Weeks of preparation at the White House for the next phase of Obama’s presidency. Hope for bipartisan solution, plans for a busy lame duck session.

Jonathan Ernst / Reuters

WASHINGTON — White House officials Tuesday evening insisted that having Republicans in control of the House and Senate can usher in a new era of bipartisanship in Washington — despite the GOP's promise to be a check on President Obama's power.

With Republicans taking control of the Senate and little change of the House GOP's makeup, the possibility of bipartisan agreement on anything beyond the most basic functions of government seems remote. But the White House says it has been planning for such a political reality, hoping to shape a final chapter of Obama's term in office marked by more than heavy usage of the veto pen.

White House aides said Tuesday the administration remains hopeful the election will break the legislative logjam that has been the hallmark of Washington for four years.

Obama's team already has a laundry list of issues it says it can connect with the new GOP leadership on. Corporate tax reform meant to funnel new funds into infrastructure projects, pre-kindergarten education funding, and funding for cybersecurity and fighting Ebola are possibilities, the White House says.

Also still in play, according to Obama's top aides: an increase in the minimum wage, which voters across the country — in red states and blue states — supported at the ballot box Tuesday night.

Most of these agenda items have been on the White House wish list for a long time now. But with a new Republican majority that GOP leaders say needs to show it can govern to overcome the party's enduring unpopularity, Obama's team hopes to forge the big legislative compromises that have been basically unheard of in recent Washington memory.

Obama will also continue his pen-and-phone strategy of going around Congress. The president has promised to take sweeping executive action on immigration in the near future, a promise White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest has reinforced from the daily briefing podium as recently as this week. Other executive branch efforts to combat climate change and other topics are expected to continue apace.

Still, there's a change coming to Washington. And the White House says it's ready for it. Chief of Staff Denis McDonough has been leading preparations for the coming lame duck session, where Democrats will retain control of the Senate until the newly elected Republicans are seated in January, and beyond. The effort has included cabinet officials and outsiders McDonough has turned to for advice on how to navigate the newly Republican waters.

On Friday, Obama will begin the process of reaching out to the new Congressional leadership, with a bipartisan meeting with leaders from both houses of Congress at the White House.

Obama himself is said to be very eager to put the election season behind him and move on. In addition to the immigration actions, the president is expected to select a new Attorney General to replace the outgoing Eric Holder. The 2015 State of the Union speech is already being discussed, as well as how to go about working with the resurgent Republicans.

Obama will physically distance himself from the election, too. Next week he leaves for a week-long diplomatic swing through Asia.

As for the election itself, the White House says the GOP wave needs to be put into perspective. Democrats faced a brutal Senate map — Obama said Tuesday it was "probably the worst possible group of states for Democrats since Dwight Eisenhower" — and the foreign crises and Ebola scare made it difficult for Democrats to drive their core domestic messaging ahead of Election Day.

Democrats have already begun lining up to blame Obama for the party's failures Tuesday. It's a storyline administration officials have bristled at for months. Now Obama will have to try and reunite his defeated party while also reaching out to Republicans eager to get a crack at him from the majority position. White House officials say that's a challenge they're ready for.

The American Beverage Association spent about $11 million against the proposed taxes in two Northern California cities. The measure passed in Berkeley.

Dr. Vicki Alexander, co-chair of the Yes on D campaign, poses for a portrait at the Measure D election headquarters in Berkeley, California on Monday.

Robert Galbraith / Reuters

Voters in Berkeley, California approved the first soda tax in the U.S. on Tuesday, following more than $2 million in expenditures against the ballot measure.

A similar tax failed in San Francisco, where approval was required by two-thirds of voters. 55% percent of voters were in favor of the tax on sugar-sweetened beverages, including sodas, energy drinks and pre-sweetened teas.

San Francisco would have added two cents per each ounce of soda. In Berkeley, voters approved a tax of one cent per ounce. Diet soda, milk and nutritional drinks are exempt. Distributors of the beverages — not consumers — will have to pay, though small businesses are excluded.

According to a U.S Department of Health and Human Services estimate from 2010, sodas and other sugary drinks account for more than 1/3 of added sugar in Americans diets. Supporters of the measures hoped to curb obesity rates, particularly in children, as well as health problems from diabetes to tooth decay.

Similar penny-per-ounce taxes have been attempted in the past, but all have failed. The soda industry spent more than $2 million fighting the Berkeley measure, and in San Francisco, $9 million went toward the opposition campaign.

Minimum wage hikes passed in a whole slew of California cities.

Kevin Stanchfield / Creative Commons / Via Flickr: sgt_spanky

Voters in Alaska, Arkansas, Nebraska, and South Dakota all voted to raise their minimum wages Tuesday. Voters in San Francisco and Oakland also opted for minimum wage hikes. Together, that means that hundreds of thousands of workers (at least) across America will be getting pay raises as these measures roll out.

Jim Dalrymple II

These changes are a big deal because, among other things, they now mean that several red states are going to have among the most progressive minimum wage policies in the U.S.

