focus group director and a communications strategist.

She is also closing in on a New York City campaign headquarters and a date to make all of this official.

Some senior staff are signing on without nailing down the usual conditions of a new job, such as a salary or starting date. Recruitment is being led by White House senior adviser John Podesta and manager-designate Robby Mook, with Clinton making many of the final decisions herself.

Clinton faces no competition for Democratic campaign talent and is said to prefer to wait as long as possible to begin campaigning, but she has assured senior advisers that she would put the legal framework of a campaign in place this spring.

The advanced stage of her organization is one of many signs that Clinton is the heir apparent for the Democratic nomination, a status that has scared off serious rivals and allowed her to postpone perhaps until summer the day she has to begin rigorous campaigning.

Her effort at this stage looks a lot like an incumbents reelection campaign: She will be running largely in support of a sitting president and his agenda, and is busy hiring many of President Obamas former aides.

Jim Messina, who helped engineer Clintons downfall in 2008 as a senior aide to Obamas campaign, now runs a super PAC devoted to supporting her in 2016. Its her turn and her time, he said on MSNBC this week. Were going to do whatever it takes to make sure shes the president of the United States.

No Republicans now moving toward active candidacies can say that they are as far along in staffing their upper ranks with the kind of experienced people whom Clinton is bringing aboard. Shes also locking in wealthy donors and has a head start on other ground organizing and fundraising because of the efforts of outside groups supporting her.

But the luxury of front-runner status could easily become a liability as Clinton attempts the historically difficult feat of leading her party to a third consecutive term in the White House.

See the original post:
Official or not, Hillary Clinton builds a massive 2016 team-in-waiting

New Hampshire has been very good to the Clintons, making Bill Clinton the "comeback kid" in its1992 primary and helping Hillary Clinton to a badly neededvictory after Barack Obama won Iowa in 2008. And Hillary Clinton is a strong favorite there again this year -- as she is nearly everywhere.

But as we enter the 2016 campaign, it's worth remembering that New Hampshire likes to surprise us.And there are plenty ofreasons to keep an eye on the Granite State when it comes to Clinton's supposed "inevitability" as the Democratic nominee.

Despite vast coverage of Clinton's dominance in lining upfora presidential run,three in four likely New Hampshire Democratic primary votersin a newWMUR Granite State Pollsay they're "still trying to decide" who they'll vote for in the state's 2016 primary. Just 7 percent say they've"definitely decided."

The widespread lack of commitment in the poll, conducted by the University of New Hampshire, is unsurprising roughly one year before voting. But it isa reminderthere's ampleroomfor volatility in aDemocratic race which thus farhas looked like a looming Clinton rout. People are at least open-minded.

Between the courting of top strategists and Democratic donors,polls asking how Democrats would vote "if the election were held today" have found Clinton dominating other hopefuls.Indeed, 58 percent in the same sample of Democrats said they would support Clinton today, withSen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) in a distant second at 14 percent and Vice President Biden at 8 percent. Thisdoes not imply muchhemming and hawing, but the "still trying to decide" number assures she hasn't put the Democratic nomination on ice just yet (nor should we expect her to have done so).

The lack of final decision is not itself worrisome for Clinton; voterssimply don't decide this early. At this point in 2011, the Republican field was in a very similar situation, with 78 percent of Republican likely voters in February 2011survey still trying to decide who to support -- even as Mitt Romney held a 30-point lead over other potential contenders in a state he wound up dominating in 2012.Romney won by 16 points over RonPaul, smaller than his initial edge but still a no-doubted from the beginning.

But thesurvey offers other clues as to Clinton'svulnerabilities among primary voters and makes clearDemocratic voters are not thrilled abouttheir options so far. Fewer than one in five Democratssay they're "very satisfied" with the choice of candidates for the Democratic nomination (18 percent);63 percent take poll choiceequivalent of "meh," saying they are "somewhat satisfied." Anddespite nearlysix in 10 preferring her to other Democrats, just 32 percent say she is the most likable and 31 percent say she's the most believable. No other candidate, though, beats her on these attributes.

The rest of the poll is gravy for Clinton's prospects, and bodes particularly poorly for Joe Biden, one of her strongest potential rivals. More thaneight in 10have a favorableimpression of her (83 percent) and just 9 percent are unfavorable -- by far the best favorable-unfavorable margin(+74).Others like Warren and Sanders are similarly well-liked by those who know them, but aren't as well-known.

Biden's image is weakeraccording to the poll.His favorability margin is a modest +23 (53 percent favorable/30 percent unfavorable), which far weaker than Warren or Clinton and worse than surveys by the same pollster in October and July (+32 and +47 favorabilitymargins, respectively.) Biden isless popular in New Hampshire than Iowa, where a Des Moines Register/Bloomberg Politics poll found a 78/20 percent favorable/unfavorable split on general impressions.

The poll underscores how much Clinton's candidacy banks on otherDemocrats failing to makestrong impression ahead of primaries this fall, and the importance of maintaining herown positive image. When New Hampshire voters do begin to decide, she'll want voters' opinionsto look a lot they do rightnow.

More here:
New Hampshire, and the case for Hillary Clinton not quite being inevitable

Hillary Clinton is on the glide path to the Democratic nomination, with few credible challengers stepping forward. And Ross Baker, a political scientist professor at Rutgers University, thinks he knows why.

Clinton and the political "colossus" that is Nancy Pelosi are scaring away all the good male rivals, Nurse Ratched-style. They are "towering and intimidating figures, who have sucked the oxygen out of the spheres they dominate."

He writes more in USA Today:

While the Democratic bench isn't as full as it has been, there is still no shortage of qualified male candidates who will probably not step forward in 2016. In the Senate there are potential hopefuls who could win the hearts of the very people who consider Clinton too middle-of-the-road: Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, Sherrod Brown of Ohio, and Jeff Merkley of Oregon. There are well-regarded governors such as Jack Markell of Delaware and Andrew Cuomo of New York or former Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick. None of them has given the slightest hint that they might consider a run.

First off, if I was to make a list of who would mount a run for the White House if Clinton didn't, I'm not sure many of these people would make it (s0rry, Sen. Merkley). Which leads to this: If these candidates were so formidable, wouldn't they just run against Clinton? If they thought they could amass the millions and millions of dollars it would take to mount a run for the White House -- against Clinton or anyone else -- wouldn't they do it?She's a clear favorite, yes, but an open primary doesn't come around every four years.

To Baker, it is Clinton's gender that is a big, big stop sign. Hedoesn't seem to see a failure on the part of any of these potential male candidates to do the years and years of work it requires to become a contender. Nope, all of them are just afraid to run against Clinton because she is a woman -- not because she has a much higher profile, much better presidential resume and political network.

He calls this failure or fear of going "toe-to-toe with a powerful woman is, in the final analysis, a form of patronizing that ill-becomes a party that has stood so steadfastly for women."

But haven't male Democrats run against women before, you might ask? Yes, they most certainly have. Like in 2008, for instance. That contest was rough and tumble early on, with none of the candidates shaking in their boots at the thought of challenging Clinton, who after all was a powerful woman back then, too.

(Baker argues that Obama's race gave him a special angle. He was also a much better candidate and reshaped the electorate as a result, but never mind that).

So what to make of Baker's argument, one that doesn't account for the fact that men dominate every single level of politics and nearly every other powerful industry you can think of? I have never thought of Clinton scaring away all the good men because of her gender.

More:
The Fix: Are men afraid to run against Hillary Clinton BECAUSE shes a woman?