Never too early to think about GOP VP possibilities

By Richard Barry

There were several reports over the weekend that Ohio Governor John Kasich is getting closer to announcing his candidacy for the GOP presidential nomination. 

An interesting adjunct to these stories was speculation that he might be positioning himself for the vice-presidency, although Kasich denied this saying, "I don't play for second." Yes, well, no one in his position ever says anything different. Wouldn't it  be refreshing if a candidate announcing a presidential bid actually said, "I know I can't win but I'd have no problem being second on the ticket."

My guess is that most of those running would at least think about second spot if it were offered. No doubt some of the lesser lights would be absolutely beside themselves with joy if approached.

Among those already running or likely to run, maybe a Bush-Walker ticket would work. Or a Walker-Rubio, even the other way around.

A Bush-Rubio ticket would be interesting in terms of generational balance and appeal to Hispanic voters, though there could be regional concerns with both being from Florida.

I can't imagine Cruz or Paul would be anyone's idea of a VP. And, despite what Kasich says now, given the importance of Ohio on the electoral map, he would certainly be an attractive option.

What about Fiorina to counter Clinton's appeal to women? 

All kinds of balance factors to consider, and the VP nominee obviously doesn't have to be a presidential hopeful. 

Who know? Just thinking it through.

Will social media ever be the primary driver in electing a president?

By Richard Barry

A piece by Ryan Cooper in The Week raises an interesting, if overstated, point that 2016 could be the first election in which the political press is sidelined. He argues that politicians are becoming so adept at using social media that they can effectively get their messages out unaided by the reporters who typically follow them around, literally and metaphorically.

He adds that "no journalist has the kind of media celebrity and cultural credibility (as Tim Russert used to have) that once made interviews mandatory for aspiring presidents." 

On this view, political stars can be neither made nor broken by a handful of powerful people. 

One sign, he writes, that politicians are starting to understand this is that Hillary Clinton is in no hurry to engage reporters as a way to sell herself to the voting public, hence the complaint that she hasn't taken many direct questions. 

Mr. Cooper's argument leads him to the conclusion that campaign reporters do little good because candidates are disinclined to answer tough questions, and reporters are, in any case, more interested in "inane questions about process, the horse race, or gaffes." 

In what he calls the "gaffe-centric media coverage . . . the slightest misstep or embarrassing picture can lead to a days-long Internet firestorm."

Following the logic of the argument, in the days when engaging political reporters was an absolutely necessary way for a candidate to push his or her message and raise their profile, there was always a risk that something untoward would be said or done by the candidate and that the reporter or reporters in the scrum or at the event or somewhere on the campaign trail would get their gotcha moment.

But if candidates can communicate directly with voters through Twitter, Facebook, websites, web ads, etc., why would they risk putting themselves in the position of being unable to control how they are perceived?

They wouldn't, which makes Mr. Cooper think reporters should mostly leave candidates alone and go off and write "more interesting and substantive articles using public communications, polling, policy documents, and so forth." 

I'm all for more substantive articles. 

The general point that social media may allow candidates to pay less attention to mainstream media has, no doubt, some validity. And there may well come a time when social media is powerful enough to elect a president, but we are not there yet. 

I think what this means is that we are in a transition period in which candidates are trying to gauge how well they can control their own message through social media, understanding, despite Mr. Cooper's argument, that mainstream political reporting is not dead yet, and it still has to be engaged in a significant sense. 

This is what I find most interesting. It's not an either/or proposition, it's a matter of proportion between the influence of the relatively anarchic realm of social media and the centralized power of major media conglomerates, and the reporters who work for them. 

It's also worth noting that social media and corporate media are not entirely separate entities. I'm reminded of the fact that the first time I saw Hillary Clinton's campaign announcement web video was on CNN. And my guess is that those reporters Mr. Cooper thinks will play a diminishing role campaigns can actually do a lot to promote or bury a given candidate's social media profile. Again, not either/or. 

I recall something I once heard on an episode of the West Wing, which is that one ought "never argue with a man who buys [printer's] ink by the barrel." The political press still buys the stuff by the barrel and I don't think we will see them sidelined by 2016, and I wouldn't suggest pissing them off for all the Tweets in the world. 

But I look forward to a time when the balance shifts, when candidates won't have to be vetted and approved by a centralized corporate media, when there will be a way around them, although I suspect in the end corporate media will simply find more effective ways of controlling social media. 

