DES MOINES, Iowa — The Iowa Republican Party is in turmoil 15 months into the tenure of chairman A.J. Spiker, and his critics worry the discord could forever mar the politically significant state’s longstanding tradition of holding the nation's first presidential-nominating contest.

At issue: Tensions with the state’s old-guard Republican leadership and Spiker’s affiliation with the group of activists tied to former Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas.

Spiker jokes that party bosses at the Republican National Committee rarely bother to learn the names of state party chairmen due to their relatively short tenures.

"They always joke that state chairs, they never bother learning their names, because they're gone so quickly," he said, noting that the average chairmanship for leaders of state Republican parties lasts about 18 months.

But Iowa is no typical state. It is the state that plays host every four years to the first presidential-nominating contest — its tradition-laden caucus — that can boost or break presidential hopefuls' chances of ever reaching the White House.

And though the 2016 Iowa caucuses are still years away, Spiker's chairmanship has divided the Hawkeye State's Republicans. They fret that party-building exercises like fundraising and infrastructure have ground to a halt. And more alarmingly, Republicans worry that Spiker and the rest of the state GOP, which has close ties to Ron Paul's political movement, would become an informal extension of Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul's presidential campaign should he decide to seek higher office in 2016.

Matthew Holst / Matthew Holst / AP

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., speaks at the Iowa GOP Lincoln Dinner event, Friday, May 10, 2013, at the Hotel at Kirkwood Center, in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

"We're a long way's out from another presidential caucus, but even still, people are concerned: is it a fair playing field for the next set of candidates?" said Craig Robinson, a former political director for the Iowa GOP and a prominent critic of Spiker's chairmanship.

"They're looking at what's best for themselves and the candidates they support," he added. "If they're not careful, they could damage the institution of the caucuses after 2016."

Spiker responded: "I think the notion that it's just about Rand or Ron is really kind of silly."

Spiker was elected — he calls himself the "first non-establishment chairman" — following the resignation of Matt Strawn, who stepped down as chairman of the Iowa GOP following hiccups in the caucuses. The party had initially proclaimed Mitt Romney its winner, but was forced to reverse itself once the final tally found that former Sen. Rick Santorum had actually won by a handful of votes.

Spiker won the chairmanship of the state GOP due to persistent efforts by Ron Paul supporters to win smaller, less-noticed elections to local and lesser statewide Republican offices. By the time had come to elect a replacement for Strawn, Ron Paul acolytes had the numbers.

During his tenure, he has openly challenged Gov. Terry Branstad, who is on the cusp of seeking his sixth term as governor since 1982, over the fate of the Ames Straw Poll (an informal precursor to the caucuses) and a new gas tax that had pended before the state legislature.

"I'm not going to comment on that," Branstad pointedly told NBC News when asked about his assessment of the state GOP's health. "I just think, I'm focused on helping Republicans win elections, and we're going to put together the strongest team possible. And by the time we get to Election Day 2014, we'll see a very strong, united party that will work together."

Indeed, Election Day 2014 includes two marquee statewide races: Branstad's would-be re-election, and more significantly, an open Senate race that offers Republicans their first chance of holding both Senate seats for the first time in decades.

"The current party leadership has some bridges to build," said a GOP strategist and former Iowa party official, who requested anonymity to offer candid assessments about the party. "Sometimes they misunderstand the core function of the party, which is to win elections and provide an effective infrastructure. This is what candidates need and donors expect."

Criticism of Spiker has assumed a new urgency given the intense and early interest in the 2016 caucuses, jockeying for which began on Friday night when Rand Paul — at Spiker's invitation — headlined the party's annual Lincoln Dinner fundraiser.

Of Rand Paul's appeal in Iowa, Spiker said: "I think it would be a mistake not to put him in the top tier in Iowa, and I would be surprised if he didn't poll that way." (He also named Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie as two additional major contenders.)

Behind the scenes, Republican critics of Spiker's have asserted that a backlash against this self-described "constitutionalist" chairman is taking shape. As with many battles on the national level, the establishment GOP community and its donor class have begun the work of reclaiming the levers of power in the state GOP.

"If this Paul takeover of the party has done one thing, it has kind of awoken your traditional Republican activist," Robinson said.

For his part, Spiker says that he's leaning against seeking another term as state party chairman in January of 2015; he explained that he had also leaned against seeking the office in the first place, and seeking re-election to a full term this past January.

Spiker, who has a young family, mused that it might actually be more liberating for him to work for an issue group come 2016. Or a candidate.

"The candidate and issue things are much easier, because with a candidate you have a specific candidate, and you have specific policies of the candidate," he said. "You have very clear things. With the political committee, it's much broader, much bigger and it is a lot more complicated than it is with a candidate or an issue group."

This story was originally published on Mon May 13, 2013 3:29 PM EDT

CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa – The immigration reform proposal pending before Congress could be a dicey proposition for Republican presidential contenders come 2016, when they visit this first-in-the-nation caucus state.

Republicans in Washington are in virtual agreement that they must do more to broaden the party’s appeal to the increasingly influential bloc of Hispanic voters. And many of those GOP leaders argue that supporting an immigration reform law that includes a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants is a good starting point.

But the party’s eventual standard-bearer in 2016 will likely have to run a gauntlet of primaries that begins with Iowa’s caucuses. And catering to the Hawkeye State’s voters could force White House hopefuls to the right – not just in 2016, but in deciding how to posture themselves toward the immigration reform law making its way through Congress this year.

Matthew Holst / Matthew Holst / AP

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., speaks at the Iowa GOP Lincoln Dinner event, Friday, May 10, 2013, at the Hotel at Kirkwood Center, in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

Two senior members of the state’s Republican congressional delegation – longtime Sen. Charles Grassley and Rep. Steve King – have been some of the most outspoken critics of the “Gang of Eight” bipartisan immigration overhaul currently making its way through the Senate committee process. Both dished out plenty of red meat to the party faithful during speeches at Friday night’s Lincoln Dinner.

“It gives amnesty to and legalizes everybody who's in America illegally today,” King said of the Senate proposal, invoking a word – amnesty – that reflects deep conservative trepidation toward immigration reform. “This bill destroys the rule of law, and it forever produces contempt for the rule of law.”

“We can't afford to repeat the mistakes of the past. And, I want you to know, I learned a lesson, and I want you to know that I — and we — screwed up in 1986,” Grassley said. “The lesson learned: you reward illegality, and you get more of it.”

Their words amount to a caution sign for Republican presidential hopefuls with designs of competing in the Iowa caucuses in 2016.

Some Republicans, like Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, a Republican co-author of the Gang of Eight proposal, probably have no choice but to embrace the legislation and its path to citizenship because of their close involvement in its creation. And indeed, Rubio and his conservative cachet might help bring some conservatives on-board with the eventual bill.

“I think that he is one of the people that's been trying to work to find a reasonable approach toward that, that would secure our borders and would find a reasonable way to deal with people who have been here a long time,” Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad, R, told NBC News. “I'm going to see what Marco Rubio says about it. I trust him.”

Other would-be Republican presidential candidates can afford to be more circumspect.

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, one such potential hopeful who’s previously called for immigration reform, told reporters in Iowa that the Senate bill needs tougher border-security provisions, especially for it to have any chance of passing the Republican-controlled House. To that end, Paul termed himself the “bridge” between the two chambers.