Right now, the federal minimum wage is $7.25 an hour. Scroll down to see what kinds of increases voters approved Tuesday.

View Entire List ›

Love defeated Democrat Doug Owens Tuesday after a hard-fought race in Utah.

Mia Love campaigns on Oct. 8 in Lehi, Utah.

Love defeated Democrat Doug Owens after a hard-fought race that saw her campaigning with former presidential candidate Mitt Romney, among other things. As the votes came in Tuesday the race was quite close, though Love ultimately pulled away, taking 50% of the votes to Owens' 46%.

Now, Love will represent a string of rural and urban communities right in the center of Utah. Her path to victory was long and circuitous, but here are a few of the experiences that led her to Congress:

View Entire List ›

Republicans won at least four governorships. Democrats took one.

Jim Dalrymple II

States shown in gray were too close to call early Wednesday morning. States that flipped Republican were Maryland, Massachusetts, Arkansas, and Illinois. Democrats picked up the governorship in Pennsylvania.

View Entire List ›

Republican candidates won sweeping victories across America Tuesday night. That means a turn right from statehouses to Washington, and lots more.

Presidential candidates start to make their moves.

John Sommers Ii / Reuters

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul was among the night's winners, and here's what two weeks of being on the trail with him showed: a candidate deliberately forming relationships with establishment figures, in marked contrast with his possible (probable) future rival Ted Cruz. There's nose-holding going on on both sides, sure, but he and Sen. Mitch McConnell appear to have reached a real understanding with each other that doesn't seem forced or awkward, and Paul has made it clear that he'll support McConnell for Republican leader.

In return, Paul likely expects help from McConnell in his presidential run, though he wouldn't discuss the matter in an interview with BuzzFeed News on Tuesday. The establishment credentials he's building now may help Paul with his campaign — and by the way, the fact that he will run for president is almost certain. Just look at how much he's going after Hillary Clinton. Watch for more of that as he gears up to decide on 2016 sometime in the spring of next year.

Another big winner: New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie. Though he's been scandal-ridden in recent months, tonight's victories — in the 3 M's (Maine, Maryland, and Michigan) and especially in Florida — can be traced in part to his role leading the Republican Governors Association, for which he helped raise an enormous war chest. That's capital he can use to go to fundraisers to tout his effectiveness at campaigning.

—Rosie Gray and Darren Sands, BuzzFeed News reporters

A hawkish new Senate.

Leonhard Foeger / Reuters

This Republican Senate will be a huge problem for Obama as he attempts to achieve some foreign policy goals in the last two years of his presidency. Most immediately and maybe most importantly, Republicans will try to nix any Iran deal that they deem unsatisfactory — and on this, they have the support of plenty of Democrats. The deadline for the nuclear talks is Nov. 24. The new Senate will have the will and the manpower to push through new sanctions legislation if it chooses, and the fight over Iran policy could prove to be one of the defining battles of the waning Obama presidency.

It's unclear where exactly the new Republican conference will be when it comes to foreign policy, but Tom Cotton and Joni Ernst, the new senators from Arkansas and Iowa, have seemed to exhibit a fairly hawkish foreign policy instinct. Foreign policy isn't the top issue voters care about, but their election could represent a cooling of enthusiasm for the anti-interventionist policies of libertarian Republicans that have garnered much attention in the past few years.

—Rosie Gray, BuzzFeed News reporter

View Entire List ›

It’s all about her now.

Edgard Garrido / Reuters

As election results rolled in on Tuesday, Democrats lost key race after key race after key race. They lost the ones they saw coming, the ones they hoped wouldn't. They lost the ones they thought were safe wins. They lost almost everything. There were a couple of bright spots — New Hampshire, Michigan. But the midterms put President Barack Obama's party under water. ("A tidal wave," as one Democrat put it. "A tsunami," said another.)

What's next for the beleaguered Dems? The higher-stakes set of national elections in 2016.

And specifically: Hillary Clinton.

People close to the former first lady, senator, and secretary of state say she still hasn't made the "decision." But for Clinton's allies, advisers, friends, and former staff, the question is no longer whether she'll run for president a second time. It's when, how, with whom, and with what message.

If Clinton does go through with another White House bid, the slightest shade of difference in the way she answers these questions will influence the shape and success of her next presidential campaign.

There are about 60 days until 2015. And Clinton will be making a number of these decisions between now and then, moving into early next year.

Here are some things to watch:

There are three groups that have promoted Clinton, defended Clinton, and encouraged people to get excited about Clinton: That's Ready for Hillary, the self-described grassroots super PAC; Correct the Record, a project focused on shielding Clinton from partisan attacks and making a case for her in the press; and Priorities USA, the super PAC poised to start raising large amounts of money.

The first of these groups, Ready for Hillary, started up at the beginning of last year. At the time, Clinton was just stepping down at the State Department. She kept a low profile, gave paid speeches, accepted some awards. This summer, Clinton was back in the press, promoting her new memoir. Even then, Clinton felt one step removed from politics. Ready for Hillary filled that void. The group harnessed real enthusiasm for the idea of her candidacy. Fans had a venue. And officials with the group gathered lawmakers' endorsements that helped freeze the Democratic field.