When criticizing Hillary Clinton becomes a sport

By Richard Barry

Yeah, I came for the 50 bucks and a place to nap.

Focus groups are very important. They can give us a deeper dive on voters' thought processes, maybe help us better understand which impressions are sticking and which are more ephemeral, perhaps even give us some insight into the emotions behind people's preference. But a focus group is not a poll, and to headline a story, as Bloomberg Politics does, by saying Iowa Democrats believe a "flawed Hillary Clinton" is their "only hope" is just a little misleading considering only 10 people were spoken to and, in any case, that's not at all what they said.

In fact, as I read the responses from the focus group participants, which you can do for yourself, I find that the most consistent impression is that Hillary Clinton is a very accomplished and capable individual who has been around a long time and, as a result, has some baggage.

For elected officials, incumbency is usually seen as a great strength on the path to reelection. But having been around a while also means you have had more chances to screw up or annoy people. In any case, a high profile is a double edged sword, and we are seeing that in aces with Mrs. Clinton.

Is she perfect? No. Is she going to be attacked relentlessly by her political enemies. Yes. Will she always handle those attacks well? No. Are there some real problems with her past? Yes. But to read this headline you would think that this group of 10 Iowans are mortified that Hillary is the only credible candidate running for the Democratic nomination, which couldn't be less true. 

Overall, they seem pleased.

And, oh yeah. At the very end of the story is this gem: "Qualitative research results cannot be statistically analyzed or projected onto the broader population at large." 

Thanks for the warning. Now if you could have a chat with your headline writer...

Julian Castro at the top of Clinton's VP list?

By Richard Barry

The Republican Party is no doubt proud of itself for having Hispanic candidates like Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz running for the GOP presidential nomination, as it should be. And then there's Jeb Bush and however it is he positions himself as Hispanic-friendly. Republicans needed to do something about their woeful performance among Hispanic voters in 2102, and perhaps they have, although in my mind a candidate's heritage is less important than whether they will actually support policies that aid those they are trying to court. But that's me.

With this in mind, it was interesting to read that a former Clinton administration official is going around saying "Hillary Clinton will pick Julian Castro as her running mate if she wins the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination."

"What I am hearing in Washington, including from people in Hillary Clinton's campaign, is that the first person on their lists is Julian Castro, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, who used to be the Mayor of San Antonio," Henry Cisneros, the Housing and Urban Development Secretary under President Bill Clinton, said Sunday on Univision's "Al Punto" program.

"They don't have a second option, because he is the superior candidate considering his record, personality, demeanor and Latin heritage," Cisneros added.

"I think there is a very high possibility that Hillary Clinton may choose Julian Castro,” he said.

Castro has been the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development since July 28, 2014 and served three terms as the Mayor of San Antonio, Texas, from 2009 to 2014.

You may recall that he was widely praised for his keynote address at the 2012 Democratic National Convention.

His name has been out there for a while as a potential Clinton pick, so this is no great surprise. It's just amusing to think that the Republicans could be trumped in this way with an Hispanic candidate a "heart beat away from the presidency," unless of course Rubio or Cruz win the GOP nomination, a long shot at best.

Hillary Clinton: A traitor to her class?

By Richard Barry

These guys, too.

I've been trying to figure out what point Republicans are attempting to make as they criticize the recent disclosure that the Clintons make a shipload of money giving speeches. If you missed it, based on a filing with the Federal Elections Commission, it was reported recently by various news organizations that  "Bill and Hillary Clinton have earned more than $25 million in paid speeches since early January 2014."

And don't forget the $5 million Hillary got for her book, which, I will admit, confuses me, having read the thing.

Yes, the Commission report "underscores how much wealth the Clintons continued to amass as the former Secretary of State prepared to launch her second bid for the presidency."

The 20-page report, describing her income, assets and liabilities in broad ranges, shows the former secretary of State gave 51 speeches since Jan. 6, 2014 — each with a six-figure paycheck. The last occurred on March 19, just weeks before she announced her candidacy.

They ranged from a $100,000 payment on April 11, 2014, for a speech delivered via satellite to the California Medical Association to a $325,000 appearance at a Cisco gathering in Las Vegas last August.

Bill Clinton has delivered 53, six-figure speeches since early January 2014, including three this week, according to the filing.

The former president has appeared before an array of audiences, from software giant Microsoft to Centurion Jewelry By Invitation Only LLC, which runs jewelry trade shows. He earned $500,000 in March 2014 for delivering the keynote speech at an international investors conference in Amsterdam, sponsored by the Pennsylvania-based law firm, Kessler Topaz.

