Mediaboss Marketing

By Perry Bacon Jr.

Hillary Clinton is expected to announce in January that she will run for president, Democratic sources say, and the shape of that effort is becoming clear -- with a campaign operation headquartered in the New York City suburbs and a campaign message that plays up the possibility of electing the first female president much more so than in 2008.

Party sources emphasize there is still a small chance the former first lady will opt not to run, and some Democrats say there is no reason for her to begin a campaign so soon. But she is expected to begin preparation for a campaign over the next two months, while also giving speeches on some of her favorite causes, such as appearances at the Massachusetts Conference for Women and the League of Conservation Voters in December.

She could forgo forming an exploratory committee, a step she took in January 2007 during her last run, and simply declare that she is a candidate. Democratic operatives have spent months positioning themselves for places on her campaign staff, but its already clear that Clintons team will include voices from her husbands administration, such as former White House director of political affairs Minyon Moore, top aides from her last campaign like then-traveling chief of staff Huma Abedin and trip director Greg Hale, as well as some of her close advisers at the State Department, such as speechwriter Dan Schwerin.

A group called Ready for Hillary, which is officially unaligned with Clinton, is expected to fold, with some of its staff joining the official campaign operation. But the Democratic organization American Bridge, which has designated staffers for the last year to defending Clinton from conservative attacks, will remain, both to support Clinton and to critique the GOPs presidential field.

Democratic operatives close to Clinton are also beginning to consider what is expected to be one of the top challenges for the former first lady: distancing herself from an increasingly unpopular President Obama without offending the voters, particularly African-Americans, who elected him twice. The other challenge will be casting Clinton as a candidate of the future, with Republicans repeatedly suggesting the 67-year-old is too old. Clinton advisers view white women as the group where she can out-perform Obama, but Republicans are expected to compete much more for the votes of minority voters in 2016 than they did during Obamas campaigns.

This dynamics of this race will be much different for Clinton than in 2008. Back then, she faced a very tough primary, with the Democratic base wary of her support for the Iraq War, but she would have been a heavy favorite in the general election, which Obama won easily. Now, Clinton is the overwhelming favorite in the primary, but faces the challenge of trying to win the third straight presidential term for the Democrats.

Maryland Gov. Martin OMalley and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders are still strongly considering running against Clinton, but there is little sign that more powerful figures in the party, such as Vice President Biden or Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, will compete if the former first lady elects to start a campaign.

"Because so many seats Democrats had won in 2008 were up this year, I don't know how much of 2014 translates to 2016. But still the country is feeling more Republican, so that makes it somewhat harder for Hillary Clinton if she runs," said Mark Alexander, an associate dean and law professor at Seton Hall who was a senior adviser on Obama's 2008 campaign. "But the Republicans still have to come up with a good candidate, and they don't yet know who that is going to be."

If her speeches on the campaign trail this fall are any hint, Clinton will not be breaking much new ground on domestic policy during her presidential run. She has embraced President Obamas agenda, increasing the minimum wage, implementing the Affordable Care Act, expanding pre-kindergarten education, looking for policies that reduce the gap between the wealthy and the rest of America. Since she left the State Department, Clinton has hinted she would have taken a more aggressive stance in intervening abroad in nations like Syria, but its not clear she will make foreign policy a centerpiece of her campaign, as polls suggest most voters are much more concerned about the economy.

Read the original post:
Democrats Ready for Post-Holiday Clinton Announcement

Who Creates Jobs? And Yes, Hillary Clinton Is Wrong (Of Course)
Do consumers "create jobs" by buying things? Do business firms create jobs? Hillary Clinton is confused, and George Reisman clears things up for her in this episode of the Tom Woods Show.

By: TomWoodsTV

Continued here:
Who Creates Jobs? And Yes, Hillary Clinton Is Wrong (Of Course) - Video

Talking Points Memo's Dylan Scott interviewed Mitch Stewart, the former battleground states director of President Obama's reelection campaign and now a member of the Hillary Clinton campaign-in-waiting known as "Ready for Hillary," about how the 2016 electoral map could be expanded in Democrats' favor if the former secretary of state is, as expected, the party's presidential nominee.