Clinton has since reemerged on the political scene. She campaigned aggressively for Democrats in competitive races, holding a total of 45 rallies and fundraisers in 20 states since September, according to her staff.

People are no longer ready and waiting for Hillary. She's here.

So what happens to Ready for Hillary? It shuts down. The plan, according to sources familiar with it, is to close shop as soon as Clinton sets up her own campaign. The super PAC has events planned through December so far.

Meanwhile: Priorities USA will gear up fundraising after a period of inactivity during the midterms. Correct the Record will be the one to watch as Clinton potentially adds to her staff, including a possible communications director, ahead of a campaign.

It's a question that would determine major staffing choices. It's a question that could determine timing of a launch… It's probably the biggest question out there.

And it's twofold: Who will be in charge? And will anyone be in charge?

Six years ago, when Clinton lost the Democratic nomination to Obama, her bloated, ill-advised campaign operation received the large share of blame in the election post-mortems. She had a campaign manager — Patti Solis Doyle, who was fired and replaced late in the primary. But Mark Penn, her pollster, was the one driving the bus, jostling with other officials and Clintonworld mainstays with their own pockets of power spread out across campaign and the country.

This time around, Clinton will face the same challenge: establishing a campaign structure that works. According to one person familiar with the Clinton operation under construction, some see a "flat" structure taking shape — with a campaign manager, a chair, and senior advisers all playing influential roles.

John Podesta, a longtime adviser to both Clintons, is expected to serve in the chairman role, as first reported in Politico earlier this fall. More than one former Clinton adviser has stressed Podesta's importance. His voice, one source said, would carry great weight no matter who fills other staffing roles.

From the sprawling network of Bill and Hillary Clinton, four names come up with some consistency when people talk about the campaign manager job.

One is Guy Cecil, the executive director of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, the apparatus for electing and recruiting candidates to the upper chamber. In 2008, Cecil served as the national political and field director on the Clinton campaign. He also used to work at Dewey Square Group.

Another is Ace Smith, a California strategist who represents most of the state's major Democrats and is known for his background in opposition research.

A third contender mentioned is Stephanie Schriock, the president of EMILY's List, a national nonprofit that supports pro-choice female candidates.

The Clinton watchers who trade these prognostications say that Schriock has less of a personal relationship with Clinton than the others — and that Smith is expected to have a role on a campaign, but perhaps not in the manager role. With Cecil, people in the Clinton orbit have said midterm losses wouldn't hurt his chances at the role. But the damage to Democrats on Tuesday was worse than anticipated.

View Entire List ›

Mark Udall blurred the difference between himself and Cory Gardner on immigration in Colorado. That had a downside.

AP Photo/Brennan Linsley

In the run-up to Tuesday's electoral washout, Latino Democrats and immigrant rights activists knocking on doors for Senator Mark Udall brought up the same concern: The candidate's decision to avoid talking about immigration in the election was making it hard to get Latino voters excited about him.

And as Democratic groups argue over blame and strategy, advocates and pollsters are pointing to Colorado to make the case that the strategy of avoiding immigration — which extended to President Obama delaying executive action on behalf of undocumented immigrants — may have done more harm than good.

"I just think that it's unfortunate that Udall did not embrace the issue of immigration sooner in a more consistent way," said Ben Monterroso, executive director of Mi Familia Vota, who canvassed on the ground in Colorado with undocumented youth. The election, he said, is "an indication that elected officials must embrace us and the issues we care about strongly to make a difference in our community," Monterroso said.

Immigration was not the only issue at play in the race, of course. Exit polls showed that 55% of voters disapproved of President Obama's broad performance as president, a factor at play across the country. But immigration politics followed an unusual path in Colorado: Gardner presented himself as a pro-immigrant candidate despite opposing Obama's immigration reform efforts; and Udall decided not to dwell on their differences in favor of a singular focus on reproductive issues pitched at appealing to women.

New polling data supports advocates' contention that Udall's defeat may have had something to do with immigration.

According to a Latino Decisions election poll that connected with 400 Latino voters in Colorado in English and Spanish, on cell phones and on landlines, voters were not well-informed on the distinctions on immigration stances between the two candidates.

A Colorado advocate with knowledge of the poll set to be released Wednesday said only 46% of Latino voters said they knew Udall's stance on immigration and beliefs on Gardner's stance were all over the place, with 21% saying he supported a path to citizenship, 38% saying he opposed "comprehensive immigration reform," and 20% saying they didn't know his stance.

And while Latino voters did turn out for Udall — in slightly higher aggregate numbers, according to early figures, than they voted four years ago — their share of the vote didn't rise as fast as some expected. (Latinos make up more than 20% of the population of Colorado, according to federal figures.)

So while Udall won 71% of the Latino vote, according to Latino Decisions, he fell short of Obama's 87% showing in 2012 and Michael Bennet's 81% in 2010, with the lack of clear distinctions on immigration as part of the reason why.