But aside from Hillary's misstep about claiming to be broke when she and Bill left the While House, I don't quite see the concern, especially coming from Republicans who usually look favourably upon earning whatever the market will bear.

Unless it's the suggestion that making millions of dollars proves Hillary has no right to deliver a populist message. Unless, Republicans want to argue, the Clinton's one-percenter lifestyle means they are so out of step with the electorate that any attempt to speak on behalf of progressivism lacks credibility. Unless, they might say, possession of sizeable wealth is proof that one embraces capitalism to such an extent that claiming to be a Democrat is a lie on its face.

Maybe that's it.

At some level I can't help but believe that the Clintons, with their ability to make grand sums of money, their ties to international capital, and their cozy relationship to Wall Street are seen by establishment conservatives, much like FDR was, as a traitor to their class.

It's not that the Clintons are rich and hobnob with international decision-makers the world over that galls Republicans. It's that people like that should be Republicans.

But if Hillary Clinton insists on being a Democrat, I suppose all Republicans are left with is that she really doesn't mean it.

Do Republicans read election issue polls, and does it matter?

By Richard Barry

A new Gallup poll places the economy as the top concern for Americans with 86% saying it is extremely or very important to their vote next year.  This compares with 74% saying the same of terrorism and 61% of foreign affairs.

As Gallup notes, this could change between now and the fall of 2016, but "the economy will likely persist at or near the top of the list as it has done historically in both presidential election years and midterm election years and when the economy was weak, as in 2008, but also when it was strong as in 2000."

International matters are certainly never far from the headlines with growing concerns arising from the influence of Islamic terrorists in Iraq and Syria, ever present conflict in the Middle East and whatever it is Putin is up to. And terrorism is always there as a concern.

Foreign affairs more broadly, however, ranks behind several issues, including the way government operates in Washington, healthcare policy and the distribution of wealth and income in the U.S. Race relations and immigration have also been major news stories in recent months, but on a relative basis, Americans are less likely to say these issues are important to their presidential vote.

Does this then mean that an improving economy helps Clinton on the heels of eight years of Democratic incumbency in the White House? And does it make her a less available target as a former secretary of state if Americans are marginally less worried about issues around the world?

Likely, but I'm still preparing myself for many months of Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi.

HRC's very important litmus test for SCOTUS nominees

By Richard Barry

Let's be honest, many Democrats who place themselves on the left flank of the party are somewhat uneasy about supporting Hillary Clinton. These people, me among them, should understand though that she is what mainstream progressivism looks like in America, as is Barack Obama, which is to say okay on social policy, too hawkish on foreign policy, and too close to Wall Street and big money.

Still, it is good see Mrs. Clinton take a strong position in electoral finance reform.

Hillary Clinton told a group of her top fundraisers Thursday that if she is elected president, her nominees to the Supreme Court will have to share her belief that the court's 2010 Citizens United decision must be overturned, according to people who heard her remarks.

Clinton's emphatic opposition to the ruling, which allowed corporations and unions to spend unlimited sums on independent political activity, garnered the strongest applause of the afternoon from the more than 200 party financiers gathered in Brooklyn for a closed-door briefing from the Democratic candidate and her senior aides, according to some of those present.

"She got major applause when she said would not name anybody to the Supreme Court unless she has assurances that they would overturn" the decision, said one attendee, who, like others, requested anonymity to describe the private session.

Citizens United has been one of the worst things to happen to democracy in America in recent memory. Very pleased Mrs. Clinton has taken a strong position on its repeal.

I will be happy to see Hillary Clinton elected president in part, though not exclusively,  because the alternative is unthinkable. This latest move makes me that much more comfortable with my hope for her success.

Hey, in politics you never get it all.

"Modern Family" at the White House?

By Richard Barry

I am not one who believes Hillary Clinton's election as president is inevitable. I have said before that under normal circumstances she should be the underdog, what with 8 years of Democratic incumbency, etc. But then there is the disarray of the GOP, etc.

But thinking about Mrs. Clinton moving into the White House invites the obvious image of Bill joining her in that building. I'm having a hard time picturing it.

When asked in an interview with David Letterman on Tuesday night if he would move back in, he said he would and them quipped, "If I'm asked."

“Well, first of all, Hillary has to win the nomination. If she wins the nomination, then she has to win the election. If she wins the election, the chances are 100 percent I’ll move back,” he said.

