Image 01 Image 03
Sign In or RegisterLogout

2016 Election Tag

Posted by Amy Miller on February 20, 2015 35 Comments
Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker has made a name for himself in the fight to roll back union influence. He easily overcame a 2012 recall effort organized by big labor and other progressive interests, and since then has been held up by many conservatives as an example of what Republican leadership should look like. Now considered an emerging contender in the 2016 Republican presidential primary, Walker is taking new steps to court both employers, and workers who support right-to-work policies over forced union membership. Legislators in Wisconsin are planning on fast-tracking a new, controversial bill that would make Wisconsin a right-to-work state. Walker had previously urged the legislature to put the issue on the back burner, saying that the revived controversy would conflict with his larger agenda, but after a series of meetings with lawmakers, has agreed to sign on to the effort. That promise has not come without controversy. More from the AP:
"I think we can do this next week without it getting really ugly," said Republican Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald on WTMJ radio in Milwaukee. "We'll see next week whether the Capitol blows up. I don't know." Right to work is a "false promise for Wisconsin," said Phil Neuenfeldt, president of the Wisconsin AFL-CIO, in a prepared statement. "Right to Work will not create jobs and will lower wages for all workers," Dan Bukiewicz, president of the Milwaukee Building-Construction Trades Council, which represents union construction workers in the Milwaukee area, called right-to-work "an unneeded distraction." "It's very disappointing they're going to fast-track it. Usually when things are done fast they're done incorrectly," he said. "I haven't heard anybody come out from a business standpoint saying this is what they want. The residual results of this will hurt the citizens of Wisconsin." Proponents of right-to-work argue it will make Wisconsin more competitive and that workers should have the freedom to decide whether to pay and join a union, rather than having dues automatically withdrawn.

Posted by Mike LaChance on February 20, 2015 27 Comments
According to recent reports, the Clinton Foundation is accepting large donations from foreign governments. Accusations of influence peddling are already being made. James V. Grimaldi and Rebecca Ballhaus of the Wall Street Journal:
Foreign Government Gifts to Clinton Foundation on the Rise The Clinton Foundation has dropped its self-imposed ban on collecting funds from foreign governments and is winning contributions at an accelerating rate, raising ethical questions as Hillary Clinton ramps up her expected bid for the presidency. Recent donors include the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Australia, Germany and a Canadian government agency promoting the Keystone XL pipeline. In 2009, the Clinton Foundation stopped raising money from foreign governments after Mrs. Clinton became secretary of state. Former President Bill Clinton, who ran the foundation while his wife was at the State Department, agreed to the gift ban at the behest of the Obama administration, which worried about a secretary of state’s husband raising millions while she represented U.S. interests abroad. The ban wasn’t absolute; some foreign government donations were permitted for ongoing programs approved by State Department ethics officials.
The panel on Special Report with Bret Baier addressed the issue last night: Considering their prior position on this issue, the Democratic Party's silence is surprising.

Posted by Leslie Eastman on February 19, 2015 12 Comments
Very few Californians will be happier to see Senator Barbra Boxer retire than me, but many are already clamoring to figure out who will replace her in 2016. Amy Miller analyzed one shock poll that had President Obama's approval ratings cracking the 50% mark. Now, I offer another intriguing poll that has a Republican candidate in the lead for Boxer's spot.
She’s been out of public life for years, she’s never run for office and she’s a Republican, but Condoleezza Rice is now the first choice of California voters to replace Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer in 2016. A Field Poll released Wednesday showed that the former Bush administration official leads a list of 18 potential Senate candidates, with 49 percent of likely voters saying that they would be inclined to vote for her and 39 percent not inclined.
At this point, it's probably the fact that she has never been an elected official---and has been out of the spotlight for many years---that has endeared her to the California electorate.

