/

Obama supporters like this woman who showed up to cheer at a campaign event in Melbourne, Fla., on Sept. 9, may not realize how much personal data the organization collected, or what it's doing with it now.

President Barack Obama’s presidential campaign has turned over its most valuable asset — a massive computer database containing personal data on millions of American voters — to a new advocacy group created to advance the White House agenda on issues ranging from gun control to immigration reform. 

Organizing For Action (OFA), the advocacy group set up in recent weeks by the president’s top political aides, has already acquired access to the database under a leasing agreement with the Obama campaign, Katie Hogan, a former Obama campaign aide who is now serving as spokeswoman for the lobbying group, told NBC News. The information will be used to unleash an “army of the door knockers” to back the president’s legislative agenda as well as raise money for “issue ads” – particularly in crucial congressional districts, she said.  

As an opening salvo, the group on Friday urged the president’s supporters to call members of Congress in support of Obama’s gun control proposals, even offering a sample script of what they should say.

The creation of OFA, which is being chaired by former Obama campaign manager Jim Messina, is stirring controversy – both among public interest groups over the group’s plans to accept unlimited corporate donations, and among privacy advocates over the transfer of the database.

“It’s extremely worrisome,” said Lillie Coney, associate director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, noting that Obama campaign supporters likely have no idea that personal data they voluntarily shared with the campaign has now been transferred and is being used for purposes beyond the election.

Dubbed the “nuclear codes” by campaign aides, the Obama campaign database is widely described as one of the most powerful tools ever developed in American politics. According to published reports, it contains the names of at least 4 million Obama donors – as well as millions of others (the campaign has consistently refused to say how many) compiled from voter registration rolls and other public databases. In addition, the campaign used sophisticated computer programs — with code names like “Narwhal” — to collect information through social media: Anybody who contacted the campaign through Facebook had their friends and “likes” downloaded. If they contacted  the campaign website through mobile apps, cellphone numbers and address books were downloaded. Computer “cookies” captured Web browsing and online spending habits.

“I can’t think of anything that rivals this data,” said Coney, noting that much of the data was voluntarily supplied by voters, something that consumers are often reluctant to do when dealing with commercial companies. “The private sector would love to be able to do what the (Obama) campaign was able to do.”  

OFA spokeswoman Hogan said that Obama supporters have the option in emails they receive of opting out — or unsubscribing — from the list, as required by federal law. But critics say that is not necessarily an option for information collected about voters through other means (such as public databases) and note that many on the list likely don’t notice the “unsubscribe” fine print on the emails.

At the same time, OFA’s plans for corporate-backed lobbying of Congress have spurred sharp criticism from campaign reformers — a cause the president once championed. Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, a leading reform group, called OFA “dangerous and unprecedented,” noting that it has been set up under the same section of the tax code used by controversial GOP advocacy groups, such as Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS (as a 501(c)(4) “social welfare” nonprofit organization). This will allow the group to accept unlimited donations from wealthy individuals and corporations.

“With his decision to allow corporations to fund the new organizations that will operate as an arm of his presidency, President Obama has ‘given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money,’” said Wertheimer in a statement that quoted Obama’s own words two years ago to denounce the Citizens United Supreme Court decision striking down  many campaign finance limits. “This would take President Obama about as far away as he could possibly get from the goal he set in 2008 to change the way business is done in Washington.” 

Related: Nonprofit spends big on politics despite IRS limitation

In response to a request for comment, a White House spokesman emailed recent comments by top Obama political adviser David Plouffe to ABC’s George Stephanopoulos: “Yes, we will voluntarily disclose all of our donors,” Plouffe said. “And we're very excited. The people who actually made the president's campaign in both '08 and '12, our great grassroots volunteers, were pretty clear after the election they wanted to stay with it and they want to be out there organizing, driving message, holding people accountable on issues like immigration, you know, the deficit and jobs, gun safety.”

But how much the group will disclose about the source of its money is still unclear. There is no legal requirement for a 501(c)(4) group like OFA to do so. Hogan, the OFA spokeswoman, declined to say how often the group will make disclosures or whether it will report amounts that donors give or simply provide a list of contributors. (Such a list -- without amounts detailed -- was recently released by the Presidential Inaugural Committee.) “That’s still being worked out,” she said.