“If — wait, wait — if I’m asked,” Clinton quipped.

“You may not be invited back,” Letterman joked.

“My experience is that since I left the White House, when a president of either party asks, you say yes,” the 42nd president said. “So I hope I’ll be invited. It’d be a good thing for America if she won. I hope she does.”

All very cute, but it would be an unprecedented situation, and would surely not be like any before it, whatever Hillary and Bill's situation.Though it is perhaps somewhat like Franklin and Eleanor in the sense of two very accomplished and independent individuals. 

In any case, maybe it's a good way to begin transititioning away from the mythically perfect First Family meme. Families are complicated. Why shouldn't the residents of 1600 Pennylvania Ave. reflect that?

Behind the Ad: Get ready Clinton supporters, it's going to get ugly out there (but funny, too)

By Richard Barry

Who: America Rising PAC (conservative)

Where: Iowa

What's going on: As so often happens in presidential politics, you might not even know there was a campaign coming unless you lived in a contested state or region. Last month a conservative PAC called America Rising launched a web ad in certain regions of Iowa aimed at Hillary Clinton called "Trustworthy." The ad makes use of so many quick cuts, comments out of context, blatant misrepresentations, and dark and brooding scenes as to make it absolutely hilarious. 

My favourite part is a cut of long-time Clinton loyalist James Carville complaining that the Clintons are so often the subject of unwarranted attacks that "there is one set of rules for the Clintons," and presumably another set of rules for others who are not attacked as viciously. 

JAMES CARVILLE: There's one set of rules for the Clintons. … Do you remember Whitewater? Do you remember Filegate? You remember Travelgate? Do you remember Pardongate? Do you remember Benghazi?

I'll let you view the ad to see how they twist his words. 

Absurdly cartoonish, but get ready. This web ad probably contains every conceivable line of attack that will be used to attempt to discredit the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee. 

Some people use money to influence political decisions. Sad, I know

By Richard Barry

I'm sure the implication for everyone reading the recent New York Times piece on Marco Rubio's biggest benefactor is that the Clinton's are not the only ones with rich friends who help out and may expect a little assistance in return. I'm equally sure the articles author's wanted that understood.

MSNBC's First Read makes the point, in the event you really need the explanation.

If you apply the same logic that conservative author Peter Schweizer used for Hillary Clinton -- that donations to the Clinton Foundation appeared to influence policy decisions by Hillary Clinton's State Department -- then the New York Times' profile of big Marco Rubio patron Norman Braman is equally eyebrow-raising. What Braman has given Rubio over the years: He's helped finance Rubio's campaigns; hired Rubio as a lawyer; employed Rubio's wife; paid Rubio's salary as an instructor at a Miami college; and now has committed about $10 million to the pro-Rubio Super PAC in 2016. What Braman has gotten in return: Rubio helped steer millions of taxpayer funds to Braman-backed charities.

I'm thinking there aren't a lot of politicians who want to go down this road aggressively.  And in the Clinton case there isn't even a direct link, just money and interests. For Rubio there's a lot of smoke coming from that gun.

How we got into Iraq will not be a campaign issue in 2016

By Richard Barry

In an Op-Ed appearing in the Wall Street Journal in February, Laurence Silberman, the federal judge who co-chaired the 2004 Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction, stated succinctly the conservative position on the charge that George W. Bush lied to justify the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Our WMD commission ultimately determined that the intelligence community was “dead wrong” about Saddam’s weapons. But as I recall, no one in Washington political circles offered significant disagreement with the intelligence community before the invasion. The National Intelligence Estimate was persuasive—to the president, to Congress and to the media.

The clear argument is that Bush didn't lie, he was simply misled by faulty intelligence like everyone else. And that is what every conservative will say to this day. And every liberal (give or take a few) will say something like Simon Maloy wrote at Salon in response to the Silberman Op-Ed.

But the Bush administration absolutely did engage in willful deception. Quite a bit of it, in fact. It’s one thing to simply repeat an intelligence assessment that is wrong, and quite another to take a disputed, credibly challenged intelligence assessment and state it as uncontested fact. That’s a lie, and senior Bush officials did it often. There’s no better example of this than the aluminum tubes.

Yes, the aluminum tubes, and more, if you really want to be reminded. But I don't want to relitigate the episode, nor is there any reason to because it won't change anyone's mind.

I only raise it because it came up in a recent Fox News interview with Jeb Bush in which he said, “I would have [authorized the invasion], and so would have Hillary Clinton, just to remind everybody. And so would almost everybody that was confronted with the intelligence they got."