Posted by Amy Miller on February 13, 2015 28 Comments
Rick Perry may be polling in the single digits, but that hasn't stopped the former Texas governor from pushing ahead with a messaging strategy that emphasizes experience over rhetoric, and results over flash. Via the AP:
Perry, who is considering a second run for president, wrapped up a two-day trip to New Hampshire with a speech at the Strafford County Republican Committee's Lincoln Day Dinner. While he repeated his warning that GOP voters shouldn't nominate a "critic in chief," he had plenty of criticism for President Barack Obama, saying his lack of executive experience before becoming president has hurt him and that he hasn't picked up many management skills on the job. The nation is ready, he said, to move beyond "eight years of this years of this young, very attractive, amazing orator, junior U.S. senator." "I don't think they're going to go there," Perry said. "They're going to go to a tested, results-oriented executive who has a record of accomplishment."
This isn't the first time Perry has thrown shade at his younger potential opponents. During his interview last week with the Texas Tribune, Perry emphasized his own experience over that of other, untested candidates:
Asked about what separates him from Cruz, Perry never mentioned his potential rival by name. Instead, he downplayed Senate experience and alluded to the fact that Cruz’s tenure in office is the same as then-Sen. Barack Obama's when he ran for president in 2008. “It’s one of the selling points, if you will, to the American people as they decide who’s going to follow Barack Obama,” he said. “I think they’re going to make a rather radical shift, away from a young, untested United States senator whose policies have really failed.”
Ba-zing---because it's true.

Posted by Mike LaChance on February 12, 2015 87 Comments
The same mainstream media that refused to demand Obama's (still undisclosed) Columbia University records in 2008 (while reassuring us that he was brilliant) has taken a keen interest in the academic pedigree of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker. Professor Jacobson repeatedly reminds us that the MSM always tries to kill Republican candidacies in the cradle. The Washington Post did it with Rick Perry's hunting property rock. Jeb Bush's high school antics are fair game, as were Mitt Romney's. Now they're trying to play the same game with Scott Walker's unfinished college degree. David A. Fahrenthold of the Washington Post wrote this yesterday:
As Scott Walker mulls White House bid, questions linger over college exit Scott Walker was gone. Dropped out. And in the spring of his senior year. In 1990, that news stunned his friends at Marquette University. Walker, the campus’s suit-wearing, Reagan-loving politico — who enjoyed the place so much that he had run for student body president — had left without graduating. To most of the Class of 1990 — and, later, to Wisconsin’s political establishment — Walker’s decision to quit college has been a lingering mystery. Not even his friends at Marquette were entirely sure why he never finished. Some had heard that a parent had fallen ill, or maybe there was some financial strain. Others thought he had simply had enough of school. Walker clearly liked college politics more than college itself. He had managed to line up 47 campaign endorsements, including ones from the ski team and the varsity chorus, but he had trouble showing up on time for French. And, after four years, he had faltered on both fronts. He’d lost an ugly race for president. And he apparently had far too few credits to graduate.
Allahpundit of Hot Air notes that journalists are already playing the requisite "gotcha" games with Scott Walker from which Democrats are always exempt.

Posted by Amy Miller on February 05, 2015 8 Comments
The 2016 race is already barreling forward on the right, with candidates from every point on the conservative-libertarian political spectrum throwing elbows and pressing forward to gain the attention of both the media, and primary voters in key states like Iowa and New Hampshire. Space in the spotlight is at a premium---the media is still trying to figure out how they're going to differentiate and play these characters against each other. For Democrats, though, the eventual race for the White House is on hold as top strategists attempt to answer a question that many activists on the left refuse to stop asking: where's Hillary? It's odd to ask this question about a woman who hasn't left the spotlight since her husband entered the Oval Office. For many on the left, she's The Idea Whose Time Has Come©. For Conservatives, she's the Long National Nightmare© that refuses to go away. For strategists and campaign hacks, she's a precious commodity---that they have no idea how to handle. Via CNN, a few days ago:
Some Clinton loyalists worry that as the increasingly crowded Republican race heats up, the attacks on her could begin to stick without an apparatus in place to answer them. The liberal superPAC American Bridge has been countering Republican attacks on Clinton's behalf but many Democrats think it's no substitute for a campaign messaging operation. "They're doing terrific research," said one, "but they don't know what her specific policy agenda is going to be. She should get in and start putting together a substantive policy agenda so the attacks that are going to begin to come from every single Republican who is jumping in to the race can be answered." The Democratic National Committee is beginning to take on a larger role in an effort to protect Clinton and the party brand but many Democrats are concerned even that won't be enough. Other supporters want Clinton to lay low as the Republican field heats up, convinced Clinton will avoid some fire if she's undeclared and GOP candidates will take aim at each other instead.

