Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) announced that he raised $33 million in Q4, almost as much as the $37 million Hillary Clinton raised in the same period. For the year 2015, he raised $73 million, somewhat less than her $112 million, but still an enormous sum and more than any Republican except Jeb Bush and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX). Sanders' money came from 2.5 million donors, an all-time record for a non-election year. Turning money into votes is not so easy, as Jeb Bush can testify, but in his battle with Clinton, Sanders won't be hamstrung for lack of funds. (V)
In a last-ditch effort to get the nomination, Jeb Bush's strategy appears to be to try to move Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) from third place to fourth place in Iowa. Does it matter? According to Bush's team, yes. The best they can hope for is that Donald Trump and Ted Cruz flame out, leaving Rubio as Bush's main challenger. If Bush can take Rubio down a couple of pegs so he doesn't even make the top three in Iowa, he will be weaker in New Hampshire, where Bush hopes to at least make the top three. In New Hampshire, he is going after Gov. Chris Christie (R-NJ) and Gov. John Kasich (R-OH). Is this a sign of desperation? As Sarah Palin would say: "You betcha." But it's all Bush has left. (V)
By now, everyone knows about the Koch brothers, Sheldon Adelson, George Soros, and Tom Steyer, but so far these potential megadonors haven't gotten out their checkbooks. The Hill is reporting that several other families and donors are about to start pouring serious money into the races. Here is a short rundown of them.
No doubt many other megamillionaires and billionaires will be coming out the woodwork in the months aheads to donate. (V)
When Hillary Clinton said that Donald Trump was helping ISIS recruit terrorists, the fact checkers rated that as a lie because she couldn't point to a smoking gun. Now the smoking gun has emerged in the form of a video Al Qaeda is using to recruit new terrorists that includes clips of The Donald. Now, Trump could argue that he is helping Al Qaeda, not ISIS, but for most Americans, who are barely aware of the difference, precisely which terrorist group is profiting from his remarks is a minor difference. So Clinton's point is now essentially true. (V)
Normally, Donald Trump comes up with provocative things to say all by himself. However, on the very same day it became clear he is indeed helping recruit people to Al Qaeda, he decided to dust off a nearly two-year-old Republican talking point and to declare that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are to blame for the rise of ISIS.
The Donald offered no evidence for his obvious attempt to deflect attention from himself and to muddy up the "who's to blame for Middle Eastern terrorism?" debate. In fact, ISIS was founded in 1999, and a more knowledgeable analysis recognizes that some of the blame belongs to George W. Bush and his administration, and some belongs to Obama and his, but—American hubris notwithstanding—it turns out that not everything in the world is within our control, and not everything in the world is a response to us. One of the central goals of ISIS is to recreate the caliphate that existed in the 7th century. The U.S. really doesn't have much to do with that. This being the case, a lot of the blame belongs to "none of the above." In any event, Donald Trump continues to demonstrate that his foreign policy is almost entirely reactionary, and is about as nuanced and thoughtful as his understanding of immigration or tax policy. (Z)
Congress will be back in session next week, and GOP leadership has made clear that the first items on the agenda will be canceling federal funding for Planned Parenthood and a repeal of Obamacare.
This is solely performance art—the bills will get through Congress, and then will be vetoed by President Obama. As the GOP does not have the numbers to override a presidential veto, that will be the end of it for at least a year. The entire purpose of this exercise is to demonstrate to voters what could be achieved if only a Republican is in the Oval Office, and the real question whether the GOP's clearly-indicated intentions to strike down Obamacare and to undermine Planned Parenthood will gain or will cost them votes. In particular, given the fact that 60% of Hillary Clinton's donors are women, the Republicans may very well be gift wrapping a wedge issue that she can use to rally supporters and get them to the polls. (Z)
The U.S. Senate will get a great deal of attention next year, with a dozen or so closely-watched races that will determine control of the chamber. As Politico observes, there is a bit of irony in the fact that, due to 2016 being a presidential year, people who are accustomed to having a great deal of control may have relatively little on the most important night of their lives.
There are a number of reasons that this is the case. To start, there is a strong correlation between performance at the top of the ticket and down-ballot. Of course, senators—unless they happen to be running for president—have little control over the name to which their wagon is hitched. Further, the presidential candidates tend to dictate the narrative, leaving the other candidates to adapt on the fly. As Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) laments, "How do you know what the issues are when we're a lifetime away from an election right now?" Specifically, presidential years tend to focus attention on foreign affairs and foreign policy; an area that is not a strength for many senators, and one over which they exert very little influence. The upshot is that the Senate pharmacy will be doing a land office business in Pepto Bismol and Advil this year. (Z)