As if to underscore the role of major corporations in helping to underwrite OFA, the unveiling of the group came at a special invitation-only event on inaugural weekend at the Newseum, sponsored by Business Forward, a corporate-backed trade group close to the White House, according to a Politico account. Business Forward -- whose charter members include Citi, Dow Chemical, Duke Energy, Ford, Google and Comcast, majority-owner of NBCUniversal, parent company of NBC News -- had lobbied for the White House-backed fiscal cliff deal, specifically touting its tax breaks for businesses, such as write-offs for new capital investment and research and development credits, according to a statement on the group’s website.

“We need you. This president needs you,” Messina said at the launch event, according to the Politico account, adding that the national advisory board of OFA will be “filled with people in this room.”  

One corporate executive who attended the event told NBC News the roll out -- which featured a spirited talk by former President Bill Clinton on gun control -- drew numerous major Obama campaign bundlers and fundraisers, such as Obama campaign finance chairman Mathew Barzun (now reportedly a front-runner to be tapped for ambassador to the Court of St. James) and finance director Rufus Gifford.

“My takeaway from this was that they set this up to take advantage of the Citizens United decision and operate this outside the Democratic National Committee so they won’t have to file (election) reports,” said the executive, who asked not to be identified.

Hogan, the OFA spokeswoman, said that OFA will not run campaign ads — only “issue” ads that do not fall under the election laws.

But the underlying political purpose of the group is not disputed. “The way it’s organized, we legally can’t participate in elections,” Stephanie Cutter, a top Obama campaign official who now serves on the board of OFA, said at a recent Politico-sponsored inaugural event. “But that doesn’t mean the issues we’re organizing around won’t mobilize the American people to vote for things — to vote for that economy we’ve been working for, to vote for immigration reform, to vote for common sense gun reforms. I think we can affect elections, we just can’t legally be involved in them — for this particular organization.”

More from Open Channel:

• Fiscal cliff, elections boost spending on lobbying
• Gazing into 'dark pools,' the high-tech tool that enables insider stock trading
• Dermatologists blast tanning industry campaign to play down skin cancer fears

Follow Open Channel from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook

Jonathan Newton / Getty Image fi

K Street in Washington, D.C. home to many influential lobbying firms.

Congress’ fiscal cliff fiasco, a flurry of lame duck legislation and election-season politics drove some of the nation’s most powerful lobbying forces to double down on their governmental influence efforts late last year, newly filed reports show.

Such an uptick foreshadows what could be ever-more-aggressive lobbying on federal finances, taxation, energy and social issues like immigration and gun ownership as President Barack Obama enumerated in his inaugural address Monday.

The trend may end a prolonged lobbying spending slowdown largely prompted by Capitol Hill gridlock and a dearth of meaningful legislation receiving consideration during much of 2011 and 2012.

In all, about half of the year’s top 100 lobbying organizations spent more on lobbying in the fourth quarter of last year than in the third quarter. About half also showed an overall increase in spending for 2012, a Center for Public Integrity analysis of congressional disclosure reports and Center for Responsive Politics data indicates.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s year-over-year lobbying spending skyrocketed more than 88 percent, from $66.4 million to more than $125 million, to easily lead all other organizations.

Prominent business and financial lobbies, meanwhile, rank among organizations that spent significantly more during the fourth quarter of 2012 than they did during the third quarter, including the National Association of Realtors ($15.4 million from $9.8 million), the Business Roundtable ($4.8 million from $4 million), JPMorgan Chase and Co. ($3.2 million from $1.4 million) the American Bankers Association ($2.1 million from $1.8 million) and Visa ($1.7 million from $1.1 million), records show.

For the business roundtable, the jump represents an “intensified effort” to influence fiscal cliff negotiations, permanent normalized trade relations with Russia and tax reform, said Tita Freeman, an organization spokesperson.

But percentage-wise, the greatest lobbying spending growth late in 2012 comes from companies representing a variety of industries aghast at the package of automatic tax increases and spending cuts that had been slated for implementation had Congress not struck a last-minute deal to avoid them.