Stewart suggests two "buckets" of states that Clinton could make competitive in 2016 that Obama, for a several reasons, couldn't in 2008 or 2012. The first bucket is Arkansas, Indiana and Missouri. The second contains Arizona and Georgia.

The first bucket of states is ridiculous. The second is plausible -- but almost certainly not in 2016. Let's take them in order.

Stewart's explanation for Clinton's heightened competitiveness in Arkansas, Missouri and Indiana is that she can appeal to whites and, in particular, white working-class voters and, even more particularly, white working-class women voters in a way that Obama could not. (It's worth noting that the Clinton people have made a similar argument about the potential competitiveness of Kentucky.)

"Where I think Secretary Clinton has more appeal than any other Democrat looking at running is that with white working-class voters, she does have a connection," Stewart told Scott. "I think she's best positioned to open those states." As evidence, Stewart cited Clinton's success in the 2008 primary process in states such as Ohio and Pennsylvania.

Fair(ish). But remember that Clinton's performance in those primaries was against an African American candidate named Barack Obama, not against a Republican in a general election. And that coming close isn't the same thing as winning. Yes, Clinton would almost certainly do better with white working-class voters than Obama did. But, in some of the states that Stewart puts in that first bucket, that's a pretty low bar.

Arkansas is a good example. It's easy to assume -- and the Clintons almost certainly are assuming -- that the former first couple of Arkansas have a special connection to the Natural State. After all, Bill Clinton spent years as the state's governor and used it as a launching pad for his presidential bid in 1992.

That was a very long time ago. And even in the past six years, Arkansas has moved heavily away from Democrats at the federal level. In 2008, both U.S. senators from Arkansas were Democrats, as were three of its four House members. Following the 2014 elections, all six are Republicans. ALL SIX. President Obama won just 37 percent of the vote in the state in the 2012 general election after watching someone named John Wolfe win 42 percent of the vote in the Democratic presidential primary against him.

Would Hillary Clinton do better than that? Yes. But the idea that the Arkansas that helped push Bill Clinton into the national spotlight has anything in common, politically speaking, with the Arkansas of 2014 is a fallacy. As for the idea that Obama's race was the fundamental reason for his poor showing among white working-class voters, here are two words for you: Mark Pryor. As in, the two term incumbent senator -- and son of a former governor and senator in the state -- who just lost badly in his bid for reelection. Pryor took just 31 percent among white voters and won an even more meager 29 percent among whites without a college education. (The exit poll didn't break down income level by race.)

Missouri and Indiana are slightly -- emphasis on slightly -- less clear-cut as such huge reaches when it comes to Clinton's presidential prospects. Obama's successes in both states in 2008 -- he won Indiana and lost Missouri by less than 4,000 votes -- would seem to provide significant encouragement for the Clinton forces. But subsequent election results in both states make 2008 look far more like the exception than the rule for Democrats.

Link:
The Fix: The ridiculousness of Hillary Clintons expand-the-map strategy in 2016

Talking Points Memo's Dylan Scott interviewed Mitch Stewart, the former battleground states director of President Obama's reelection campaign and now a member of the Hillary Clinton campaign-in-waiting known as "Ready for Hillary," about how the 2016 electoral map could be expanded in Democrats' favor if the former secretary of state is, as expected, the party's presidential nominee.

Stewart suggests two "buckets" of states that Clinton could make competitive in 2016 that Obama, for a several reasons, couldn't in 2008 or 2012. The first bucket is Arkansas, Indiana and Missouri. The second contains Arizona and Georgia.

The first bucket of states is ridiculous. The second is plausible -- but almost certainly not in 2016. Let's take them in order.

Stewart's explanation for Clinton's heightened competitiveness in Arkansas, Missouri and Indiana is that she can appeal to whites and, in particular, white working-class voters and, even more particularly, white working-class women voters in a way that Obama could not. (It's worth noting that the Clinton people have made a similar argument about the potential competitiveness of Kentucky.)