"Udall definitely underperformed the last two Democratic campaigns," said Matt Barreto of Latino Decisions who declined to talk specific numbers from the embargoed poll.

(The poll didn't survey non-Latino voters, and of course it's possible that he could have lost more of those voters than he did by talking more about immigration.)

He said that in 2010 Bennet leaned in to immigration "pushing like hell for a DREAM Act vote in September" of that year. "Bennet was going around stumping on that and he got rewarded with 81% of the Latino vote." Barreto said Bennet's opponent Ken Buck was also a Tea Party candidate prone to say controversial things and Gardner likely learned some lessons on keeping his rhetoric measured.

Udall was one of the most outspoken senators outside of Senate leadership on calling for Obama to act administratively to slow deportations of undocumented immigrants, while Gardner opposed the DREAM Act and supported a Steve King bill to end Obama's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which protected undocumented youth from deportation and gave them work visas.

Udall's campaign spokesman Chris Harris recently contested the narrative that Udall wasn't maximizing Latino support, telling MSNBC that Udall had gone after Gardner on immigration in debates, conducted dozens of Spanish-language interviews along with his stance on Obama's executive actions on immigration.

And of course, Udall wasn't alone on election night, as a GOP wave swept the country and Republicans took control of the Senate.

Still, one advocate active on the ground in Colorado said the first Spanish-language ads the Udall campaign ran focused on veterans, not on immigration. The campaign had said it believed it didn't need to run ads on immigration because the voters know the difference between the candidates.

"This is bullshit and it's not helpful and it's inaccurate and then they kept saying it," the advocate said.

Another longtime Democratic political strategist who conducted Latino outreach in Colorado in 2012 said the state is a case study in Hispanics wanting to hear issues articulated in English as well.

"It's not let's only talk to Latinos in Spanish-language, a chunk want to hear English dominant narratives on their issues," the strategist said. "The nut that needs to be cracked is both how do you lean in harder on immigration to Spanish language voters but also to English-language voters as well."

Monterroso said 2014 was a statement election for Latinos.

"To me the Latino community has spoken strongly — the issue of immigration reform is our issue, if you want it to disappear you need to deal with it," he said. "Our community is not going to let it go away."

“The idea is to right size and update whatever authorization Congress provides to suit the current fight, rather than previous fights,” Obama says.

Kevin Lamarque / Reuters

WASHINGTON — President Obama said Wednesday he will work with Congress to "update" his authorization to conduct the ongoing war with ISIS in Syria and Iraq.

Speaking to reporters during a post-election press conference, Obama listed updating the 2001 Authorized Use of Military Force — a sweeping, 60-word law that has been used to launch attacks against terrorists in Somalia, Yemen, Afghanistan, and other parts of the world.

Obama said he would "begin engaging Congress over a new authorization to use military force against ISIL. The world needs to know we are united in this effort and the men and women of the military deserve our clear and unified support."

Obama said he would discuss the AUMF vote with Republican and Democratic leaders during a meeting at the White House Friday. But while a bipartisan group of House and Senate lawmakers have begun pushing for a new, limited AUMF, Obama indicated he may simply be looking for an update to the existing 2001 law. "The idea is to right size and update whatever authorization Congress provides to suit the current fight, rather than previous fights. In 2001 … we had a very specific set of missions we had to conduct, and the AUMF was designed to pursue those missions."

"We now have a different type of enemy, the strategy is different, how we partner with Iraq and other gulf countries and the international coalition, that has to be structured differently. So it makes sense that the authorization from Congress reflects what we perceive to be not just our strategy over the next two or three months, but our strategy going forward," Obama said.

Obama's comments came as Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff, a member of the House Intelligence Committee and one of the leading voices pushing for a new AUMF, called on Speaker John Boehner pass a new authorization before adjourning for the year.

In a letter to Boehner, Schiff argued that while the threat of ISIS is significant enough to warrant military force, "no president has the power to commit the nation's sons and daughters to war without authorization from Congress. This is not a decision that can or should wait until 2015; this action was begun during the sitting of the 113th Congress and it [sic] well within our ability to authorize it properly before adjourning."

It remains unclear, however, whether Congress will tackle the issue during the upcoming lame duck session. GOP leaders have thus far been cool to the idea of passing a bill this year, and Obama left the door open to waiting until 2015, telling reporters the work that will begin Friday "may be just a process of us getting it started now. It may carry over into the next Congress."

A further complicating factor could be a reluctance to vote on an authorization of the handful of Republicans in the Senate and House who are considering a 2016 presidential run. Voting for the authorization would mean lawmakers would have ownership over the war against ISIS, and if that fight devolves into a new land campaign in Iraq or Syria, that vote could prove to be a campaign liability.

“[T]he infringement of the fundamental right to marry … is unconstitutional in violation of the Due Process Clause to the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.”

WASHINGTON — A state court judge in Missouri on Wednesday ruled that the state's ban on same-sex couples' marriages is unconstitutional, allowing same-sex couples to marry in St. Louis.

With no stay putting his ruling on hold, Judge Rex Burlison's ruling means same-sex couples, at least within St. Louis, should be able to marry immediately.