The positions of each side are entrenched, and it no longer matters, certainly not for the 2016 election. No doubt the instability in the Middle East will provide fodder for Republicans to sabre-rattle and charge Mrs. Clinton with having done a poor job as Secretary of State. And she may push back in some way that generally invokes Republican foreign policy failures, but how and why we got into Iraq in the first place will not figure prominently.

Americans prefer to forget things if they can find a way to do it. I can't imagine this issue will take up any oxygen in 2016, even if a Bush is the Republican nominee. Strange, but true.

If the appearance of wrong-doing were the point, we'd throw them all out

By Richard Barry

As Brent Budowsky writes at The Hill:

This week has brought the long awaited and dramatically overhyped publication of Peter Schweizer’s book Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich — a title that reads like a negative campaign ad!

First, let me state my conclusion: Comparing known and undisputed facts with the innuendo-laced suggestion that the book reveals Bill and/or Hillary Clinton performed even one wrongful act leads me to conclude that this project is a politically motivated con.

And this:

Clinton Cash proved two things we already knew: that Bill and Hillary Clinton raise a lot of money, and that Hillary Clinton was secretary of State. What Schweizer-as-Holmes fails to prove, and House Republicans-as-Javert have failed to prove throughout their inquisitions against Clinton, is that anything wrong was done.

Any suggestion that this book proves even one act of wrongdoing is an outright con. It does not.

Yes, there is a lot of money in politics among both Republicans and Democrats. The existence of these massive sums doesn't prove malfeasance, though it certainly should make us nervous. We should, absolutely, investigate any instances in which there might be a direct quid pro quo. 

The Koch brothers are very wealthy. They will make large sums of money available to certain Republican candidates. If there is ever a hint that this money is used to buy political favours, I hope there will be a thorough investigation. 

I don't like the relationship of extreme wealth to politics any more than any other small "d" democrat should, but it is now the lay of the land. Suggesting that Hillary and Bill Clinton are playing by a different set of rules with absolutely no proof is just a partisan game. 

Even Schweizer, as Budowsky notes, admits that "there is a need to begin more investigations to see whether any wrongful acts were committed, which he admits his own investigation failed to prove." So, yes, Budowsky concludes, "Everything discussed in the book should be objectively reported by serious media, including the fact that it proves no wrongdoing."

Agreed.

Money buys all kinds of things in politics that I wish did not exist, like privileged access to decision-makers. As there does not appear to be a smoking gun or,  as I call it, a direct quid pro quo in the Clinton case, let's move on, even as we recognize that all sides are likely influenced by the money they receive in all sorts of ways that are not per se "non-illegal."

I suspect anyone who could imagine voting for Hillary Clinton already has, and those who could never imagine doing so never will.

Jeb's fundraising has Hillary's knickers twisted

By Richard Barry

We don't need no stinkin' rules

Every time we hear talk about big money on the Republican side in 2016, we are very quickly told not to worry because Hillary and Bill are monster fundraisers and will do fine. 

And that may be true, but the Clintons have certainly noticed the early work being done by Jeb Bush to fill the coffers through his Super PAC Right to Rise.  

The New York Times reports today that HRC had planned to wait until May for her first fund-raising events, but has now decided to hurry things along because of Jeb's super PAC fundraising, this according to "people close her campaign."

She added two fund-raising events in New York and Washington, which quickly morphed into five separate fund-raisers. She also added several events for a West Coast swing next week, to coincide with her first trip to Nevada, one of the early caucus states in the nominating process.

Go, Hillary, Go. 

While we're on the subject, let's review the rules (which I'm mostly doing for myself):

A Super PAC is an organization that can raise unlimited amounts of money for spending on federal elections. While candidates and regular PACs (political action committees) are only permitted to raise a few thousand dollars from any one individual, a Super PAC can accept unlimited contributions from any US citizen or corporation.

Also significant is the rule that "[d]eclared presidential candidates are precluded from coordinating with super PACs," which follows the Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court in 2010.  Mr. Bush has not yet declared, and holds no office so, his team argues, faces no such restrictions.

Hillary Clinton has declared her candidacy, which according to the Federal Elections Commission means this:

In the case of a Presidential candidate running in various State primaries, [a donor] may contribute up to $2,700 for the entire primary campaign period--not $2,700 for each State primary in which the candidate runs.