“I'm the bridge between people who won't consider it at all to people who want it,” he said. “I'm in the middle such that I'll vote for it if I think it'll do the right job and it creates border security, doesn't create a new pathway to citizenship, and allows people to get in an existing line, the same way someone in Mexico City would get in line.”

“So I think there's a lot of room for me to help the bill, but we'll see,” Paul added.

But it’s also easy to imagine at least one Republican contender running to the right on the issue of immigration in hopes of outflanking his competitors in Iowa. That temptation – and its repercussions – was on full display during the 2012 primaries, when Mitt Romney used immigration to run to the right of his primary challengers. But his comments during that drawn-out primary came back to haunt him during the general election, when Romney notched a record-low performance among Hispanic voters for a recent Republican presidential nominee.

Regardless of their stance, A.J. Spiker, the Iowa Republican Party’s chairman, cautioned White House hopefuls to be ready to answer questions about their approach to immigration come 2016.

“The one thing I think Republicans agree on, absolutely, on immigration is a secured border,” he said. “After that, you really do head off in some different directions.”

He added: “So what I believe is that whatever a candidate's position is, when they come to Iowa, they're going to have to explain their position to Iowa Republicans. They're going to have to explain why they supported X; why they supported X over Y.”

This story was originally published on Mon May 13, 2013 1:42 PM EDT

GOP shifts its focus to Hillary…  Beyond  the politics of yesterday’s Be nghazi hearing…  Deep in the heart of Texas: Obama heads to Austin, TX to talk jobs, manufacturing, and technology at 2:05 pm ET and 5:40 pm ET… Census: African Americans had a higher turnout rate in 2012 than whites did… The editing of the Senate immigration bill begins… GOP brand -- is it struggling or improving? Some mixed numbers…  A Democrat enters SD SEN race, but it’s not a top-tier candidate... And Jessica Taylor looks at the seats Dems have to defend to keep their Senate majority.

Jonathan Ernst / Reuters

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton makes remarks after being honored with a Distinguished Leadership Award from the Atlantic Council in Washington, May 1, 2013.

*** GOP shifts its focus to Hillary: Wednesday’s congressional hearing probing last year’s attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi revealed this political development: Key parts of the conservative movement are turning their attention from President Obama to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. “I find it stunning that four and a half months after the attack, Secretary Clinton still has the gall to say it wasn’t us,” Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) said at yesterday’s House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing. Added Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH): “Tell me, who is Cheryl Mills?... She is the fixture for the secretary of state; she is as close as you can get to Secretary Clinton.” In addition, for the first time since Feb. 2008 (when Obama overtook Hillary in the Democratic presidential contest), Republican groups inundated our inboxes with emails about Clinton. The GOP oppo organization American Rising: “Benghazi Hearing Raises Serious Questions About Clinton.” The Karl Rove-backed American Crossroads: “Hicks told Clinton at 2am it was terrorism.” Here was Citizens United’s David Bossie (who was behind the “Hillary: The Movie”): “The Need For A Select Committee Is More Evident Than Ever.” And Drudge’s front page for most of yesterday looked like a time warp to when the Clintons were the constant focus of conservative attacks.

EDITOR'S NOTE: NBC's Lisa Myers reports that Hicks never told Clinton at 2 am that the attack was terrorism. He said in his testimony that he had previously told that to the State Department and said it was not necessary to say it again. "I had already reported that the attack was -- had commenced and that twitter feeds were asserting that Ansar Sharia was responsible for the attack," former Benghazi Deputy Chief of Mission Greg Hicks told Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa Wednesday during testimony. Issa asked, "You didn't have that discussion with her only because it was assumed that, since you had already reported that the cause of the attack was essentially Islamic extremists, some of them linked to al- Qaida?" Hicks responded, "Yes." Myers followed up with Hicks' attorney who affirmed that Hicks did not tell Clinton personally that this was a terrorist attack.

*** But underneath the politics: Before wiping away yesterday as entirely a political exercise (and a LARGE part of yesterday had the feel of politics), don’t overlook what was discovered and what is clearly a very credible whistleblower in Greg Hicks. Ironically, what yesterday’s House hearing “revealed” was something that was already uncovered by the Pickering-Mullen report on Benghazi: systemic mistakes at the State Department when it comes to the issue of diplomatic security. The “coverup” charges appear to be an overreach, but what’s not an overreach is the focus on the failures at State and the apparent attempt by some at the White House to help State buy time before having the fingers pointed at its failings in the initial hours and days of the attack. And this happened on Clinton’s watch, pure and simple. If she is going to be running for president, her time atState is going to be an issue -- the good, the bad and the ugly. And it doesn’t take a political media genius to use Hicks’ description of his phone call back to State and resurrect Clinton’s famous 3:00 am phone call TV spot. Benghazi probably won’t haunt Clinton in 2016 in a big way, but it’s not going away, either.

*** The “vast right-wing conspiracy” is back: Yet as Democrats prepare for Hillary’spossible political comeback, so are Republicans and conservatives. Consequently, the GOP’s shift in focus shouldn’t be surprising, especially with 2016 on the horizon. But what’s striking is how sudden the transition seemed yesterday. Also striking is that it comes at a time when Clinton is enjoying her highest polling numbers, even among Republicans. In the April NBC/WSJ poll, 56% of respondents had a favorable view of her, including 23% of Republicans. (Compare that with Obama’s 8% among GOP respondents in the same poll.) Make no mistake: That Republican number is going to change for Clinton if she runs for president. So mark May 8, 2013 on your political calendars. That’s the date when Republican Party returned to what was its favorite pastime for a good part of the last 16 years (from 1992 to 2008): going after the Clintons. Folks, the “vast right-wing conspiracy” is back…

*** Deep in the heart of Texas: Turning from yesterday’s Benghazi hearing to today’s top political event… President Obama heads to Austin, TX to kick off his new “Middle Class Jobs and Opportunity Tour.” Per a White House official, the president today will announce launching a promise he made in his State of the Union to establish “three new Manufacturing Innovation Institutes, which are partnerships among business, universities and community colleges, and government to develop and building manufacturing technology.” Obama also will call upon Congress “to take action on his proposal to create a one-time $1 billion investment to create a network of 15 manufacturing innovation institutes across the country.” As the AP wrote earlier this week, “President Barack Obama is launching a series of quick jaunts around the country to remind Americans he’s still got jobs and the economy on his mind.” As our own recent NBC/WSJ poll showed, the public seems frustrated that Washington isn’t focused on the economy anymore. The White House is attempting to respond to that. We’ll see if they can sustain the effort -- something they’ve been unable to do before. Here’s Obama’s schedule today in Austin: He delivers remarks at Manor New Technology High School at 2:05 pm ET, and then he speaks at Applied Materials Inc. at 5:40 pm ET. 