The state had filed the lawsuit over the summer to stop St. Louis officials from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Although Burlison declared the state's ban unconstitutional, the only apparent direct impact of the litigation is that St. Louis officials can issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

BuzzFeed News has asked Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon and Attorney General Chris Koster's offices for information about whether the state will appeal the ruling and whether the state officials will interpret the ruling as having statewide effect.

The statewide LGBT group, PROMO Missouri, suggested that all residents of Missouri could now marry same-sex partners if they wished by going to St. Louis City Hall:

About a month ago, another state judge ruled that Missouri had to recognize the marriages of same-sex couples who marriage legally elsewhere — a decision that state officials did not appeal.

Here is the court's order:

View Entire List ›

It was not a good night.

Mark Makela / Reuters

WASHINGTON — Labor unions lost dramatically in nearly every key race they targeted on Tuesday.

In the aftermath, top aides and officials are focusing on a small set of progressive issues that saw success.

In statements and calls with reporters, union leaders have honed in on referendums like minimum-wage increases and paid sick leave legislation, which were generally approved by voters who saw those initiatives on their ballots.

"When voters did have a choice, have a chance to choose their future, the decisions were unmistakeable," AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said.

In his press conference Wednesday afternoon, President Barack Obama also leaned on the success of minimum wage ballot initiatives as something to build on for his remaining two years in office.

"I think there are some concrete things we can do to make sure wages to go up," Obama said. "Minimum wage in those five states was a good start."

The success of progressive initiatives in typically red states is being treated by labor as a signal that what they are doing is working, even if those votes didn't carry over into the governor and senate races.

Unions argue that people want what they're selling, they just didn't sell it very well.

"We faced an incredible headwind in a terrible environment," one former labor official said.

Unions have also highlighted their few victories — defeating Gov. Tom Corbett in Pennsylvania and Terri Lynn Land in Michigan.

But in reality, the bulk of the day was very damaging for the candidates unions pushed.

Labor invested significant resources to push against against Republican gubernatorial incumbents Rick Scott, Scott Walker, and Rick Snyder as well as businessman Bruce Rauner. They also fought hard against GOP senate candidates in North Carolina, Kentucky, and Alaska. They told their members that if elected, these candidates would decimate their wages and were bad for their families.

Teachers unions in particular were heavily invested in these races. The two largest unions each said they were on pace to spend tens of millions of dollars in order to win.

Yet an internal poll released by the AFL-CIO Wednesday showed that roughly one-third of their members in battleground states voted for the Republican candidate in either the Senate or the gubernatorial race.

"People voted their fears," American Federations of Teachers President Randi Weingarten told BuzzFeed News. "But it's unmistakable that they want the notion that if you work hard, you and your family will do better in the future than in the past."

Weingarten said that based on what she heard from people while campaigning around the country as well as what she saw in the midterms results, people "want problems solved" but the Democrats simply didn't run a campaign to convince them they could do that.

"The Republicans made it a referendum on the president and that eclipses virtually anything else," she said.

Another current labor activist blamed Obama more directly.

"President Obama's message should not have been that the administration deserved more credit for the economy than it was receiving, but rather how Democratic Party plans would fix the economy if only do-nothing Republicans were defeated," the activist said.

Trumka wouldn't go as far as to blame Obama — he said the "White House wasn't running this time, unfortunately" — but said in the end voters heard more from Republicans than they did Democrats.

Come 2016, unions will try to turn the tables and make the next election a referendum on two years of a Republican Congress.

"The agenda itself is more important now than ever," Trumka said.

Hedge fund titans spent a lot of money—millions of dollars in some cases—on candidates and measures in the 2014 midterm elections. Here’s a look at the bets that panned out.

Paul Singer, founder, CEO, and co-chief investment officer for Elliott Management

Steve Marcus / Reuters

Some of the biggest donors to political campaigns to emerge in recent years are hedge fund managers, with some throwing a cool $1 million here, a couple million there, at issues and candidates they—or, increasingly, their industry comrades—support.

Out of this growing pool of big hedge fund donors, Elliott Management's Paul Singer, Third Point's Dan Loeb, Pershing Square's Bill Ackman, and AQR's Cliff Asness, among others, have emerged as some of the biggest donors, with Singer rallying hedge funders to give to his Political Action Committees, Loeb tirelessly pressing for education reform measures, and Ackman backing Cory Booker in recent years.

It appears 2014 was no different, with a number of hedge fund titans cutting checks to PACs, ballot measure campaigns, and individuals running in the midterms, betting big that the outcomes of these races will fall in favor with their causes, be it a philanthropic, personal, or even investment cause.

And the bets mostly paid off. Here's a look at the causes and candidates that emerged victorious yesterday, thanks in part to hedge fund dollars.

Steve Marcus / Reuters

View Entire List ›

“Sen. Udall has long been on this issue and his loss will certainly be felt but NSA reform is not a one senator issue and not a one-party issue.