The Times story says that Mrs. Clinton has "privately complained" that Jeb has delayed announcing his candidacy as long as possible "so he can keep raising money from the outside group that will back him." And why wouldn't he?

According to a recent piece in the National Journal:

"They have so radically changed the game that serious candidates for president cannot, will not be able to compete without a very substantial super PAC or set of super PACs," says Gregg Phillips, who was a 2012 strategist for the pro–Newt Gingrich group Winning Our Future. "If you're a candidate, you have to raise money in $2,700 increments. If you're a super PAC, you can raise money in million-dollar chunks."

So far, the Clinton campaign has not instructed donors to start giving money to her Super PAC Priorities USA because, as the Times reports, "it is currently in flux as to what its structure will have, according to people briefed on the discussions."

Um, they might want to clear that up, and soon. 

Right now Jeb has not declared his candidacy so he can work closely with his Super PAC to raised unlimited funds. But, as noted above, once a candidate has declared:

Super PACs can’t give any money directly to political candidates or coordinate with campaigns. Instead, they spend heavily on their own independently-produced ads promoting their preferred candidates, which is why the official term for a Super PAC is an "independent-expenditure only committee." Super PACs must disclose all of their funders to the Federal Election Commission. They spend most of their money on advertisements — usually television ones.
 

But, according to NewsMax, Jeb Bush appears to be gearing up to break the law by "designing his super PAC to work on autopilot after he declares his candidacy. . . It would handle television advertising, direct mail, and a range of other duties typically done by campaign organizations."

New York Times editorial argues that '[t]hose duties would transform the Super PAC into the true centre of his presidential campaign," which is totally uncool because, as one analyst puts it, campaign finance rules forbids a candidate from controlling super PACs through proxies while continuing to raise unlimited cash."

This has given the Campaign Legal Center fodder to recently file a petition with the Federal Election Commission against Jeb Bush and others.

Not only is Jeb putting off announcing his candidacy in order to coordinate his Super PAC fund raising with his nascent campaign, he also seems intent on flouting the law once he announces. 

Not very nice. 

Jeb Bush: The GOP's long-distance runner

By Richard Barry

That's what I'm talkin' about

Amy Walter at the Cook Political Report expresses what I believe is a rapidly forming consensus position on who will likely win the GOP presidential nomination.

She writes:

At the end of the day, when you put all the assets and liabilities on the table, it's hard to see anyone but Rubio, Bush or Walker as the ultimate nominee. Sure, one of them could stumble or come up short in a key early state. It's also highly likely that someone like Huckabee, Paul, Cruz and even Perry could win in Iowa. But, when you look at the candidate vulnerabilities instead of just their assets, these are the three who are the most likely to win over the largest share of the GOP electorate. Winning the "Evangelical" or the "Establishment" or the "Tea Party" lane isn't how you win the nomination. Cobbling together the broadest coalition is the key.

And of Walker and Bush, she writes:

Scott Walker is on top in the polls, but just about every Republican not associated with the Wisconsin Governor argues that the polls are underestimating his weak candidate skills. Just about every room Bush walks into contains a pretty high degree of skepticism. However, I've witnessed that skepticism melt away once he's had a chance to make his case. It's not that the Republicans in the room are in love with him, but they are at least open to hearing more from him and about him. That's about the best he can hope for at this point in the campaign.

And Rubio? I'm just not feeling it. What can I say? Maybe that will change.

Look, I strongly agree with Walter that it's easier to like Walker if you haven't seen him perform, and it's harder to like Bush until you've watched him at the front of the room, which voters will have a lot of time to do.

As for Clinton v. Bush in 2016, I wouldn't have the courage to bet a nickel one way or the other.

Is it better for Hillary to have Democratic challengers?

By Richard K. Barry

Doyle McManus at the Los Angeles Times discusses whether it would be a good or a bad thing for Hillary Clinton to get a challenger or challengers for the nomination.

Like many pundits, I've written that it would be good for Clinton to have real debates with capable sparring partners, under the theory that she needs a tune-up before taking on the GOP nominee. Almost every professional campaign strategist I've talked with says that's nuts. For a front-runner, they say, debates are mostly an opportunity to commit gaffes and lose support.

He lands on the view that primaries "aren't only about choosing candidates," but are also about "refining the ideas that the nominee will take into the general election." Following that logic, he thinks it would be useful if Clinton were forced to address a number of issues such as potential increases to Social Security benefits, a higher minimum wage, stronger financial regulation, and what many see as her hawkish foreign policy. 