*** Census: African Americans had a higher turnout rate than whites did in ‘12: With Obama today in Texas -- where whites make up a minority of all residents -- perhaps it’s only fitting to relay this U.S. Census data from 2012: “About two in three eligible blacks (66.2 percent) voted in the 2012 presidential election, higher than the 64.1 percent of non-Hispanic whites who did so… This marks the first time that blacks have voted at a higher rate than whites since the Census Bureau started publishing statistics on voting by the eligible citizen population in 1996.” The New York Times has more on this data: “The overall turnout rate nationwide was 61.8 percent in 2012, a decline from 63.6 percent four years earlier. Researchers cautioned that their estimates might overstate how many people voted across all categories, because they are based on surveys in which people were asked whether they had voted — a ‘socially desirable’ activity. Some researchers cautioned against treating 2012 as a watershed moment for the black vote. For example, Michael P. McDonald, an associate professor at George Mason University — using the same data but with a slightly different calculation — determined that black voters first turned out at a higher rate than whites in 2008.”

*** Let the editing of the immigration bill begin! The Senate Judiciary Committee today begins marking up the “Gang of Eight” bipartisan immigration bill. NBC’s Carrie Dann: “With the Gang of Eight’s immigration measure coming under the legislative magnifying glass this week, senators on a key committee are sharpening their red pencils in preparation to edit the 844-page bill. The 18 members of the Senate Judiciary Committee have proposed 300 amendments to the legislation, ranging from protections for gay couples, to border-security fixes, to efforts to dismantle the bill’s central goal of creating a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.” More Dann: “While observers do not expect that the bill willundergo dramatic changes in the committee process -- with bipartisan proponents of reform on the panel likely to stick together to resist substantial changes to their core legislation -- the high-profile debate is sure to elevate the often-dull ‘markup’ process to must-see TV for anyone with a dog in the immigration fight.”

*** GOP brand -- is it still struggling or improving? After the 2012 election, the Republican National Committee embarked on a soul-searching mission to see what was wrong and deliver recommendations for how to fix them. The result was a 97-page reportwith suggestions on issues ranging from women, Hispanics, blacks, Asians, gays, and young voters. Yet beyond that report – and besides about half of the Republican Party working to pass comprehensive immigration reform – how is that re-branding effort going? Well, there are mixed numbers. Yesterday, our NBC/Marist poll found the Republican Party’s fav/unfav rating at 37%-53% among registered voters in Virginia – a state Republicans need to win in future presidential contests. Also yesterday, a Pew poll found respondents blaming Republicans by 20 points (42%-22%) for failing to better work with President Obama on key issues. On the other hand, the Pew poll showed the Republican Party either even or slightly ahead of Democrats on top issues like guns (GOP 42%, Dems 39%), the economy (GOP 42%, Dems 38%), and immigration (GOP 38%, Dems 38%).

*** Democrat enters SD SEN race, but it’s not a top-tier candidate: So the first Democrat has announced he’s running in South Dakota’s open Senate contest: two-time Housecandidate Rick Weiland. The Hill: “According to the Argus Leader, Weiland already has the support of his former boss, former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D). The two spoke prior to Weiland's announcement and, Daschle said, ‘I encouraged him with great enthusiasm.’” Weiland told the paper that he had also spoken with U.S. Attorney Brendan Johnson (D) — son of retiring Sen. Tim Johnson (D) — before announcing his plans, and Johnson had indicated he was unlikely to enter the race. ‘He’s focused on his job. I wouldn’t be here if I didn’t feel that Brendan (wasn’t) going to get into this race,’ Weiland said.” The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee says that this DOES NOT mean that former Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D-SD) is passing on the race. But if Weiland is the only Dem candidate, it’s hard to think that Democrats will have a puncher’s chance in South Dakota in 2014.

*** Democrats on defense: And speaking of the 2014 Senate races, MSNBC’s Jessica Taylor looks at the seats Democrats have to defend to hold on to the majority.

Click here to sign up for First Read emails.
Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.
Check us out on Facebook and also on Twitter. Follow us @chucktodd, @mmurraypolitics, @DomenicoNBC, @brookebrower

This story was originally published on Thu May 9, 2013 9:06 AM EDT

NBC/Marist poll shows it’s neck and neck in Virginia… McAuliffe 43%, Cuccinelli 41% among registered voters… Cuccinelli 45%, McAuliffe 42% among likely voters… Good news for McAuliffe: It’s early, he has room to grow, and the GOP’s fav/unfav is way upside down in the state… The bad news for him: The poll doesn’t show Cuccinelli with an ideological problem just yet… Voters are relatively down on the VA GOV field, but are upbeat about the state’s direction… Looking ahead to 2016 in Virginia: Hillary tops McDonnell, while McDonnell beats Biden… Separate NBC/Marist poll shows Christie crushing Buono, 60%-28% among registered New Jersey voters… Looking ahead to 2016, Hillary is ahead of Christie, but the New Jersey governor leads Biden… From Appalachian Trail to Comeback Trail: Sanford beats Colbert Busch, 54%-45%... And House committee holds Benghazi hearing at 11:30 am ET.

*** Neck and neck in Virginia: Six months out until Virginia’s gubernatorial contest, Democrat Terry McAuliffe and Republican Ken Cuccinelli are locked in a close contest, according to a new NBC News/Marist poll. McAuliffe, the former Democratic National Committee chairman, gets the support of 43% of registered voters and Cuccinelli, the state’s attorney general, gets 41%; 16% say they are undecided. That’s a different result from a recent Washington Post poll of the race, which had the Republican leading by five percentage points. But a deeper look in this NBC/Marist survey, and it’s clear Cuccinelli has a slight advantage. It starts with intensity: 53% of Cuccinelli backers strongly support him, versus 47% who express similar support for McAuliffe. What’s more, among likely voters -- not always the best way to measure a contest this far out -- Cuccinelli has a slight edge over McAuliffe, 45%-42%. The race also features a clear gender gap, with McAuliffe leading among female registered voters (50%-34%) and Cuccinelli ahead with men (49%-34%).

Patrick Kane / AP

Ken Cuccinelli, Republican candidate for governor of Virginia and Virginia attorney general, speaks during the 65th Annual Shad Planking Wednesday, April 17, 2013 at the Wakefield Sportsmen's Club in Wakefield, Va.

*** Good news, bad news: The good news for McAuliffe is that he has plenty of room to grow (44% of voters say they’re unsure/never heard of him, compared with 32% who say that about Cuccinelli). And the Republican Party is a potential drag for Cuccinelli: The GOP has a 37%-53% fav/unfav rating in the state, versus the Democratic Party’s 44%-46% score. Yet so far, before any negative advertising begins, the poll doesn’t show the party dragging Cuccinelli down -- his fav/unfav is 42%-27%. In addition, despite what some opinion leaders might believe, Cuccinelli doesn’t have an ideological problem right now, either. Per the poll, 27% say he’s too conservative, but a plurality of 39% think his ideology is just right. By comparison, 28% see McAuliffe as too liberal, and 33% say he’s just right. And the two men essentially run even on candidate-quality questions, although Cuccinelli has a slight edge on some of them, including ones where Democrats usually outperform Republicans.

-- Who better understands people like yourself? (Cuccinelli 34%, McAuliffe 30%.)
-- Who do you trust more to do what’s best for Virginia? (Cuccinelli 39%, McAuliffe 33%.)
-- Who is closer to you on social issues? (Cuccinelli 33%, McAuliffe 31%.)
-- Who cares more about the middle class? (McAuliffe 31%, Cuccinelli 30%.)
-- Who shares your values? (Cuccinelli 35%, McAuliffe 29%.)