Sen. Mark Udall (D-CO)

Rick Wilking / Reuters

WASHINGTON — Civil liberty advocates were upset on election night when Colorado Sen. Mark Udall lost to Republican Cory Gardner, but no one in the community was ready to announce changes to the NSA's bulk-data collection program dead.

Udall had been a vocal opponent of the NSA's data collection, specifically section 215 of the Patriot Act, which was the subject of many of the disclosures leaked by Edward Snowden. He was one of the first Democrats to for the resignation of CIA director of John Brennan after it was revealed the agency spied on Senate computers. And while his campaign focused almost entirely on reproductive issues, in October he did go up with an ad touting his work for NSA surveillance.

But when the dust cleared a bit on Wednesday morning, advocates remained convinced they would see traction on changing some of the bulk-data collection practices in the next Congress.

In part, that's because the issue isn't strictly partisan. Conservative Republicans like Sens. Rand Paul and Mike Lee have called for changes to the NSA — and the GOP is now in the majority. House Republicans have picked up seats, but a fair number of the new members are critical of the NSA's programs.

Additionally the deadline to tackle reauthorization of section is in June of next year.

"I do think this is a set back but its important to remember but this is a slightly different situation than other kinds of legislation that might have more difficulty moving forward because the patriot act is going to expire, section 215 is set to expire June 1, 2015. If nothing passes then section 215 expires," said Elizabeth Goitein, the co-director of the liberty and national security program at the Brennan Center for Justice.

"That is not going to happen," she continued. "Something has to get through and the House the dynamics in the house have not shifted significantly, which means it a straight reauthorization will not get through."

Goiten still called Udall's defeated "a major loss" and a "huge blow to the civil liberties community" but suggested that because of the re-authorization deadline and the dynamic in the Republican-controlled House changes to section 215 were very likely — even if they don't go as far as some advocates might want.

"Something has to happen and it will likely be an improvement," she said.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which has also been pushing for changes to the Patriot Act, said they would be looking to Republican leaders in the Senate and the House to continue the effort.

Neema Singh Guliani, legislative counsel for the ACLU said senators like Paul would be critical to the effort.

"It's been really bipartisan, and that's unique," she said. "A number of Republicans have said, 'We want to work across the aisle' and this issue is sort of a test of whether they follow through on some of those statements."

An aide for Paul said that the senator planned to be fully engaged and at the center of the issue in the next Congress and that he continued to oppose significant portions of the Patriot Act.

"Sen. Udall has long been on this issue and his loss will certainly be felt but NSA reform is not a one senator issue and not a one-party issue," Singh Guliani said.

“This video is private.”

Jody Hice Facebook / Via Facebook: jodyhice

Congressman-elect Jody Hice's radio program appears to have been scrubbed from the internet. Hice the founder of the Culture and Values Network and the host of The Jody Hice Show was elected to Congress in Georgia Tuesday evening to replace outgoing Rep. Paul Broun.

Links to the show's archived episodes from the Internet Archive or the show's website now return a "this video is private" message.

Via youtube.com

Every archived episode of the show comes up as private.

Via web.archive.org

View Entire List ›

If Dan Sullivan topples incumbent Mark Begich, a Democrat, Republicans would pick up another seat in the upper chamber.

Republican Dan Sullivan campaigns on Nov. 3 in Alaska.

Getty Images David Ryder

Republican Dan Sullivan holds an 8,100-vote lead over Democratic U.S. Sen. Mark Begich in Alaska — but the incumbent doesn't seem ready to concede.

Every precinct has reported its votes — Sullivan has held a consistent lead — but thousands of absentee and other ballots have yet to be counted.

Alaskans for Begich Campaign Manager Susanne Fleek-Green referenced those outstanding ballots in a statement released Wednesday afternoon.

"Inspired by stories of village elders being lifted onto four wheelers to go vote and Alaskans traveling up and down river to cast their ballots, Alaskans for Begich is anxious for a final count of all of Alaskans' ballots and respects the procedures, process and timetable of the Alaska Division of Elections," she said.

Begich, the former mayor of Anchorage, was the junior senator since 2009, and has been held to one term. Sullivan was the state's attorney general under former Gov. Sara Palin and was most recently the commissioner of natural resources.

Begich is no stranger to last-minute victories. As the Associated Press reported:

He trailed Republican icon, Senator Ted Stevens, by about 3,000 votes after the 2008 general election only to come behind and win by nearly 4,000 votes when absentee ballots were counted.

At a rally on Tuesday evening, Sullivan told his supporters, "We are taking back our country!" according to the Dispatch.

"We're going to take back America, the land that we love," Sullivan said, with a crowd chanting, "USA! USA!"

The GOP has already solidified its new hold on the chamber, which, among other things, will likely usher in a new hawkish Senate.

The Dispatch also reported that the race was the costliest in the state's history, with some $50 million spent between both candidates.

U.S. Sen. Mark Begich speaks with Croatian Prime Minister Jadranka Kosor in 2011.

Nikola Solic / Reuters

“This was a national wave,” Sen. Manchin said.

Jonathan Ernst / Reuters

Democratic West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin on Wednesday blamed the big losses suffered by his party in Tuesday's midterm elections on what he called "a national wave" of Americans lacking confidence and faith in the White House.