They include information technology behemoth Oracle Corp. ($1.8 million during the 4th quarter from $640,000 during the 3rd quarter), energy giant Southern Co. ($5.1 million from $2.5 million), Duke Energy ($2.3 million from $1.3 million) and Dow Chemical ($2.6 million from $1.6 million), according to congressional records.

Defense contractors Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon Co. and General Dynamics also reported moderate increases from the third quarter to the fourth. These and other companies that rely on government contracts stood to potentially lose billions of dollars had automatic federal spending cuts been put in place at the end of 2012.

While not yet among the nation’s biggest-spending lobbying forces, the National Rifle Association and the affiliated NRA Institute for Legislative Action together fueled their 2012 lobbying efforts with about $3 million – more money than during any other single year.

The NRA’s lobbying comes as the association finds itself in the midst of a nationwide conversation, and looming political battle, over gun ownership restrictions following the December massacre of 26 people at a Connecticut elementary school.

The gun rights lobby also faces a host of new and moneyed lobbying opponents this year, most notably organizations led by former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, independent. Pro-gun advocates have historically and exponentially outspent gun control interests.

Facebook, for its part, posted its priciest quarter ever — $1.4 million in the fourth quarter — and passed the seven-figure threshold for the first time during a three-month period. The social media company, which didn’t invest a cent in federally reportable lobbying until 2009, spent nearly $4 million in 2012, or about three times the $1.35 million it spent in 2011, and shows no indication its slowing its rapid expansion into the political sphere.

Generally, federal legislation, congressional activities and regulatory action prompt most lobbying spending, although recent dollar-figure spikes are caused, in part, by national elections.

Take the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Realtors.

The two business organizations are among a small group of lobbies that opt to disclose their state- and grassroots-level lobbying (and sometimes political organizing) costs alongside their federally focused efforts.

The pending disclosures do not, however, appear to include the tens of millions of dollars collectively spent on directly attacking or supporting political candidates, primarily through television and radio advertisements, during the 2012 election.

“Our 2012 lobbying figures reflect that it was an election year, where the Chamber engaged in an unprecedented voter education campaign to educate the public about candidates' positions on issues critical to free enterprise, such as health care, regulation, energy production and taxes,” Chamber spokeswoman Blair Latoff Holmes said.

The Realtors also engaged heavy political field organizing efforts, said Jamie Gregory, deputy chief lobbyist for the association, which reported $41.4 million in spending during 2012 in its federal lobbying reports.

That figure trailed only the Chamber and put it ahead of General Electric (General Electric is minority owner of NBCUniversal), the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, American Hospital Association, the Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America, Google, Northrop Grumman, AT&T and the American Medical Association among the nation’s top 10 lobbying spenders last year.

“Accordingly, we expect a drop in spending during 2013, and in 2014, expect it to go back up,” Gregory said.

(Comcast Corp., majority owner of NBCUniversal, spent $14.75 million on lobbying in 2012, a decrease of nearly 25 percent from the previous year, ranking it 15^th on the list.)

Several corporations known to have donated money to Obama’s inauguration committee are also among top lobbying forces of 2012: AT&T spent $17.4 million on federally reportable lobbying last year, followed by Southern Co. ($15.6 million), FedEx Corp. ($11.9 million), Microsoft ($8.1 million), and Coca-Cola ($4.8 million), disclosures show.

The Center for Public Integrity is a non-profit independent investigative news outlet.  To read more of its stories on this topic go to  http://www.publicintegrity.org/politics/consider-source 

More from Open Channel:

• Gazing into 'dark pools,' the high-tech tool that enables insider stock trading
• Dermatologists blast tanning industry campaign to play down skin cancer fears
• Air Force searches out porn, other 'offensive' materials on its bases

Follow Open Channel from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook 

Cliff Owen / AP

Gustavo Torres, director of Casa in Action, center, and others chant during a rally of immigration rights organizations, in front of the White House on Thursday. They called on President Barack Obama to fulfill his promise of passing comprehensive immigration reform.

Hispanic voters, who were instrumental in putting Barack Obama back in the White House, now hope the president will work diligently in his second term to cross some big to-dos off their legislative wish list: jobs, affordable education, health care access and immigration reform.