*** Down on the gubernatorial field but upbeat on the state’s direction: Strikingly (and perhaps not surprisingly), only 52% say they are satisfied with the field of gubernatorial candidates in Virginia. That’s compared with 61% who say that it in New Jersey (more on that gubernatorial contest down below). That said, all the state’s politicians are pretty popular. Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell’s approval rating is at 61% (what scandal?); Cuccinelli’s approval rating as attorney general is at 51%; and President Obama’s approval in the state is at an equal 51%. What’s more, if McDonnell were allowed to run for re-election, he’d lead McAuliffe by 15 points, 51%-36%. And a whopping 61% believe the state is headed in the right direction. Bottom line: The state is in good shape, and the Cuccinelli-McAuliffe contest could largely come down to which candidate can do a better job of selling that he would follow the Warner-Kaine-McDonnell path -- the conservative attorney general or the former DNC chair? It’s clear voters don’t really want change. It’s why when you look at this survey, everything points to the GOP holding the slight advantage as the party in power.

*** Looking ahead to 2016: And our NBC/Marist poll has some fun 2016 numbers to chew on when it comes to Virginia. In a hypothetical matchup, Hillary Clinton leads McDonnell in the state by 11 points, 52%-41%. Let those numbers sink in -- despite McDonnell’s 61% approval rating, he trails Clinton by double digits. However, in a hypothetical contest against Vice President Biden, McDonnell leads, 49%-42%. That said, nearly six-in-10 (58%) don’t want McDonnell to run for president. The NBC/Marist poll of Virginia was conducted April 28-May 2 of 1,095 registered voters (margin of error of plus-minus 3.0 percentage points) and 692 likely voters (plus-minus 3.7 percentage points).

*** In New Jersey, Christie is crushing his Dem opponent: In this year’s other gubernatorial contest -- in New Jersey -- Republican Gov. Chris Christie leads his Democratic challenger Barbara Buono by more than 30 points among registered voters, 60%-28%, according to a separate NBC/Marist poll. Strikingly, 42% of Obama voters are supporting the incumbent governor. What’s more, 69% approve of Christie’s job performance, and 82% back his handling of the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy. Meanwhile, 56% of registered voters approve of President Obama’s job in the state, and 46% approve of Sen. Bob Menendez’s (D-NJ) job.

*** Christie and his party, and Christie and 2016: The poll also explains why Christie is disagreeing with his national party some of the time. The GOP’s fav/unfav in the survey is 34%-59%, versus the Democratic Party’s 50%- 43% score. Yet despite Christie’s sterling numbers in this political environment, Hillary Clinton tops him in a hypothetical 2016 contest in New Jersey, 52%-41%. But Christie beats Biden by pretty much the same margin, 51%-40%. That said, 55% of registered voters in New Jersey don’t want their governor to run for president. The NBC/Marist poll of New Jersey was conducted April 28-May 2 of 1,080 registered voters, and it has margin of error of plus-minus 3.0 percentage points.

*** From Appalachian Trail to Comeback Trail: Turning from future contests to last night’s contest, former South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford (R) beat Elizabeth Colbert Busch (D) in the special congressional election in South Carolina, 54%-45%.. MSNBC’s Jessica Taylor put it well: Sanford’s political career since ’09 has had plenty of ups and down -- “more ups and down than the mountains of the Appalachian Trail.” And his victory last night represented one of the ups. Interestingly, Sanford now comes to Congress owing nobody, and he has a bully pulpit at his disposal if he wants to use it. Yet the biggest takeaway from last night is that in today’s political climate, ideology trumps all. You could be a disgraced politician, and you could have been fined for breaking state ethics rules. But as long as you belong to the right political party in your state or district, you’re likely going to win. That said, Democrats are certainly trying to use this silver lining after their defeat: “House Republicans’ outreach to women voters now has Mark Sanford as the face. Republicans now have to defend him and stand with him until Election Day,” DCCC Chair Steve Israel said in a statement last night.

*** House committee holds Benghazi hearing: The final story we’re watching is today’s Benghazi hearing before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which takes place at 11:30 am ET. The Washington Post: “Republican lawmakers, who have spent months seeking to tie President Obama to last year’s deadly attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, are increasingly focusing their probe on a new target: former secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton. The GOP-led investigation of the Sept. 11, 2012, assaults that killed U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three others now centers heavily on the State Department and whether officials there deliberately misled the public about the nature of the assault.”

Click here to sign up for First Read emails.
Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.
Check us out on Facebook and also on Twitter. Follow us @chucktodd, @mmurraypolitics, @DomenicoNBC, @brookebrower

And we’re off: Look at all of today’s (and this month’s) 2016 activity… Rubio takes incoming from the right and responds… Is Biden a 2016 long shot? Only if Hillary runs…. Hillary, Christie headline Clinton Global Initiative gathering in Chicago next month… Our weekly 2016 roundup… April jobs report: 165,000 jobs created, unemployment rate falls to 7.5% (and check out the upward revisions)… Previewing Obama’s speech in Mexico City… And a Senate race watch.

*** And we’re off: Yes, President Obama’s second term is just over 100 days old. And, yes, the 2014 midterms are still a whopping 18 months from now. But like it or not, the early jockeying, traveling, and speechifying for 2016 is now well under way. Tonight, both Vice President Biden and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) deliver remarks in Columbia, SC (Biden addresses the state Democratic Party’s Jefferson-Jackson dinner beginning at 7:30 pm ET, while Cruz speaks to the South Carolina GOP’s Silver Elephant event). Also today, Cruz, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, and other Republicans give speeches at the National Rifle Association’s confab in Houston, TX. Meanwhile, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) finds himself on the cover of National Review (although not in a flattering way), and Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley is on the cover of the Washington Monthly (with the title: “Should This Man Be President?”). Then are the other 2016-related events later this month: Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) speaks in Iowa (on May 10) and New Hampshire (May 20); Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker heads to the Hawkeye State (May 23); and Cruz addresses the New York Republican Party (May 29).

Jason Reed / Reuters

Senator Marco Rubio, R-Fla., part of the Senate's "Gang on Eight", speaks during a news briefing on Capitol Hill, April 18, 2013.

*** Rubio takes incoming from the right -- and responds: Speaking of the new National Review cover -- entitled “Rubio’s Folly” -- here’s the article by immigration-reform opponent Mark Krikorian: After the 2012 election, “the Republican establishment turns its hopeful eyes, once again, to so-called comprehensive immigration reform. The same senators who pushed such a bill in 2007, prominently including Republicans John McCain and Lindsey Graham and Democrat Chuck Schumer, are at it again. They have devised a plan that would ease the path to legality for illegal immigrants while making some gestures toward enforcement. But a new element this time around is Marco Rubio.” But the junior Florida senator has a response of sorts in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, defending the pillars of comprehensive immigration reform but also arguing that any shortcomings to the “Gang of Eight” legislation can be improved. “Since my colleagues and I introduced immigration legislation, intense public scrutiny has helped identify shortcomings and unintended consequences that need to be addressed. Many concerned citizens have gone a step further and offered specific ideas to improve it. This kind of constructive criticism is a positive force that should always be welcomed in the political process.”

*** Cover photo of Rubio edits out other Republicans: As an aside to that National Review cover of Rubio, which shows him surrounded by Sens. John McCain and Chuck Schumer, the liberal site Talking Points Memo has this scoop: “The photo on the cover appears to be stripped down version … missing some unlikely attendees at the event. Look closer over Rubio's shoulder and you'll spot anti-tax crusader and right-wing hero Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform.” The full photo also includes GOP Sen. Jeff Flake.