Posted by Amy Miller on February 02, 2015 9 Comments
Yesterday was Andrew Breitbart's birthday. It's amazing to me to see how that man's legacy has lived on, even as the conservative movement has changed so much over the past few years. I listen to the stories and wild career paths of activists and bloggers who were inspired by him, and I can't help but wonder where we would all be had Andrew not made the conscious decision to be brave in the face of what sometimes seems like insurmountable bias and recriminations from the media and the institutional left. I wrote yesterday about Scott Walker's ridiculous interview with Martha Raddatz, and while I was writing, I slid down the 2008/2012 rabbit hole remembering the disparate treatment of the conservative candidates who dared to challenge Barack Obama and paid for it with chunks of their reputations. Obviously, we're in for more of the same as the race to 2016 heats up, and it's important to remember that the same sort of bias we saw in previous cycles has already begun. Walker's Radditz-ing was just the start. Progressives are freaking out over his breakout performance---wasn't he supposed to be the boring midwestern governor that would never break out of the middle of the pack? But strong candidates like Walker, and creative firebrands like Rand Paul, are already causing trouble for an increasingly desperate Democrat narrative.

Posted by Amy Miller on January 30, 2015 12 Comments
Democrats trotted out a stunning lack of self-awareness at the House Democratic Caucus retreat in Philadelphia today, continuing their emphasis on "middle class politics" and testing the waters with a messaging strategy that will likely drive their 2016 campaigns. From CBS News:
“To state the obvious, the past six years have been really, really hard for this country,” said Biden. “And they’ve been really tough for our party. Just ask [former DCCC chair] Steve [Israel],” continued Biden. “They’ve been really tough for our party. But together – and together — we made some really, really tough decisions — decisions that weren’t at all popular, hard to explain.”
Together! TOGETHER, damn you! It's telling that Biden focuses on the "together" aspect of the fact that Democrats did a terrible job---if Obama goes down, they're all going down with him? Is that the goal? The past six years have been tough not because people don't understand what's happening in this country, but because they can see it reflected in their lives, and their pocketbooks, and they don't like it.

Posted by New Neo on January 30, 2015 30 Comments
Now that Romney has released a statement to his supporters announcing that he won't be running in 2016, the next question is, to whom will he throw his support and his proven ability to raise money? Many conservatives have long excoriated Romney for not being conservative enough---or not being conservative at all. But I've long thought that his instincts were actually more conservative than he allowed himself to be while the governor of the deep blue state of Massachusetts (although I agree that he's certainly not as conservative as someone like Ted Cruz.) But those wondering about Romney's present intentions might want to pay particular attention to this part of his message:
I believe that one of our next generation of Republican leaders, one who may not be as well known as I am today, one who has not yet taken their message across the country, one who is just getting started, may well emerge as being better able to defeat the Democrat nominee. In fact, I expect and hope that to be the case. I feel that it is critical that America elect a conservative leader to become our next president. You know that I have wanted to be that president. But I do not want to make it more difficult for someone else to emerge who may have a better chance of becoming that president. You can’t imagine how hard it is for Ann and me to step aside, especially knowing of your support and the support of so many people across the country. But we believe it is for the best of the Party and the nation... I believe a Republican winning back the White House is essential for our country, and I will do whatever I can to make that happen...