Hispanics voted for Obama over Mitt Romney by a resounding 71 percent to 27 percent and may have put him over the top in several key swing states. The total number of potential Hispanic voters this year reached a record 23.7 million – up about 80 percent since 2000 – and Hispanics now compose about 10 percent of the total electorate, according to the Pew Hispanic Center.

“The Latino electorate arrived Tuesday, there’s no question about it,” said Rafael Collazo, director of political campaigns for the National Council of La Raza. The organization, which bills itself as the largest national Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization in the United States, says it helped register more than 90,000 new Hispanic voters this year.

“States like Florida, Colorado, Nevada, Pennsylvania, even Ohio -- the Latino vote was a net gain for the preferred candidate and was the deciding factor or at least very, very close to being the decisive factor,” Collazo told NBC News.

"The Latino giant is wide awake, cranky and is taking names,” labor leader Eliseo Medina, of the Service Employees International Union, told NBC Latino. 

With the election behind them, Hispanics now want Obama and Congress to work on issues identified in surveys as their priorities – more jobs, affordable health care, access to higher education and immigration reform.

GOP faces immigration fight after election

The latter issue has been more important for Hispanics than for other U.S. voters, said Mark Hugo Lopez, associate director of the Pew Hispanic Center, a nonpartisan research organization.

Hispanic support for Obama was high even before he announced in June that the government will stop deporting, and begin granting work permits to, some undocumented immigrants who entered the U.S. as children.

“However, when it comes to asking Hispanics which party is more concerned for the Hispanic community, after the deferred action program was announced the (Democratic) share went from 45 to 61 percent – the highest we’ve measured in Pew Hispanic surveys in 10 years,”  Lopez said.

“In his acceptance speech, Obama mentioned that comprehensive immigration reform was something that needed to be addressed, and we’re going to hold him to that,” Collazo told NBC News.

The day after the election, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid promised to introduce an immigration reform package next year. He said if Republicans block the legislation, they would do so "at their peril."

Al Cardenas, chairman of the American Conservative Union and former chairman of the Republican Party in Florida, agreed that the immigration debate has been detrimental for the GOP.

“Across the board generationally and demographically, the immigration issue has become a wedge issue … because it’s become a litmus test of respect and caring in that community,” Cardenas said. “My advice for conservatives and the party as a whole is to get bipartisan immigration reform done in next 100 to 200 days.”

A survey of Hispanic voters by the firm Latino Decisions found that Hispanics pushed Obama over the top in Colorado, Florida and Nevada, swing states where they turned out in unusually high numbers.

Cardenas said the GOP can’t pay short shrift to minority groups if it wants to put a Republican in the White House.

NBC Latino: We voted – now let’s get to work, say Latinos after historic vote for Obama

“The so-called mainstream vote is no longer sufficient,” he said. “The coalition of all of these minority votes is a priority in these elections today. The Hispanic vote is the most numerically significant of all of these groups. We need to develop a precise, aggressive, winning political game plan to address that community.”

The Hispanic community is a diverse one, according to the Pew Center's Lopez:

• Country of origin: Among eligible Hispanic voters, 58 percent are Mexican Americans, 14 percent are Puerto Ricans, and 6 percent are Cubans. (The remainder are from Central and South America). Historically, Cubans have supported Republican candidates more than other Hispanic groups; in Florida this year, 49 percent of Cubans went for Obama and 47 percent for Romney.
• Youth: People ages 18-29 make up about a third of all eligible Hispanic voters, but just 20 percent of all general voters.
• Naturalized U.S. citizens: Among Hispanic eligible voters, 25 percent are immigrants who are naturalized. But among whites, only 3 percent are naturalized U.S. citizens.

Callazo said that despite this diversity, Hispanics displayed a rather consistent, Democratic-leaning voting pattern across many states.

“The numbers of how Latinos voted in Arizona compared to Ohio and Colorado were fairly close,” Callazo said.

“Yes, there are differences and nuances … but if you look at the polling and all the anecdotal work and the outreach we’ve done over the years, the core issues are very, very similar," he added.  "At end of day, Latino voters are voting for the candidate they feel will best reflect their values."

NBC Latino contributed to this story.