*** Is Biden a 2016 long shot? Only if Hillary runs: Also today, with Biden traveling to South Carolina, the Washington Post runs a pretty tough piece on the current vice president. The title: “Biden ponders a 2016 bid, but a promotion to the top job seems to be a long shot.” From the article: “Biden clearly has the experience and gravitas to ascend to the presidency, but many Democrats say he may have been in Washington too long (since 1973) to win an election. He is President Obama’s governing partner yet is rarely seen as Obama’s heir apparent.” We agree that Biden is the longshot (and in fact most likely to run) if Hillary Clinton gets in the race. But if she doesn’t? It would be hard to call him a long shot, at least in a Democratic primary. Yes, Hillary’s absence would likely create a more crowded Democratic field -- with O’Malley, Andrew Cuomo, and others getting into the race. Yet it would be a leap to label Biden a long shot in that competition. Who would have a stronger base than Biden (especially if Obama endorses him)? Who would have better name ID? Of course, this is the reason why so many Democrats are pining for Hillary to run in 2016: The rest of the field isn’t as strong. But it’s not a given -- at least right now -- she gets in the race.

*** Hillary, Christie to headline Clinton Global Initiative gathering: As for Hillary, Politico reports that she and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie will headline Bill Clinton’s Clinton Global Initiative event in Chicago on June 13-14. “The focus of the gathering … is on speeding up the United States' economic recovery and the nation's long-term outlook. But the short-term political outlook will be equally interesting, given that Clinton and Christie top most 2016 polls in their respective parties. It marks the first time Hillary Clinton will appear at CGI America, which has become a signature event in her husband's post-White House portfolio. The event will also feature Chelsea Clinton, Clinton ally and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew and a slew of business, labor and government officials.”

*** Our weekly 2016 roundup: And here’s a look at all the other 2016 news this week: Two polls showed (here and here) Hillary Clinton blowing away the competition, and EMILY’s List wants her to run… Andrew Cuomo signed a book deal to write his memoir, set to come out next year.  “This is a private book, not a government book,” he insists. But he added, “It’s going to be a book about my experiences, my thoughts, my thoughts about government and the role of government.”… Martin O’Malley signed a death-penalty repeal, making Maryland the 18^th state to abolish the death penalty…. In the Quinnipiac poll, Marco Rubio narrowly leads the GOP with 18%, followed by Jeb Bush 16%, Chris Christie 14%, Rick Santorum 9%.... National Review reported that Ted Cruz is likely to run for president… Rand Paul endorsed Mark Sanford… And Chris Christie’s out with his first ad of his reelection.

*** April jobs report -- 165,000 jobs created, unemployment rate ticks down to 7.5%: In non-2016 news, the April jobs report shows a big improvement from last month’s numbers. The AP: “U.S. employers added 165,000 jobs in April, and hiring was much stronger in the previous two months than first thought. The gains trimmed the unemployment rate to a four-year low of 7.5 percent. The Labor Department report showed the job market is improving despite higher taxes and government spending cuts. In addition to the April gains, the government said employers added 138,000 jobs in March and 332,000 in February. That's 114,000 more over the two months.” Read that February number again: 332,000 jobs.

*** Previewing Obama’s speech in Mexico: NBC’s Kristen Welker report that President Obama's speech at the Anthropology Museum in Mexico City at 10:15 am ET will be equally aimed at a U.S. audience, according to a White House official. Obama’s hope is to recast many Americans' impression of Mexico as a poor country plagued by a violent drug war. The president is expected to say that while Mexico still struggles with those problems, it is also a country that has seen major economic strides in recent years.  In addition, Obama's larger theme will be that comprehensive immigration reform will be important to enhancing both economies and will be important for US-Mexico trade, which totaled $500 billion dollars last year. 

*** Senate race watch: And via your authors and our colleague Jessica Taylor, here’s some Senate race-related news to watch: First Lady Michelle Obama will help raise money for Rep. Ed Markey May 29, in what will be her first fundraising effort after the November 2012 election… “U.S. Rep. Colleen Hanabusa of Hawaii announced her candidacy for U.S. Senate on Thursday, setting up a primary showdown that almost certainly will be the state’s marquee race next year,” AP writes… Republicans are still having a difficult time finding a Senate candidate in Iowa… And in Georgia, GOP Rep. Jack Kingston became the third House member to throw his hat into the growing Senate primary, joining his fellow congressmen Paul Broun and Phil Gingrey.

Click here to sign up for First Read emails.
Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.
Check us out on Facebook and also on Twitter. Follow us @chucktodd, @mmurraypolitics, @DomenicoNBC, @brookebrower

With former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton waiting in the wings, a prominent Democratic group launched an effort Thursday to pave the way for electing America's first woman president.

Marshaling new polling data of voters in battleground states, the Democratic women's group EMILY's List said Americans fully believe the country is ready to elect a woman as president, pointing to results showing almost three in four Americans "expect" the nation to elect a woman as president in 2016.

The initiative, dubbed "Madam President," comes well before the next presidential election has even begun to take shape, but has clear implications for Clinton, Democrats' favorite right now to carry the party's banner.

"There is one name that seems to be getting mentioned more than others," said Stephanie Schriock, the president of EMILY's List, which supported Clinton during her 2008 bid for the Democratic nomination. "We do not know if Hillary is going to run — but we're hopeful that she may."

So intense is the early interest in Clinton's potential candidacy that even her most benign public appearances since leaving her job as secretary of state are scrutinized for signals of her intentions. The runner-up in a bitter, drawn-out primary battle versus Barack Obama in 2008, Clinton's personal approval numbers have never been higher following her stint as the country's top diplomat.

To that end, a new national poll released separately on Thursday suggested that Clinton is the overwhelming favorite of Democrats in 2016. Sixty-five percent of Democrats said in a Quinnipiac University poll conducted at the end of last month that they would vote for Clinton in a primary; 13 percent would prefer Biden, while all other contenders register less than 5 percent.

Jonathan Ernst / Reuters

Former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton makes remarks after being honored with a Distinguished Leadership Award from the Atlantic Council in Washington, May 1, 2013.

"This is a wide open race if Sec. Clinton doesn't decide to do this," Schricok said, explaining that the EMILY's List campaign was not focused on any one particular candidate. She challenged pollsters to include other Democratic women among the field of candidates they test.

Among those candidates floated on Thursday: Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar, New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire, Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius and Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano.

The essence of Thursday's new "Madam President" campaign involves preparing Americans to elect any of those women. EMILY's List said it would launch an online ad campaign with a six-figure price tag to target women on sites like Oprah.com, BlogHer and Feministing — and traditional outlets like the New York Times or New York Magazine.

The purpose is to lay the groundwork for any of these candidates, and in a targeted way. The campaign will also involve town hall meetings in key nominating states like Iowa and New Hampshire, which could boost or bust a candidate's presidential aspirations.

But the possibility of electing a woman seems all the more real given the polling data debuted at Thursday's event, which found that 86 percent of battleground state voters believe America is ready to elect a woman president, and 72 percent of those voters expect that milestone to be reached in the next presidential election.

