Dick Cheney is back. GOP rejoices (not)

By Richard Barry

Several media outlets, including the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times, note that former vice president Dick Cheney and daughter Liz intend to be a part of the foreign policy debate in the 2016 election cycle through their advocacy group, Alliance for a Strong America.

As the Times writes, now that the rise of the Islamic State in the Middle East has pushed Republicans to embrace a more interventionist foreign policy, the Cheney's want to make sure they don't get weak-kneed about it.

The organization is planning online and perhaps television ads pushing a muscular line on national security, according to a Republican strategist familiar with the group’s planning. The initiative may also pay for polling to help nudge Republican candidates toward hawkish stances in the primary season.

Certainly instability in the Middle East is a concern, and will continue to be an issue through the campaign and beyond, but is Dick Cheney, unpleasant and unpopular bastard that he is, really the guy Republicans want to see as the face of the party's security policy?

My guess is that most GOP contenders would like to see Dick and Liz follow the example of W. and just go away.

Down ticket, up ticket

By Richard Barry

One of the issues political outsiders don't typically concern themselves with is the thought process that goes into deciding to run for office from election cycle to election cycle, particularly in down ticket races.

In 2016, with Hillary Clinton the likely Democratic presidential nominee, and a strong one at that, the party should be able to attract significant numbers of A-list candidates encouraged to run based on a calculation of the value of Mrs. Clinton's coattails.

Democrats don’t expect to retake the House in 2016, but they understand the need to field competitive candidates to chip away at the Republicans’ historic majority. In part, that’s why the Clinton campaign and its allies have begun talking up her efforts to build an infrastructure in all 50 states, an organizational show of strength that could encourage wary prospects to run for Republican-held House seats — even in states that aren’t competitive in the Electoral College.

It's a somewhat underappreciated part of politics that candidates have to make calculations about their personal finances, career development, family obligations, health considerations, etc., before deciding to run or not. Add to that, of course, a sober consideration of the likelihood of winning.

If you are a Democrat considering a run for Congress, having Hillary Clinton at the top of the ballot has to make that decision a lot easier.

Strength attracts strength, or something like that.

Nate Silver is no fun at all

By Richard Barry

Nate Silver wants us to know that it's really too early to say anything much about who will win the presidency in 2016. He also wants us to know that it's a 50/50 proposition at this point, and "we're not likely to learn a lot over the rest of 2015 to change that."

There’s already plenty of bad punditry regarding the chances of Hillary Clinton — who officially announced her candidacy on Sunday — to become the 45th president. You can find Democrats boasting about their “blue wall” in the Electoral College and how hard this will make it for any Republican to win. Or Republicans warning that the Democratic Party rarely wins three elections in a row.

Most of this analysis is flimsy. So is the commentary about the ups-and-downs in early swing state polls. And when you see some pundit declaring a minor misstep to be a “game changer,” find someone else to follow on Twitter.

Holy shit, Nate, we're just having some fun here. You must be a laugh riot at cocktail parties.

Oh, and by the way, I have no idea if my New York Giants will be any good this season, but I'm going to talk about it anyway. That okay with you?

We're about to learn a lot more about Marco Rubio's career plans

By Michael J.W. Stickings 

Yesterday, Daily Intelligencer reported that an announcement from the Republicans' Great Cuban Hope is coming soon:

A year after declaring he'd run for the Senate or the presidency in 2016, but not both, Marco Rubio has made up his mind. Following reports that the Florida senator has reserved the Freedom Tower in Miami, on Monday he confirmed on Fox News's The Five that he'll "announce on April 13 what I’m going to do next in terms of running for president or the U.S. Senate," according to Politico. "So you will announce that you’re running for president?" said co-host Dana Perino. "I'll announce something on April 13," Rubio replied. The senator's being coy, but feel free to start getting excited about his Senate reelection campaign!

Well, maybe. Let's consider that possibility:

He won't run for president, because he doesn't want to lose (and he would), but he'll run for Senate, because he wants to win (and he will). It's probably just that simple.

Now, would he really lose were he to run for president? He'd almost certainly lose to Hillary, who is, of course, the certain Democratic nominee, but it's highly likely he wouldn't even come close to the Republican nomination.