"This was a national wave," Manchin told NPR. "It is where it is. I can't camouflage it, can't cover it up. It is what it is and it was a lack of leadership from the White House that people didn't just have confidence and faith and it just spilled over as a national wave across."

Manchin earlier in the interview shot down speculation he planned to switch parties and become a Republican, declaring "I'm a proud West Virginia Democrat."

Here's the audio of Manchin's remarks on NPR:

View Video ›

Rubio invested early in Iowa candidates and Iowans are walking away from him impressed.

Senator Marco Rubio, R-FL

AFP / Getty Images MANDEL NGAN

DUBUQUE, Iowa — Matt Giese brought a caricature of Marco Rubio in the hopes that the Florida senator would sign it.

Giese has drawn caricatures of practically all of the potential 2016 candidates (including a particularly unflattering one of New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie) but he was excited to see Rubio for the first time.

Rubio took one look at it and laughed. The drawing featured a thicker head of hair than one he actually does, something Rubio readily admitted. He signed the drawing and posed for a photo. Giese wasn't alone last week in Iowa in his excitement — at all. Person after person came up to the Florida senator, looking for a photo or an autograph, full of praise.

Rubio invested early in Iowa and several of its winning candidates, including Senator-elect Joni Ernst and Congressman-elect Rod Blum. And as he stumped for them in the final days of the campaign, Iowans last week were not only happy to meet Rubio, they were enthusiastic about his message and many were openly eager at the prospect of a presidential campaign.

The immigration debate of 2013 undoubtedly damaged Rubio politically — irrevocably, according to many. But people in Iowa, the kind of people who show up to rallies for Ernst and vote in Republican primaries, are much more receptive to Rubio than you might think. People say they like Rubio — and they really like the domestic-focused, middle-class message he is trying to regain his political footing with.

And that enthusiasm certainly extended to the candidates Rubio was in the state to support.

"I would encourage all you to go out on the internet and read what the senator has written about poverty," said an elated Blum, then running for Rep. Bruce Braley's open seat, told a room full of his supporters. "Some of the very interesting ways, the good ways, the 21st century ways to lift the non-working poor, up to working poor, up to middle class."

Blum is the same man with a sign on his door that reads, "The NSA: The only part of the government that actually listens."

But as Blum fought to win (and ultimately won) the most heavily Democratic district in Iowa, he turned to one of the more hawkish members of the Republican Party.

Rubio kept up a busy campaign schedule in the last few weeks of 2014 campaign, making stops in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and his home state of Florida. He campaigned with Blum on Wednesday and spent last Tuesday crisscrossing the state with Republican Senate candidate Joni Ernst. Rubio was one of Ernst's earliest and most enthusiastic supporters, a move not unnoticed by party officials in the state. His top communications director was dispatched to work on Ernst's campaign and his top political adviser was in Iowa on election night. In addition to three campaign stops together on Tuesday, Rubio was the headliner at the roughly 600-person Scott County Reagan Dinner where Ernst also spoke.

Rubio's speeches, in Iowa and other state he's traveled to this year, have focused on what he called "the next great American century." His message is heavily critical of Democratic policies, big government, and President Obama (though, interestingly, not Hillary Clinton).

"It is immoral, it is un-American that the only people who can't send their kids to the school of their choice are poor parents," Rubio said in Dubuque.

And in South Carolina: "There are people struggling to make ends meet at $12 or $13 dollars an hour. Quite frankly I don't know how they do it often times."

And in New Hampshire: "It's about taking the American dream and expanding it to reach more people than ever before."

And back in Iowa: "They try to sell us the idea that big government is good for the people trying to make it and that's a lie."

But despite the big government criticism, Rubio's messaging is also distinctly optimistic in tone — which resonated with a lot of the Iowans who spoke with BuzzFeed News. Rubio told BuzzFeed News that he's already spoken with Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader, about bringing his policy proposals to floor in the next Congress should Republicans take the Senate.

"i think if I could get votes on a lot of these, they would pass. Some of them aren't controversial," Rubio said. "[McConnell] has been meeting with a lot of different offices about setting the agenda and obviously we think these should be a part of that agenda."

The speeches of the potential 2016 candidate are hard to describe as anything but stump speeches: laying out a policy prescription, talking about Republicans visions for 2014 and beyond, and presenting an optimism about the future of the United States. His aides say his focus on poverty and upward mobility is nothing new and it's something he's been working on since his time in the Florida State House. Back in January, Rubio delivered a speech on the 50th anniversary of the "War on Poverty," striking many of the same tones he is now.

"I understand why people are starting to doubt the American dream," he said in Dubuque. "But here's our message: I understand times are tough but we are on the eve of another American century. We are on the eve of the most prosperous and secure time in American history if we only do what it takes to achieve it."

Unsurprisingly, Democrats have a more cynical take of Rubio's approach, criticizing him for his votes against minimum wage and paycheck fairness in the Senate.