Getting more into the brass tacks of politics, the poll found that a well-qualified, generic Democratic woman candidate might get a slight boost versus a male, Republican opponent — "not a gigantic difference, but it could be meaningful," according to pollster Lisa Grove.

The prospect is tantalizing for a group like EMILY's List, which has dedicated itself to electing Democratic women candidates for decades now. A more established and influential group in Washington, EMILY's List joins upstarts like the group "Ready for Hillary" in putting more pressure on the former New York senator and first lady to take the plunge — again — in 2016.

"We're still in a country that has never done this," Schriock said. "So I feel the 'Madam President' campaign is really one to ignite this national conversation about how it's going to be beneficial to all Americans to see a woman in the White House."

This story was originally published on Thu May 2, 2013 10:35 AM EDT

Conservative firebrand Ted Cruz, the Texas senator whose service in office is just four months long, is considering a bid for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016, according to a report on Wednesday by National Review.

The Texas Republican has quickly won the fervent support of grassroots conservatives since his election last November by breaking with Senate convention to aggressively challenge Democrats – and some Republicans, too. Citing anonymous sources, the National Review article suggested Cruz might look to quickly capitalize on his newfound fame, and rally conservatives behind his candidacy.

But there are significant barriers to Cruz winning the GOP nod in 2016, let alone winning the White House. Here are a few of them:

Mark Wilson / Getty Images file photo

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas

Cruz would face tough conservative competition
While Cruz has charmed figures ranging from conservative bloggers to former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, he could encounter a Republican primary field that would hardly cede the most conservative bloc within the GOP to Cruz. 

It’s easy to conceive of a series of Republican presidential hopefuls – Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (and possibly more) – vying for the same segment of the Republican primary vote as Cruz. Any one of those candidates will almost encounter difficulty in harnessing the political power of the Tea Party, a movement that has never been particularly well-known for acting in concert.

Fantasy vs. reality
If Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s bid for the Republican nomination in 2012 taught political observers anything, it’s that being a potential candidate is always easier to execute than being an actual candidate.

Conservatives, searching for an alternative to the establishment-backed favorite, Mitt Romney, practically begged Perry to make a late entry into the primary. They extolled his conservatism and the positive jobs situation in Texas, arguing that his record, combined with a top-notch team of consultants, would make Perry the new favorite for the GOP nomination.

Of course, things didn’t turn out that way. Perry withered under the national spotlight and the scrutiny of rival Republican candidates. Recent history is littered with examples of similar primary candidates, like Democratic hopeful Wesley Clark in 2004, and former Sen. Fred Thompson’s foray into the GOP primary of 2008. Their candidacies fizzled after having won broad acclaim at their outset.

Cruz would almost certainly face stiff opposition in a Republican primary that could expose any of his flaws as a politician. Wednesday’s National Review article cited Cruz’s experience as an award-winning debater, but his performances in those contests have never been filtered through the prism of rival campaigns or the national media.

The establishment would strike back
Cruz’s path to the GOP nomination would almost certainly rely on an outside strategy in which he courts conservative activists and rails against the party establishment in Washington. But would the D.C. establishment necessarily take that kind of criticism while sitting down?

In 2012, the GOP establishment quickly rallied around Romney, if only after it became apparent that there would be no other serious contenders for the presidency available. And when it seemed as though the more conservative Rick Santorum might emerge to dethrone Romney during the primaries, there were serious rumblings that GOP money men might scramble to find an alternative candidate who they regarded as more formidable versus President Barack Obama in the general election.

Given Cruz’s conservatism, it isn’t tough to imagine the GOP establishment rallying around a candidate perceived as more electable to if a Cruz candidacy  came too close to victory.

It doesn’t help Cruz that he’s forged few alliances during his short time in the nation’s capital. He most recently derided many of his congressional colleagues as “squishes,” and spoke publicly about internal Republican debates that were supposed to remain confidential. Cruz has worked with a few fellow conservatives, but two of them – Paul and Rubio – could end up being rival candidates for the GOP nomination in 2016.

Oh, Canada!
The National Review article acknowledges that Cruz advisers are prepared for a legal challenge to his eligibility to serve as president, reminiscent of the “birther” attacks conservatives had leveled against Obama for much of his first term. 

At issue is Cruz’s birthplace. He was born in Calgary, Canada, the son of a Cuban refugee father and a U.S. citizen mother. Having been born outside the continental U.S., he would have to address questions about whether he is a “natural born” U.S. citizen, which the Constitution requires of a prospective president.

But even if Cruz is able to offer up all the evidence in the world of his eligibility, it’s not tough to imagine Democratic candidates and super PACs relishing in the chance to give a Republican his comeuppance, and turn the “birther” phenomenon back against a GOP hopeful. 

He’s barely a blip in the polls right now
Cruz could certainly raise his national profile in the next few years, but the Texas senator hasn’t yet registered as a contender for the GOP nomination in any credible poll testing the 2016 field.

A Quinnipiac University poll at the beginning of last month found that Rubio was the slight, early favorite among Republican primary voters; 19 percent of them said they would favor the Florida senator as their nominee in 2016. And while other contenders like Paul, Walker, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell all registered some level of support, Cruz did not.

Cruz still faces the challenge of building his reputation outside of conservative, Washington-focused circles. But he still has plenty of upside, too; having been a figure on the national stage for such a short period of time, Cruz’s name ID among primary voters has virtually nowhere to go but up.

This story was originally published on Wed May 1, 2013 12:42 PM EDT

Despite his stated support for comprehensive-immigration reform, Rand Paul, R-Ky., is not fully on board with Marco Rubio, R-Fla., and the Gang of Eight’s immigration attempt.

“Generally, I am for immigration reform. It’s not that I’m going to be for anything with no rules, though,” the Kentucky senator told reporters at a breakfast Wednesday hosted by the Christian Science Monitor.

Related: As Senate's immigration 'Gang' releases text, House group speaks up

Paul said that he has not studied the details of the proposal yet, but despite the legislation’s various new border-security requirements, he’s not completely convinced. Paul said he is supportive of a path to citizenship, but not a new, separate, or special one for the millions of people in the United States illegally. He was skeptical that there was not what he called a “new pathway” for citizenship in the legislation.

“I don’t want a new pathway,” Paul said, noting that the “same pathway” would give a “better chance of passing immigration reform.” He added, "It’s important for conservatives that it’s no new pathway to citizenship,” Paul said, proposing that workers get a work visa and go to the back of the line like someone in Mexico City. “Get in the same line."

Paul said that he would insist on immigration legislation going through the House, would have at least one, and up to three or four, amendments to the bill. He wants what he calls “trust but verify,” that would include an annual report to Congress on border security with opinions of governors included that has stats on how many immigrants crossed the border and were returned to their home country. And he wants it voted on by Congress. He also wants to make sure that immigrants with work visas cannot vote and do not get social welfare benefits.

"So in order to get it," Paul said, referring to passage of the legislation, "they need to at least engage with people like me, who want immigration reform."

Early in his talk, Paul also -- unprompted -- brought up Paul Ryan, R-Wis., another possible 2016 rival, when discussing Medicare. But it wasn’t exactly to praise him. He was going through his fixes to Medicare, including raising the eligibility age gradually, means testing benefits and premiums, as well as other options.