More content from NBCNews.com:

• Giffords, Kelly confront Tucson shooter in court
• Record snow, new power outages as storm slams Northeast
• Hail to the chief: Americans eyed in search for Britain's top rabbi
• Gov. Andrew Cuomo fires New York's emergency management chief, official says
• Man admits Election Day burglary of Nancy Pelosi house, cops say

Follow US news from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook

New Jersey election officials said Saturday that registered voters displaced by Hurricane Sandy will be able to vote by email -- an electronic process used by state residents who are overseas and service members, but a first for voters living in the state, NBCNewYork.com reported.

The directive is intended to help first responders kept away from home and their local polling places as well as those displaced by the storm.

More post-storm coverage at NBCNewYork.com

Election officials said they will also accept paper ballots through Monday, Nov. 19, as long as they're postmarked by Nov. 6, NBCNewYork.com reported.

"To help alleviate pressure on polling places, we encourage voters to either use electronic voting or the extended hours at county offices to cast their vote,” said Lt. Gov. Kim Guadagno.

Gov. Chris Christie said Friday that his administration is making sure residents can vote, even if their polling stations are without power or no longer exist. The state also will allow residents to drop by their county clerk's office to vote. A specially created text number will allow a voter to see if his or her polling place is still open.

NBCNewYork.com described the email voting system:

Essex County Clerk Chris Durkin told NBC 4 New York the program is being run on an honor system, relying on voters to only use the system if they truly can't get to his or her polling place.

The procedure, according to Durkin, will be to call or email the county clerk to get a ballot application emailed to you.

Once filled out, you email it back, then get the ballot itself emailed to you.

Durkin said you fill the ballot out and email it back, where it will be printed, held several days and cross checked to make sure you didn't vote some other way.

Since officials couldn't figure out a way to confirm a voters name and print the completed ballot witout an election worker looking the voters' choices while handling the ballots, voters will have to check off a waiver of privacy. 

News analysis

Updated at 5:41 a.m. ET on Nov. 7: Barack Obama faces no shortage of foreign challenges as he enters his second term as commander in chief.

While it is impossible to predict what may come, here’s a look at 10 issues likely to emerge as priorities for his administration:

1. Possible Afghan collapse/civil war
The Afghan government has been propped up by American and NATO troops and money but has failed in its basic functions of establishing national trust, security and unity. Afghanistan could devolve into a civil war as U.S. troops draw down in 2014, with old rivalries re-emerging between the north and south/southeast.

Once again, the country could be torn by an ethnic war between the Pashtuns and the now-defunct Northern Alliance, a legion of Tajik, Uzbek and Hazara militias. The risk is that Afghan security forces will then split along ethnic lines and President Hamid Karzai, whom critics accuse of being an uncooperative U.S. ally, could become an even greater liability.

On a recent visit to Afghanistan I spoke to some Tajik villagers outside Kabul, who promised me they would start fighting once American troops leave. They said they would battle a group of pro-Taliban Pashtun villagers nearby. When asked if Karzai's troops would be able to stop a clash, one tribal elder told me, "The corrupt government in Kabul? It can't do anything."

The dangers of an Afghan collapse are many: Afghan deaths, a loss of American prestige, a loss of NATO prestige, a moral blow to U.S. troops and veterans, a Taliban resurgence, huge setbacks for women, and greater power for Pakistan and Pakistani extremists.

Read more Afghanistan coverage from NBCNews.com

Slideshow: Afghanistan: Nation at a crossroads

Aref Karimi / AFP - Getty Images

More than ten years after the beginning of the war, Afghanistan faces external pressure to reform as well as ongoing internal conflicts.

Launch slideshow

2. Possible Iran implosion or explosion
Iran, which is being pushed to a breaking point by U.S.-led currency and banking sanctions, won't simply sit back and watch its economy crumble. Persia is 7,000 years old and will fight to survive.

The increasingly isolated country is likely to act in one of three ways: accommodation and negotiation, weaponization, or diversion.

Faced with the crippling sanctions, Iran could simply decide it is paying too high a cost to pursue its nuclear program and could opt for negotiations and reconciliation with the United States and other members of the international community. This is clearly the preferred option of American leaders.