Posted by Amy Miller on January 30, 2015 25 Comments
By now we're all aware that the race for 2016 started before the ink was dry on the race for 2014. Even before President Obama delivered his already-partially-failed State of the Union slate of promises, we knew that he was going to attempt to pivot away from his party's disastrous performance in the midterms with a renewed commitment to populist platitudes; what we didn't know is whether or not his oft-divided party would follow his lead. Follow his lead they have, according to statements from high-ranking Democrats gathered this week in Philadelphia to talk strategy. From AP's Big Story:
Their newly appointed chief of messaging, Rep. Steve Israel of New York, said House Democrats are "absolutely unified on three essential messages going forward. And it's middle class, middle class and middle class." Israel acknowledged that Democrats talked a lot about the middle class in last fall's elections. But world calamities distracted voters, he said, and Democrats failed to show that their economic policies would directly benefit working class families. Riffing on a campaign line of President Bill Clinton in 1992, Israel said the Democrats' new theme will be, "It's MY economy, stupid." Many Republicans scoff at Democrats' talk of better messaging. "Updating the packaging doesn't help if the product is still lousy," said Michael Steel, spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio.
Fortunately for Representative Israel, most of voting America isn't yet paying attention to the fact that he's mistaken global calamities for the ones Democrats caused at home. If they were, they'd be calling him on it, because even people who don't live in our political bubble know that the rebel siege on Ukraine isn't responsible for skyrocketing health care costs and larger grocery bills.

Posted by Mike LaChance on January 25, 2015 12 Comments
As the race for 2016 shifts into gear, old conflicts are reemerging between Hillary Clinton supporters and Team Obama; this time, it's over access to Obama's massive email lists. Amie Parnes and Niall Stanage of The Hill reported:
Obama, Clinton tensions build over email lists ahead of 2016 New tensions are emerging in the relationship between allies of President Obama and Hillary Clinton. At issue is the fate of the political equivalent of gold dust — the enormous email list, comprised of many millions of supporters and donors, that the Obama team has compiled over the course of his two presidential campaigns. The Clinton camp would dearly love to get its hands on the list, but there is no promise as yet that the president’s aides will comply. There are “large concerns” about the lists among Clinton supporters, one Hillary ally told The Hill. To the Clintons and their friends, it’s near unthinkable that a Democratic president — who has plenty of reasons to want a member of his party to succeed him — would withhold such a valuable commodity. But Team Obama has long believed that the president’s support is built upon the bedrock of his personal qualities rather than mere party identification. His people are loath to be seen as treating the passion of his supporters in a cavalier fashion. “There’s a lot of data — voter data, massive email lists — that Obama built and there are a lot of people who want to make sure that he spreads that wealth,” the Clinton ally said. “They want to make sure he doesn’t take it in a suitcase back to Chicago and move on. No one wants to see it disappear or have it used just to build a library.”
Democrats are probably hoping everyone has forgotten how ugly the conflict between Hillary and Obama became during the 2008 Democratic primary. There's plenty of evidence that the rift never healed.