"Where I think Secretary Clinton has more appeal than any other Democrat looking at running is that with white working-class voters, she does have a connection," Stewart told Scott. "I think she's best positioned to open those states." As evidence, Stewart cited Clinton's success in the 2008 primary process in states such as Ohio and Pennsylvania.

Fair(ish). But remember that Clinton's performance in those primaries was against an African American candidate named Barack Obama, not against a Republican in a general election. And that coming close isn't the same thing as winning. Yes, Clinton would almost certainly do better with white working-class voters than Obama did. But, in some of the states that Stewart puts in that first bucket, that's a pretty low bar.

Arkansas is a good example. It's easy to assume -- and the Clintons almost certainly are assuming -- that the former first couple of Arkansas have a special connection to the Natural State. After all, Bill Clinton spent years as the state's governor and used it as a launching pad for his presidential bid in 1992.

That was a very long time ago. And even in the past six years, Arkansas has moved heavily away from Democrats at the federal level. In 2008, both U.S. senators from Arkansas were Democrats, as were three of its four House members. Following the 2014 elections, all six are Republicans. ALL SIX. President Obama won just 37 percent of the vote in the state in the 2012 general election after watching someone named John Wolfe win 42 percent of the vote in the Democratic presidential primary against him.

Would Hillary Clinton do better than that? Yes. But the idea that the Arkansas that helped push Bill Clinton into the national spotlight has anything in common, politically speaking, with the Arkansas of 2014 is a fallacy. As for the idea that Obama's race was the fundamental reason for his poor showing among white working-class voters, here are two words for you: Mark Pryor. As in, the two term incumbent senator -- and son of a former governor and senator in the state -- who just lost badly in his bid for reelection. Pryor took just 31 percent among white voters and won an even more meager 29 percent among whites without a college education. (The exit poll didn't break down income level by race.)

Missouri and Indiana are slightly -- emphasis on slightly -- less clear-cut as such huge reaches when it comes to Clinton's presidential prospects. Obama's successes in both states in 2008 -- he won Indiana and lost Missouri by less than 4,000 votes -- would seem to provide significant encouragement for the Clinton forces. But subsequent election results in both states make 2008 look far more like the exception than the rule for Democrats.

Excerpt from:
The ridiculousness of Hillary Clintons expand-the-map strategy in 2016

Not long ago Sen. Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent, invited a political reporter to ride in the backseat of an old Volvo as he made a few stops around Keene State College in New Hampshire.

Dont run over the students, he cautioned the aide who was driving, when a few kids crossed in front of the car.

Mr. Sanders might run for president in the next campaign. Because hed be a long shot, he can afford to take a few risks and let the press and by extension, voters see him in an unscripted setting.

Candidates with a better shot at the brass ring would never chance it. Fearing consequences of an incautious comment, they rely on teleprompters and aides, advance staff and security to minimize the sort of spontaneous interactions that can derail a campaign.

This brings us to Hillary Clinton.

Mrs. Clinton also is contemplating a presidential run, and she stands a far better chance of winning the White House than Mr. Sanders. Dont count on her opening up her SUV to the national press corps.

Yet if she does run, some Democrats and friends of Mrs. Clinton say theyd like to see her escape from the bubble a bit more, perhaps reveal more of her character and personality than the public ordinarily gets to see.

Speaking of her last presidential bid, Alan Kessler, a longtime Democratic fundraiser, spoke of this perception that there was a wall around her.

Unless you were a hugely important elected official or a major donor, there was no way to touch her, he said. Its this whole aura around her. Thats what doomed her in 2008 and theyre going to have to find a way in this campaign to do away with that.

Susie Tompkins Buell is a longtime friend of Mrs. Clinton. She described an occasion over the summer where she and the former secretary of state were visiting in a home in the Hamptons. Ms. Buell cut her foot and Mrs. Clinton quickly began rummaging through a medicine cabinet looking for a Band-Aid, refusing to give up the search even after Ms. Buell told her it wasnt necessary.

More here:
Will Hillary Clinton Be More Accessible to Voters in 2016?