The other possibilities are more problematic. Iran could rush toward a nuclear capability, deciding the best way to survive is to obtain weapons so horrific that no one would dare attack. A nuclear program has arguably worked as a deterrent for North Korea and other states -- would Moammar Gadhafi have been deposed and summarily killed if Libya had had nuclear weapons? Iranians might not think so.

Source: Back-channel talks but no US-Iran deal on one-to-one nuclear meeting

A less risky approach would be to provoke a diversionary conflict through Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, the Shiites in Bahrain, the Kurdistan Workers Party in Syria and Turkey, its position in the Strait of Hormuz -- or it could try to inflame anti-American and anti-Israeli sentiment.

Iran also could try to attack the American economy through sabotage or cyber warfare. Cornered as it is, Iran could become the aggressor instead of -- as it sees itself -- the passive victim.

Slideshow: Everyday life in Iran

At schools, in shops, and on the streets of big cities and small towns, daily life plays out in Iran.

Launch slideshow

How Iran acts is up to its choosing but it's hard to see how it won't act -- for better or worse -- as the sanctions continue to bite.

Read more Iran coverage from NBCNews.com

3. Rise of the Muslim Brotherhood
The Arab Spring has empowered the Muslim Brotherhood across the Middle East and beyond. It and other ideologically similar and allied groups run the governments of Egypt, Tunisia and Gaza.

In Syria, the Brotherhood has a strong presence among the rebels and in Yemen, it runs half the government and much of the state's day-to-day functions. In Jordan and Morocco, the Brotherhood is the main opposition to the countries' ruling royal families. In leaderless Libya, it is an increasingly organized voice. And in Algeria, the movement's officials warn that their revolution is coming.

The Muslim Brotherhood's influence in the Middle East is likely to evolve in one of two ways. Military regimes that have been pushed aside could fight back and launch counter-Islamic revolutions, clawing back the Brotherhood's gains and keeping it tied up in internal political battles. This is already starting to happen in Egypt.

Analysis: Egypt's big turn under the Muslim Brotherhood

Conversely, the Muslim Brotherhood could consolidate its gains and dominate electoral politics in the Middle East for the next several years.

For the United States, the rise of the Brotherhood is not in itself a major challenge. Most of its leaders say they want good relations and economic ties with Washington. The problem, however, is Israel. The Brotherhood is fundamentally anti-Israel, and Washington is fundamentally pro-Israel.

While analysts can debate which presidential candidate is closer to Israel, both have expressed their commitment to it and its security -- just as every U.S. president has done.

But the Muslim Brotherhood will not make the same commitments to Israel's integrity and security. While campaigning to win the election in Egypt, the Brotherhood held rallies featuring speakers who called for the restoration of the Islamic Caliphate with Jerusalem as its capital.

The Brotherhood does not understand why Washington chooses to befriend one small country at the expense of relations with millions of Arabs and over a billion Muslims. Washington rejects having to make this choice.

This rift could become a showdown and devolve into violence. The timing depends on American policy and outside provocations that can be either by design -- "peace" flotillas to Gaza, Hamas rockets, an Israeli assault on Gaza -- or by accident, such as bigoted and dumb Internet movies.

4. Cyber threat
The United States has spent a decade fighting terrorists with some notable and many debatable successes. But bombs aren't the only kind of threat. In fact, a successful cyber attack could cause national and international chaos far exceeding a bombing in a major U.S. city.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta recently warned about a possible cyber Pearl Harbor. Many military officials and analysts I know fully agree with him.

Panetta: Cyber intruders have already infiltrated US systems

5. Israeli strike on Iran
Israel may attack Iran's nuclear program if it believes sanctions are failing. The strike would likely delay but not stop the program, experts say. For the time being, Israel has decided to wait and see what impact the international sanctions have.

If Iran chooses a quick rush to make a bomb, Israel will most likely change course and opt for a military solution. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made that point abundantly clear when he drew a red line at the United Nations and held up a picture of a bomb.

Read more Israel coverage from NBCNews.com

6. Revival of al-Qaida/Ansar al-Sharia
Al-Qaida's leaders have been killed and hunted, but the group hasn't gone away. Many al-Qaida factions have re-branded themselves under a new name: Ansar al-Sharia (partisans of Islamic law). Some of the militants also are finding new comfortable homes in the post-Arab Spring Middle East, blending into Salafist (Sunni fundamentalist) movements.