"Marco Rubio's presenting a false choice. We can help the least fortunate while expanding economic opportunity for everyone," said Michael Czin, a spokesman for the Democratic National Committee.

But the positivity of his message — in contrast to the often grim messaging from some of his Republican peers — resonated with Iowan attendees.

Jim Nelson patiently waited to shake Rubio's hand after the dinner and when he got the chance to, implored him to run for president.

Nelson told BuzzFeed News he'd seen several Rubio's floor speeches on C-SPAN, but was wowed by what he had seen in person.

"He's got the vision, the emotion of it, he's lived it. He gave that whole speech tonight without a note or a teleprompter," Nelson said. "He's very eloquent. Everybody thought Obama was a great speaker but there was nothing behind it. He's the real deal."

"He really just has a positive message and you can't help but get charged up with it," said Dennis Powers in Dubuque. "He's an abundance thinker, rather than a scarcity thinker."

"I think he's got some spunk to him that the party needs," Giese, who lists Walker and Rubio as his top two favorites for a 2016 run, said. "I think he can draw in more minorities, I think his story resonates, he's lived it. And being younger, I think his message can appeal to younger people so they don't always vote Democrat."

.

Will the president keep liberalism on the table by nominating Tom Perez?

President Obama answers questions during a news conference in the East Room of the White House on November 5, 2014.

Larry Downing / Reuters

WASHINGTON — The first, biggest, clearest sign of how President Obama will govern in the last two years of his presidency will be whether he decides to nominate Labor Secretary Tom Perez to take over the Justice Department.

Administration officials have not signaled who will be nominated to replace Attorney General Eric Holder since he announced his intention to step down earlier this year — and now after Tuesday's Republican wave, the White House has dwindling time before the GOP takes control of the Senate.

Nominating Holder's replacement will signal loudly — more than anything the president said in an hour-long news conference Wednesday where "compromise" appeared to be the word of the day — how aggressive the White House plans to be in the final two years of the Obama presidency. It will likely be the first big move Obama takes in the post-midterm landscape. Who will his nominee be, and when will the name be sent to the Senate?

Obama mostly brushed the question of the attorney general nomination aside this week, citing "a number of outstanding candidates" under consideration. "I'm confident that we'll find somebody who is well-qualified, will elicit the confidence of the American people, will uphold their constitutional obligations and rule of law, and will get confirmed by the Senate," he said.

Perez is the liberals' pick, with Latinos — from the Congressional Hispanic Caucus to the National Hispanic Leadership Agenda — already outright endorsing him for attorney general. Perez has a strong base of support from the broader civil rights community from his time running the Civil Rights Division at the Justice Department, as well, and he's got plenty of friends backing him in organized labor. On Monday, Perez will be addressing the annual dinner of the National Women's Law Center, along with longtime Obama friend and Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker. The speech will give Perez the chance to woo another main group of the liberal coalition — and he'll be doing it with Pritzker at his side.

Picking Perez, and potentially sending him through the lame-duck session of the Senate, would be an aggressive, confrontational move — the Labor secretary is not popular at all with Republicans, particularly regarding his work on "disparate impact" enforcement of civil rights laws and regulations. The confirmation process for Perez's current position was heated.

The alternative is more sedate: The administration could nominate someone like Solicitor General Don Verrilli, a former lawyer at Jenner & Block who has represented big corporate interests, as well as the government and pro bono clients — something that might be seen as a way of "compromising and being constructive," as Obama discussed on Wednesday.

Outside potential changes to the criminal justice system — an increasingly bipartisan interest — liberal legislation is off the table over the next two years. Obama could make few more clear signs that he wants to empower the Justice Department to take the lead on cementing a liberal or progressive legacy for the administration than going with Perez.

Last hope?

Here's a link to the cover article of today's issue of Taz Die Tageszeitung and the commentary at the bottom of the paper.

House Speaker John Boehner Thursday warned unilateral action by President Obama “will poison the well, and there will be no chance of immigration reform moving in this Congress.”

Kevin Lamarque / Reuters

WASHINGTON — Speaker John Boehner Thursday reiterated his warning that if President Obama moves forward with his plan to relax deportation rules, it will end any chance of Congress moving an overhaul of U.S. immigration law in the next two years.

The White House is under intense pressure from immigration activists to expand its deportation deferral program to include potentially millions of undocumented persons living in the United States.

But that, Boehner and other Republicans warn, will kill any effort to take up the issuer next year. "If [Obama] acts unilaterally … he will poison the well, and there will be no chance of immigration reform moving in this Congress," Boehner told reporters, arguing, "When you play with matches, you run the risk of burning yourself. And the president is going to burn himself."

At least officially, the administration has said it remains committed to expanding the deferrals before the end of the year. But in the wake of Tuesday's electoral thumping, Democrats close to the White House like David Axelrod have begun arguing it may make sense to give the new Congress some time to work on the issue before acting unilaterally.

Although Boehner stopped short of pledging to act on immigration next year, he did say he still believes it is an issue that must be dealt with.

"It is time for the Congress of the United States to deal with a very difficult issue in our society … it's just time to deal with it," Boehner said.