Posted by Amy Miller on January 13, 2015 31 Comments
Former Governor and possible presidential candidate Mike Huckabee had some strong words for the Obama family in defense of traditional values and responsible parenting---and of course, they're making waves all over the media. From AP:
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee has accused President Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, of double standards in parenting, saying in an interview published Tuesday that the first family shelters its daughters from some things but allows them to listen to the music of Beyoncé. While promoting his new book, the former Baptist pastor told People magazine, "I don't understand how on one hand they can be such doting parents and so careful about the intake of everything - how much broccoli they eat and where they go to school ... and yet they don't see anything that might not be suitable" in Beyoncé's lyrics. He also said Beyoncé's choreography is "best left for the privacy of her bedroom." In his book, Huckabee describes the Grammy Award-winning Beyoncé's lyrics as "obnoxious and toxic mental poison." He also accuses Beyoncé's husband, rapper Jay-Z, of "exploiting his wife" like a "pimp."
The problem with what just happened here has less to do with whether or not Beyoncé is a good role model, and more to do with what we allow to become part of the narrative in the run up to the next election cycle. (And yes, I realize we're always considering the next election cycle. That's how you win elections.) There is an important difference between Huckabee's narrative, and the narrative of the conservative movement at large; this difference requires all those who aspire to positions of leadership in the movement---or in the country---to make an important decision the minute they decide to throw their hat in the ring. Whose narrative is more important---mine, or the the people's?

Posted by William A. Jacobson on January 08, 2015 21 Comments
Barbara Boxer will be best remembered for dressing down a General during a hearing when he called her "Ma'am": Boxer just announced, via an almost unwatchable video interview with her grandson, that she is retiring at the end of her term in 2016:

Posted by Amy Miller on January 03, 2015 21 Comments
Between the President's executive orders, a spiraling health care delivery infrastructure, and a bloated welfare state, candidates gearing up for a run in 2016 have no shortage of material for stump speeches and e-mail blasts. But, as anyone who has looked at the data from previous cycles knows, some issues move voters to the polls, while others move voters to remain on the couch rating movies on Netflix. Willingness to prioritize issues has been a problem for the right at least as long as I've been involved in politics. We worry that strategically promoting, say, conservative economic policies, means that we're somehow downplaying the importance of other issues such as abortion, immigration, or the country's whirling moral compass. I don't have a solution to this problem; but as a strategist, when it comes to choosing which issues to throw on the front burner during a political campaign, I look to the data. A new poll by Gallup rounds up the top concerns of Americans in 2014, and offers valuable insight for those looking to get an early start on platform building. 2014 was unique in that over the course of the year, four issues dominated the conversation enough to break double digits in the percentage of people who thought that particular problem was the nation's most troubling. Gallup explains how the numbers have shifted:

Posted by Mike LaChance on December 27, 2014 8 Comments
2016 is still quite a way off but that hasn't stopped speculation about the chances for each of the major parties. Bill Barrow of the Associated Press looks back at the last few elections and raises an important question for the next one:
Can GOP shatter 'Obama coalition' in 2016? Republicans crowed in 2004 that freshly re-elected President George W. Bush had established a "permanent governing majority" for the GOP. Eight years later, Democrats were touting the enduring power of the "Obama coalition" to keep their party in the White House. But Democrats couldn't sustain that coalition for this year's midterm elections, leading to Republican gains in Congress, governorships and state legislatures nationwide. "The notion of demographics as destiny is overblown," said Republican pollster and media strategist Wes Anderson. "Just like (Bush aide Karl) Rove was wrong with that 'permanent majority' talk, Democrats have to remember that the pendulum is always swinging." So how will it swing in 2016? Is the path to 270 electoral votes so fixed that one side just can't win? Does Obama's unpopularity carry over into the next race for the White House? Or will an increasingly diverse electorate pick a Democrat for a third consecutive presidential election for the first time since Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman won five straight elections from 1932 to 1948?
Again, it's still early. Neither party has even begun the primary process. Still, when it comes to the so-called Obama coalition, Democrats are going to realize that their coalition and Obama's are two separate things.