“It’s similar to Paul Ryan,” Paul said, “but he doesn’t actually do it.”

Paul’s willingness to attempt to poke holes in the Gang of Eight proposal, something Rubio has been out front on, as well as his subtle criticism of Ryan on Medicare -- and in turn, how to tackle debt and deficits -- shows how Paul might try to carve out space for himself in a 2016 Republican presidential primary, if he decides to run. It’s something he appears to be leaning toward and openly said he is weighing.

“I want to be part of the national debate,” Paul said. “Whether I run or not, to be considering is something that gives me a larger microphone.”

He said he will continue travels to early states, hitting New Hampshire this spring and South Carolina this summer.

“We’re considering it,” Paul said. “We won’t make a decision before 2014.”

Paul accuses Obama of using Newtown families as ‘props’

Paul also weighed in the gun debate. He said he’s firmly against the compromise background-check legislation proposed by West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin and Pennsylvania Republican Pat Toomey, deriding it as “window dressing.” And he accused President Barack Obama of using the Newtown families as “props.”

“When I see the fathers and the mothers and them testifying --  and I know they’re coming voluntarily, and they want to come and be part of this debate,” Paul said, “but it still saddens me just to see them, and I think that in some cases the president has used them as props -- and that disappoints me.”

Paul said he does not want to be seen, however, as not caring, but he believes the background check legislation will do nothing to prevent other Newtowns from happening again.

“The face I want to present is that I do care about those kids,” Paul said, adding that he’s supporting Ted Cruz’s, R-Texas, legislation to shift money to support more prosecutions.

“Make sure that the background checks we have are working,” he said, adding that people like the shooter at Sandy Hook are not deterred even by the death penalty, why would they be deterred by stricter background checks? And he claimed 90 percent of crimes committed with a gun are with ones obtained illegally.

In the early jockeying for the 2016 presidential race, one of Sen. Marco Rubio’s, R-Fla., major selling points is that he brings diversity and can expand the party’s influence with Hispanic voters, especially after the shellacking the GOP took with the demographic group in 2012.

Unlike other Republicans, Hispanics view Rubio more positively than negatively -- 23 percent viewed him favorably while 12 percent viewed him negatively, according to an oversample of 300 Latinos in the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal/Telemundo poll. Another 40 percent either did not know him or had no opinion.

Of course, elections are choices, and a potential major obstacle for Rubio in 2016 could be Hillary Clinton, if she decides to run. The former secretary of state, New York senator, and first lady of a popular former Democratic president, was the most popular politician among Hispanics in the poll.

Barack Obama is still very popular with the group -- he has a 62 percent job approval, for example, when Americans at large gave him just a 47 percent rating. And he has a sky-high 64 percent positive, 19 percent negative rating with Hispanics.

But Clinton is even more popular. She’s viewed positively by 65 percent of Hispanics with just 13 percent giving her a negative rating.

In the Sept. 2012 NBC/WSJ poll, Mitt Romney was also viewed positively by 23 percent of Hispanics, but he had a 53 percent negative rating. He wound up losing 71 percent of Hispanics, one of the fastest-growing groups in the country who made up 10 percent of the electorate in 2012.

That was the worst showing by a Republican presidential candidate since Bob Dole in 1996 -- and Hispanics were half the size of the electorate than they were last year.

Hispanics are largely undecided about Rubio, but he starts off positive, and there’s room to for him to grow.

“Senator Rubio has impressive name identification for a first-term U.S. Senator with roughly six out of ten Hispanic/Latinos who recognize his name and a solid 23% positive versus 12% negative rating,” said Republican pollster Bill McInturff, who conducted the survey with Democrat Peter D. Hart. “Among Hispanics 40-years-old and older, his positive/negative numbers improve to 32%/13%. Compellingly, he maintains a modest net positive even among Hispanic Democrats (18% positive/15% negative).”

Still, the conservative Florida senator who speaks Spanish fluently and is a son of Cuban immigrants, faces some obvious challenges.

Hispanics, though somewhat socially conservative, tend to be economically liberal, view the Republican Party negatively, and largely line up with Democrats on a range of issues, from guns to immigration.

On immigration, Rubio faces a tricky test in the next few months. He is helping to shepherd comprehensive legislation through Congress with a principal task of selling it to conservatives, especially when it comes to a path for citizenship for immigrants in the United States illegally.

Many conservatives, especially in the House and in the grassroots rank and file, are staunchly opposed to a path for citizenship.

Four-in-five Hispanics, on the other hand, are in favor of one. So, as Rubio tries to make the sell to conservatives and get something through they can support, he’s also going to have to convince Latinos, who are closely watching the immigration debate, that what he pushes for will be strong enough.

It’s also not clear how Rubio’s Cuban heritage would play or if it would matter – 51 percent of Hispanics in the poll said they were of Mexican descent versus just 4 percent who said they had Cuban roots. Another 16 percent said their families hail from Central and South America, and 8 percent were from Puerto Rico.

By the way, former President George W. Bush’s time away from the spotlight has done him some good with Hispanics. But he is still overwhelmingly viewed negatively (44 percent negative versus 29 percent positive). But both numbers are improvements from 2008 at the tail end of his presidency. In September 2008, just 21 percent of Hispanics had a positive impression of him versus 68 percent, who had a negative one.

On the issues, Hispanics continue to be more in line with Democrats than Republicans -- 56 percent identified as Democrats and just 20 percent identified as Republicans.

On gun restrictions, Hispanics are more liberal than other Americans with 70 percent believing laws on guns sales should be stricter. Just 55 percent of all adults believed the same.

On the budget, about half of Hispanics -- 49 percent -- think the sequester will have no impact on them or their families, lower than the 58 percent of all Americans who said so.

More Hispanics -- 41 percent -- said they believe the sequester cuts will hurt the economy rather than help. But, interestingly, three-in-10 think the spending cuts are a good thing and would help the economy. That’s nearly double that of all adults who said the same -- 16 percent.

Some interesting demographic notes:

- 56 percent of Hispanics identified as Democrats and just 20 percent identified as Republicans.
- Yet, just 23 percent identify themselves as liberal and 38 percent identify as conservatives, which is similar to the split among all Americans – 25 percent liberal, 26 percent conservative.
- Of all Americans, 44 percent identified as Democrats, 35 percent as Republicans.
- 51 percent of Hispanics say they have at least some college education versus 72 percent of the rest of Americans.

The oversample of 300 Hispanics or Latinos was conducted as part of the larger NBC/WSJ poll from April 5-8. It has a margin of error is +/- 5.7%.

They both were elected in 2010 under the Tea Party banner after beating primary opponents favored by the Republican establishment. They’re both rising stars in the modern GOP, and, last weekend, they finished first and second place in a straw poll of conservatives’ pick of a presidential nominee for 2016.

And as they both maneuver to mount their own campaigns that year – or, at least, preserve the option of doing so – Sens. Rand Paul, R-Ky., and Marco Rubio, R-Fla., must share the spotlight. Intentionally or not, they’re already jockeying to do so.

Both senators have carefully worked to build their national profiles following the 2012 election, using high-profile opportunities to plot slightly different paths toward the same goal.

On no issue is that more apparent than immigration.