I would add that if Bernie Sanders, Martin O'Malley, or Jim Webb can help make those discussions happen, that's good for Democratc politics in America, particularly progressive politics.

Is it better for Hillary Clinton, the likely nominee, to have to put herself through these paces? Would the benefit of getting a tune-up before the general election campaign outweigh any damage from potential gaffes she might make? Maybe not, but I don't care.

The left-wing of the Democratic Party should be able to hear what she has to say on issues important to them, in a context in which see can be pushed from the (relative) left.

If we only hear from her in debates with the eventual Republican nominee, anything she says will make her sound lovely to progressive ears in comparison.

A foreign policy election in 2016?

By Richard Barry

A recent National Journal article cites a new GOP poll which reinforces "Republican strategists' conviction that foreign policy will be a major issue in 2016," an issue, the piece suggests "the party believes it can wield to its advantage against Democratic congressional candidates and Hillary Clinton."

The internal survey, conducted by the GOP firm OnMessage, found that security issues ranked first on a list of top priorities for voters, ahead of economic growth, fiscal responsibility, and moral issues, among others. A 22 percent plurality of all respondents ranked it as the top issue, compared with 13 percent who listed economic growth as their top concern. (14 percent listed "fiscal responsibility" at the head of their list.)

Perhaps more interesting is the thought that Americans are feeling secure enough about the economy to begin worrying about other things. And which party rescued the country from the economic mess left by George W. Bush? Why, it was President Barack Obama and the Democrats.

Perhaps too Republicans believe they can score political points against Hillary Clinton by saying the word Benghazi at every opportunity, which, really, no one cares about unless they already mainline Fox News.

I think it might actually be fun to watch some of these Republican nitwits attempt to outshine the former Secretary of State on foreign policy issues.

But again, if Republicans think that they've lost on the economy to the point that they believe foreign policy is their trump card, they've already lost the election because "it's the economy, stupid."

Can Republucans run as the party of the middle class and poor with a straight face?

By Richard Barry

Jonathan Chait wrote yesterday in New York magazine about how Marco Rubio has remade himself in order to be acceptable to the Republican base as he pursues the GOP presidential nomination.

The first move, which is well-known, is his renunciation of immigration reform. The bigger move, as Chait writes, is his shift on economic policy.

Last year, Rubio positioned himself as a “reform conservative” who aspired to aim tax cuts at middle-class families rather than the rich. Instead, when he unveiled the plan, it consisted of a massive, debt-financed tax cut that would give its greatest benefit to the rich, not just in absolute terms, but also as a percentage of their income. Even that plan proved to be too stingy for Republican plutocrats, so Rubio revised his plan to make it far friendlier to the rich. The newest version took his old plan and added complete elimination of all taxes on inherited estates, capital gains, and interest income. Grover Norquist, guardian of the party’s anti-tax absolutism, cooed his approval.

And yet in his announcement speech Rubio claims that he wants to make helping the poor and middle class a Republucan issue.

On its face the hypocracy is mind-blowing, but it doesn't end there.

In a recent story at Politico, Ely Stokols writes that the approach Republicans plan to take to attack Hillary Clinton is coming into focus.

Interviews with GOP consultants, party officials, and the largest conservative super PACs point to an emerging narrative of a wealthy, out-of-touch candidate who plays by her own set of rules and lives in a world of private planes, chauffeured vehicles, and million dollar homes.

With no hint of irony, Republicans may be ready to embrace a candidate whose economic policies dramatically favour the rich over the middle class and poor while preparing to run against a Democratic candidate on the grounds that she had too much money.

Is Marco Rubio Hillary Clinton's worst nightmare?

By Richard K. Barry

Yes, I will pretend I care about poor people.

Earlier today Sen. Marco Rubio announced his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination. John King at CNN called him the best athlete in the field, though conceding that his performance over time will bear close scrutiny. Many call him the best communicator among GOP contenders. He has a compelling personal story, and is an attractive candidate.

What then are his chances?

Well, maybe not that good.

Nate Cohn at the New York Times writes that:

[Jeb] Bush’s pre-emptive bid to build elite support has denied Mr. Rubio the opportunity to consolidate the centre-right wing of the party. Perhaps this wouldn’t be a big problem if Mr. Rubio were a favourite of the conservatives skeptical of Mr. Bush’s candidacy, but the field is full of candidates who are equally good or better fits for many conservative voters.