Posted by Amy Miller on December 26, 2014 27 Comments
Greg Abbott won a decisive victory in Texas' recent gubernatorial election, but he'll have some big shoes to fill come January. Outgoing Governor Rick Perry may be stepping down from his post at the Texas capitol, but he's nowhere near close to making his exit from the national stage. In addition to forming a PAC, courting conservatives, and brushing up on his foreign policy credibility, he's taking time to detail the hard work and conservative policies that were passed under his watch that converged to create "The Texas Miracle." From Fox News:
"Governor Perry established in the national mind that Texas is the place for jobs and freedom where entrepreneurship thrives and the American dream is alive," said Cal Jillson, SMU political science professor and author of "Lone Star Tarnished." Indeed, Texas under Perry has outpaced any other state on the employment front, creating three out of 10 of all U.S. jobs. Forbes magazine recently named Texas as the leading state for economic climate and future job growth while Chief Executive Magazine readers have named Texas as the number one state to do business for 10 years running. Over 100 of America's top companies -- including AT&T, Fluor, Dell and ExxonMobil -- are based in Texas. Toyota, Apple, Charles Schwab and SpaceX are expanding operations in the state. Perry has crisscrossed the globe with missionary zeal, from Beijing to London, touting a flourishing Texas brand that looks a shade brighter against the national economy. Texas, in turn, is America's top exporting state averaging more than $1 billion in exports every working day. "I was always intrigued with economic development and an economic climate that frees people," Perry said. "It was innate, something I derived from watching people I admired like my father, and it wasn't something I read or studied in school."

Posted by Amy Miller on December 20, 2014 58 Comments
Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) had some strong words for fellow senator Rand Paul (R-KY) over his libertarian take on the end of the Cuban trade embargo. So strong, in fact, that Paul decided to take the fight to the internet. During his Thursday night appearance on "The Kelly File," Rubio had this to say about Paul and his anti-embargo cohorts:
"Like many people that have been opining, he has no idea what he's talking about," Rubio said Thursday night on Fox News's "The Kelly File." Earlier on Thursday, Paul had voiced support for Obama's surprise move on Wednesday to open an embassy in Cuba as well as ease economic and travel restrictions. "The 50-year embargo just hasn't worked," Paul said. "If the goal is regime change, it sure doesn't seem to be working, and probably it punishes the people more than the regime because the regime can blame the embargo for hardship." ... "Look, Venezuela's economy looks like Cuba's economy now," Rubio said. "You can't even buy toilet paper in Caracas. And there's no embargo on Venezuela. What Venezuela has in common with Cuba, is they both have adopted radical socialist governmental policies. "And I would expect that people would understand that if they just took a moment to analyze that, they would realize that the embargo is not what's hurting the Cuban people," Rubio added. "It's the lack of freedom and the lack of competent leaders."
Not to be outdone by a fellow prospective presidential contender, Paul took to Facebook for what many are now calling an ill-advised rant: paul-on-rubio The trolling continued on Twitter:

Posted by William A. Jacobson on December 18, 2014 32 Comments
Alison Lundergan Grimes was to be the Wendy Davis of Kentucky. And you know what? It worked. She was crushed by Mitch McConnell. Now Grimes is lashing out, trying to prevent Rand Paul from being able to run for both President and Senate on the same ballot. From ABC11, Grimes pledges legal challenge if Paul attempts simultaneous races:
Six weeks after she lost her own bid for the U-S Senate, Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes (D-Kentucky) tells WHAS11 if U.S. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) tries to appear on the same ballot for both Senate and President in 2016, she will challenge him in court. "The law is clear," Grimes said. "You can't be on the ballot twice for two offices." Kentucky Democrats are not cooperating as Paul considers mounting simultaneous campaigns for Senate and President. Democrats maintained control of the Kentucky House in last month's election, a roadblock to legislation favored by the Republican Senate to remove the prohibition. House Speaker Greg Stumbo (D-Prestonsburg) declined to consider a Senate bill to that effect earlier this year. Paul may challenge the law in court as the Republican Party of Kentucky also discusses whether to hold a presidential caucus rather than a primary, which would allow Paul to follow the letter of the law by not appearing on the primary ballot, twice.
Now, I understand, Grimes is just standing up for principles. Like when she wouldn't reveal, ahem, whether she voted for Obama:
Accessibility by WAH