Rubio had joined with three other Senate Republicans and four Senate Democrats in recent months to forge a bipartisan framework on a comprehensive overhaul to immigration laws that would provide undocumented immigrants a pathway to citizenship. The Florida senator embarked on a media tour in the weeks following the framework’s unveiling to sell the plan to skeptical conservatives, doing the legwork to build political cover for the plan (and gain valuable exposure to the Republican base in the meanwhile).

Paul made clear with a speech on Tuesday – in which he unveiled his own plan creating an eventual pathway to citizenship – that Rubio isn’t the only GOP player on the issue. 

“Immigration reform will not occur until conservative Republicans, like myself, become part of the solution,” Paul told the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. “I am here today to begin that conversation.” 

Both Paul and Rubio might support the broader goal of immigration reform; they both took strides to carve out public roles for themselves in the process. 

For her part, Rubio ally Ana Navarro said the notion of a rivalry between the two men was “overblown by the media.” 

“Rand Paul is a leader in the Republican Party, and he should add his voice to the debate on immigration. His voice can and does make a difference,” she said. “The bottom line is, this is not an issue Marco or any one senator individually can or should carry alone on his shoulders. The more people helping to carry the ball, the more likely we will cross the finish line.” 

But while the two senators might not share a formal rivalry, they are undoubtedly two of the GOP’s biggest stars right now whose utterances alone command attention.

Look no further than last week’s Conservative Political Action Conference, where Paul and Rubio finished first and second, respectively, in the gathering’s closely-watched straw poll. A quarter of straw poll participants supported Paul and 23 percent threw their support behind Rubio. (The two gave back-to-back speeches on Thursday at CPAC.) The next closest finisher in the straw poll checked in at 7 percent.

The close finish between the two senators reflects all the work beyond immigration they’ve each done to burnish their profiles in 2013.

Republican leaders, of course, tapped Rubio to deliver their official response to President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address – a speech that was generally well received for its content, if ridiculed for the Florida senator’s awkward pause for a swig of bottled water.

Delivering the official Tea Party response to the State of the Union that very evening? None other than Paul.

Rubio has also built up his foreign policy credentials by taking a trip in February to Israel and Jordan, and delivering major policy addresses (including one about that trip abroad).

Paul, meanwhile, drew considerable attention for his filibuster of Obama’s nominee to head the CIA on March 6, a 13-hour affair that won him praise from fellow Republicans. (Rubio at one point appeared on the Senate floor to deliver his own remarks in favor of Paul’s efforts.)

"Rand has made progress with the filibuster," said Dave Carney, the chief strategist for Texas Gov. Rick Perry's presidential campaign and a political consultant based in the influential primary state of New Hampshire. "Neither one has huge advantage here as of now."

Both senators are undeniably positioning themselves with 2016 in mind. Paul is at least open about that, acknowledging his potential interest in seeking the Republican nomination (like his father, former Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas) in several interviews. The Iowa GOP on Tuesday announced that Paul would headline their Lincoln Day dinner, further stoking speculation.

Rubio’s team is quicker to downplay the Florida senator’s ambitions, dismissing any talk of a presidential campaign as far too premature, just a few months removed from the last campaign.

But as each of them jockey for pole position heading into 2016, it may fall to the differences between Rubio and Paul to distinguish themselves from each other. For starters, Paul tends to emphasize a more libertarian and cautious foreign policy, while Rubio has generally been more willing to strike hawkish tones.

Both senators’ CPAC speeches are also instructive in parsing out how they make their pitch to conservatives.

Paul made a firm appeal, for instance, to revolutionize the Republican Party, and return the GOP to its small-government, libertarian roots.

“They want leaders that won't feed them a line of crap or sell them short. They aren't afraid of individual liberty,” he said of the new generation of young conservatives, calling the current GOP establishment “stale and moss-covered.”

Rubio, by contrast, emphasized his own biography as the son of immigrants, and stressed aspirational tone in his speech to CPAC.

“We don’t need a new idea, the idea is America, and it still works,” the Florida senator said.

Did Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, R, endorse a pathway to citizenship in his speech before the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce this morning?

That’s what an Associated Press article previewing the speech said, as well as a report shortly before Paul’s speech published by Buzzfeed.

But the Kentucky senator made no mention of citizenship itself in his speech; he focused his remarks on the need for creating a “legal” status for the 12 million undocumented immigrants currently in the United States.

And an unnamed Paul adviser subsequently disputed to the Washington Post the idea that the popular conservative senator had, in fact, backed citizenship for undocumented immigrants.

“The AP story was wrong, which spurred a lot of erroneous reports,” the adviser told the Post. “He does not mention ‘path to citizenship’ in his speech at all.”

The difference between citizenship and legal status might seem semantic, but it is an important distinction in the legislative battle over comprehensive immigration reform. Democrats believe that citizenship is an essential element of any final deal, and the bipartisan “Group of Eight” in the Senate working toward a compromise includes such a path in its framework.

The speech was good enough to win praise from Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer, N.Y., a major Senate proponent of citizenship.

"The consensus continues to grow in favor of immigration reform that contains a path to citizenship," Schumer said in a statement. "While there are certainly differences between our emerging product and Senator Paul's outline, there is also a lot of common ground."

Paul explained the finer details of his plan to reporters following his speech. In essence, his plan would distribute indefinite work visas to qualified undocumented immigrants in stages, allowing them legal status in the United States. Once those workers have visas, they would then have the option of applying for citizenship – though not necessarily with any preferential or expedited pathway.

“You get in the same lines, you get in the line wherever you sign up, you don’t go to the front of any line,” he explained. “And I know that sounds silly, but front or back of the line seems to be this thing that’s really important to people. So what I would say is, you have the option to get in the line without going home. That’s the main difference from what we have now, as well as you get a work visa if you want to work.”

He also said he wasn’t necessarily comfortable with forcing those seeking citizenship to pay fines.

“And I’m not a huge fan of the fines, necessarily,” he said. “I think a lot of these immigrants are workers who don’t have a lot of money.”

A major sticking point, though, for Paul is subjecting certification of border security to a vote in Congress. In his plan, lawmakers would have an annual option to vote on an administration’s report that the border has been secured before moving forward with the visa process. He said he would try to amend the Group of Eight’s eventual legislation to include something like this.

“I want to try to amend their package, and I would likely vote for it if I could get mine on,” he said, adding that he wasn’t sure whether failing to do so would lose his support.

The conflicting comments and careful language, though, reflect the political difficulty for conservatives in embracing comprehensive immigration reform, especially if it involves a pathway to citizenship. And he took strides to quell those concerns in his speech.

“My plan will not grant amnesty or move anyone to the front of the line,” he said.

Saul Loeb / AFP - Getty Images file photo

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

In a video posted on the website of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay-rights group, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton comes out in favor of gay marriage.

These are her first comments backing gay marriage since leaving the State Department, and they could potentially hint at her 2016 ambitions. (After President Obama, Vice President Biden, and other Democrats have endorsed gay marriage, it's likely that the future Democratic nominee -- in 2016 and beyond -- will have to back it.)

"I support marriage for lesbian and gay couples," Clinton says in the video. "I support it personally and as a matter of policy and law embedded in a broader effort to advance equality and opportunity for LGBT Americans and for all Americans."

She continues, "Like so many others, my views have been shaped over time by people I have known and loved, by my experience representing our nation on the world stage, my devotion to law and human rights, and the guiding principles of my faith."