I hesitate to make too much of the silly Iowa Republican straw poll, and I won't, but Rubio finished a distant seventh at the end of February with just 4%, well behind even fellow Floridian Jeb Bush, who ended up with a disappointing (for him) 8%. Now, that's a straw poll of the extremists who make up the base, but mainstream polls put him well back as well.

Now, it could be premature to back out. After all, there are loads of ups and downs in any nomination race -- just think back to 2012, when every challenger to Romney as the general frontrunner seemed to have his moment at the top of the pack. And Rubio could very well emerge as the bridge between the extremist base (represented by Ted Cruz, as well as by more defined social conservatives like Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee) and the somewhat less extremist establishment (represented by Bush and Chris Christie), with Rand Paul representing the iconoclastic quasi-libertarian elements of the party. Currently, the bridge figure appears to be Scott Walker, but he's untested on the national stage and might not have the staying power to remain a serious contender throughout the long and winding race. So why not Rubio?

Well, maybe because Rubio just doesn't seem to have it. And by "it" I mean that nebulous quality that seems to propel a select group of politicians, even a dud like Romney, into presidential politics. He just seems too raw, too immature, too unprincipled, too shamelessly opportunistic.

And it's that last point that matters now. He knows where the opportunity is, and that's not in a run for the White House that is sure to end in defeat but in a re-election campaign for the Senate.

And hey, if he does end up announcing that on April 13, at least we can say he did the realistic thing, which is not something that can be said about many Republicans these days.

But...

What if that isn't his decision? What if he does decide to run for president? I mean, he's booked the Freedom Tower. Generally, you'd make an exciting announcement at such a venue, not one that is sure to disappoint the enthusiastic supporters who would turn out for such an event.

So it would seem that he's going for it, that he really thinks he can win -- and I suppose he has a shot, though of course politicians in their bubbles of sycophantic cheerleaders always think they can win.

But if that's the case, the above still applies. He could emerge as the bridge candidate, if more of an establishment type than a base type, but the odds are against him, and his biggest weakness may very well be himself.

The next three election cycles

By Frank Moraes 

I've been thinking what the coming elections will bring. And I'm going to present them now, although obviously they are highly uncertain. In 2014, I expect the Republicans to make small gains in both the House and Senate. I figure they have about 50% chance of retaking the Senate. (On the other hand, if the Republicans manage to force the federal government into a default over the Debt Ceiling, it will decimate the party and the Democrats will control both houses at the beginning of 2015.) After this reasonable showing, Republican conventional wisdom will be that they won't have to do anything to reform. Karl Rove will increase his daily dose of Prilosec.

In 2016, the Democrats will have a huge year. They will retain the White House and get or retain control of Congress. At this point, all of the pundits will say that surely now the Republican Party will reform itself. But the party will not make any changes for the same reason they aren't now: they don't want to offend the base of support (which will still be substantial) that they already have. This is when the chance of a Karl Rove heart attack really increases.

In 2018, the Democrats will make small gains. Given that it is an off year elections, the Republican Party will be forced to reconsider. They will note that their gerrymandering is no longer helping. What's more, if they don't do anything, the Democrats will be able to gerrymander them out of existence in 2020. They will note that their efforts at voter suppression have failed. They will see their base dying off and their policies seen as medieval. And they will, at long last, rebuild the tattered remains of a once great American political party. If Karl Rove is still alive, he won't be of much help. Just the same, lots of Republicans will tell him, "We should have listened to you!"

Read more »

Senator Michelle Obama?

By Richard K. Barry

They poll everything these days, some of it actually useful. Public Policy Polling has decided to give Michelle Obama's post-First Lady career a little boost by asking the good voters of Illinois what they might think of a Senate run for Mrs. Obama should she be so inclined.

As it turns out, to perhaps no one's surprise, she does okay:

If Michelle Obama decided she wanted to follow the Hillary Clinton route once her husband leaves office in 2016 and go to the Senate, she'd have the upper hand on Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL). She leads him 51/40 in a hypothetical head to head. Kirk's approval numbers are ok with 34% of voters approving of him to 19% who disapprove. But those numbers are no match for the first lady, who's seen positively by 60% of voters to 33% with a negative one.

She's a very accomplished woman with some rather massive name recognition. Why not?