7. Rift with Pakistan
Pakistan and the United States have been locked in an uncomfortable marriage since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, and arguably long before that.

US, Pakistan should 'divorce,' ex-ambassador to Washington says

Critics accuse Pakistan of taking American counter-terrorism money and military support, while at the same time supporting terrorist groups.

Slideshow: Pakistan: A nation in turmoil

Muhammed Muheisen / AP

Images of daily life, political pursuits, religious rites and deadly violence.

Launch slideshow

If the United States cuts off Pakistan -- which may happen as Washington becomes less reliant on Pakistani supply routes into Afghanistan -- Islamabad could become more belligerent, which would cause relations to deteriorate further. The withdrawal from Afghanistan will change the costly status quo that has existed with Pakistan since 9/11, and that change is unlikely to go smoothly.

Read more Pakistan coverage from NBCNews.com

8. Mexico and the growing war on drugs
According to some estimates, Mexico has become the most dangerous country in the world. Around 50,000 people have been killed in the country's drug wars. It is unclear if Mexico's President-elect Enrique Peña Nieto will be able to contain the violence, which has spread south to Central America and is showing signs of leaking north into the United States.

Read more Mexico coverage from NBCNews.com

Slideshow: Narco culture permeates Mexico, leaks across border

Mexico's drug war is also part of a drug culture with roots in music, movies and even religion

Launch slideshow

9. US 'pivot' to Asia/China slowdown
In 2011, China overtook Japan to become the world's second-largest economy after the United States. The Obama administration has acknowledged China's growing military and political power, and has pledged to "pivot" or deploy more than half of the U.S.' naval assets to the Asia-Pacific region by the end of the decade. This, some argue, has contributed to souring relations between the two powers.

Adding to the troubles, China isn't cheap anymore and Chinese workers are no longer as willing to accept poor conditions and little pay. Strikes are increasingly common. Removing dissent from Chinese Internet sites is a full-time job for government censors. Growth rates remain high, but the cost of living and labor demands are going up.

Factories are already moving out of China to cheaper labor markets in Indonesia and Bangladesh. If China's economic growth slows for a prolonged period, the world will be dramatically impacted. The country's economic expansion has driven up oil prices and has made parts of the Middle East, Russia and Brazil exceptionally rich. Could labor unrest threaten the ruling Communist Party's grip? Any move from this giant creates a huge wake that will quickly wash onto American shores.

Read more China coverage on NBC's Behind The Wall

10. United States: Drifting?
For a decade, the United States has made fighting terrorism its main foreign policy goal. This is by definition a reactionary policy and is limited in focus -- without a global vision or sense of destiny.

In contrast, American rivals appear to have grand plans in place. Russia, under President Vladimir Putin, seems intent on regaining its Soviet and Tsarist glory. Turkey is flexing its muscles regionally and is re-establishing some of its Ottoman legacy and prominence. China is looking to consolidate its hold on swathes of Asia and beyond.

Full coverage: NBCNews.com's The World is Watching series

But what does the United States want to do? What is our goal? It is impossible to be influential if we don't know where we are going -- and any malaise would be damaging to the national interest. World powers must move to survive. Drifting is sinking.

More election coverage from NBCNews.com:

• Victorious Obama 'more determined' in face of challenges
• Now that he's won, six splitting headaches waiting for Obama
• Democrats retain control of Senate with series of hard-fought wins
• One big winner in Tuesday's vote: health reform
• Romney's English cousin sad he lost, sort of
• Rape remarks sink two Republican Senate hopefuls
• In costliest-ever Senate race, Warren beats Brown for Mass. seat
• Maine's Harley-riding King vowed to 'shake up' D.C.
• Republicans easily maintain control of House
• Colorado, Washington approve recreational marijuana use
• Wisconsin's Baldwin becomes 1st openly gay senator
• Pence in as governor of Indiana; Hassan wins in N.H.
• World welcomes Obama's 2nd term - but many challenges loom
• Majority of voters see American on wrong track
• Top 10 foreign policy issues facing Obama

Follow NBC Politics on Twitter and Facebook