It is sometimes easy to forget that the nomination process is not a top-line popularity contest but a long and hard state-by-state struggle. Momentum, or lack thereof, has an outsized impact on final success. If Marco Rubio does too poorly in Iowa and New Hampshire, it will be very difficult to recover, and the truth is that he is well positioned to do poorly in those states.

The challenge for Mr. Rubio is heightened by the first two nominating contests, Iowa and New Hampshire, which are better understood as factional winnowing contests. The Iowa caucuses are deeply conservative — 47 percent of caucus-goers in 2012 identified as “very conservative” — and even more evangelical: 57 percent identified as born again or evangelical Christians. New Hampshire, on the other hand, is among the most moderate contests in the country: 47 percent of New Hampshire primary voters were self-identified moderates four years ago. It is not surprising that a candidate with broad but shallow appeal, like Mr. Rubio, has struggled to gain a strong foothold in either state.

As Cohn writes, "the presidential primary is not just about skill," it's also about positioning. In the above scenario Rubio is, as Cohn writes, "boxed out" by being unable to successfully compete for the hard-core conservative vote on the one hand or the moderate conservative vote on the other.

If, however, Rubio has done reasonably well once the votes in Iowa and New Hampshire are counted, and Jeb Bush turns out to be more unpopular with the base than most of us thought, and Scott Walker ends up looking as inexperienced and unready on the national stage as many believe he will, and if the harder-core right-wing candidates fail earlier than expected, then Rubio's skills might matter. He might have a shot.

Who knows? But those first two primaries will tell us all we need to know about Marco Rubio.

If he is still in fighting shape when they are over, he could be Hillary Clinton's worst nightmare, a Republican with broad but shallow appeal.

The odds favour Hillary

By Richard Barry

In an article in New York magazine yesterday, Jonathan Chait tells us, in a very persuasive article, why he thinks Hillary Clinton is likely to be the victor in the 2016 election:

He begins with this statement:

Unless the economy goes into a recession over the next year and a half, Hillary Clinton is probably going to win the presidential election. The United States has polarized into stable voting blocs, and the Democratic bloc is a bit larger and growing at a faster rate.

And ends with this one:

The argument for Clinton in 2016 is that she is the candidate of the only major American political party not run by lunatics. There is only one choice for voters who want a president who accepts climate science and rejects voodoo economics, and whose domestic platform would not engineer the largest upward redistribution of resources in American history. Even if the relatively sober Jeb Bush wins the nomination, he will have to accommodate himself to his party's barking-mad consensus. She is non-crazy America’s choice by default. And it is not necessarily an exciting choice, but it is an easy one, and a proposition behind which she will probably command a majority

I don't know. Is there anything else that needs to be said? Okay, the only thing I would add is that if Jeb Bush, assuming he is the nominee, is able to push back against his "party's barking-mad consensus" it will be because the establishment wing of the GOP and all the money and influence it commands has been able to force some sanity on the situation. If they can do that, it will be more interesting than Chait suggests.

Still, the odds have to be with Clinton.

Hillary Clinton is a damn fine politician - full stop

By Richard K. Barry

According to the Washington Post, when Hillary Clinton announces her intentions to seek her party’s presidential nomination, she is expected to “go small – real small.”

When the presumed Democratic front-runner announces her 2016 bid in the coming days, expect a Facebook post, a video, maybe some tweets. Then it’s off on the trail to meet one-on-one and in small groups with voters in the early states of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada.

The approach — described by Democratic strategists and advisers familiar with her plans — is intended to address some of the key shortcomings of Clinton’s 2008 run for the White House, when she often came off as flat and overly scripted before large crowds. The go-slow, go-small strategy, these advisers say, plays to her strengths, allowing her to meet voters in intimate settings where her humour, humility and policy expertise can show through.

People have been asking for some time if Hillary Clinton is any good at running for office.

Although I have my issues with her , particularly the right-ish ideological slant, I think the hand-wringing is bullshit. She’ll do fine, particularly in comparison to some of the clowns that are presented as having campaign skills, especially among GOP pretenders.

It may be a good idea to start off slow if only because the media will be looking to criticize her every move as soon as things start, so why not give them a smaller target?

The fact of the matter is that she is the best option the Democrats have, at least in terms of electability. She will campaign well and she will make a fine president. Those who are as frightened as I am of what has become of the GOP should get behind her early and enthusiastically.

And one more thing: The misogyny is going to be very annoying, just like it was in 2008. Count on it.

(Cross-posted at Phantom Public.)