With Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's beloved Louisville Cardinals playing in the Sweet 16 this week, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is up with a radio ad hitting the Kentucky Republican for being a Washington insider.

"And we're back... It's tournament time, but Sen. Mitch McConnell is playing for the Washington Special Interests against Kentucky," says the announcer in the ad, imitating a play-by-play sportscaster.

The ad comes one day after Ashley Judd announced that she would not mount a challenge against McConnell.

Democrats have since turned their attention to getting Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes to run.

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."

When House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan was asked why his latest budget repeals the 2010 federal health-care -- despite the results of last year's presidential election -- the former Republican vice-presidential running mate gave this answer.

"So just because the election didn't go our way," he told National Review," that means we're supposed to change our principles?"

But on the eve of the three-day Conference Political Action Conference (CPAC) that begins on Thursday in the DC area and that will hear from countless Republican politicians, Ryan's answer raises this follow-up question:

What principles -- beyond opposing President Obama's agenda?

Is the GOP a free-market party, or one that's willing to federally bail out the banks if the country is on the brink of another Great Depression?

Is it a party that believes in strong national defense, or is it willing to wage a nearly 13-hour filibuster to highlight how drones could infringe on civil liberties?

Is the GOP a party that stresses deficit reduction and balanced budgets above all else, or is it one willing to support unpaid-for wars and unpaid-for new entitlements?

Is it a party that favors comprehensive immigration reform, or that opposes it?

Does the GOP oppose tax increases, or will it vote for raising rates on the wealthiest Americans?

And is it a party that opposes gay marriage, or one that's becoming more accepting of it?

Yes, the GOP believes in lower taxes and less government. But as Politico's Jonathan Martin and Maggie Haberman write, many of the tensions above will be on display at CPAC as the party -- after its second-straight presidential loss -- finds itself in the midst of an "identity crisis."

"The pillars of the conservative era ushered in by Reagan — a muscular defense, traditional cultural values and devotion to free markets – are being questioned by leading Republicans, and what could take the place of the Gipper’s trinity is now being openly debated in a fashion more reminiscent of the famously fractious Democrats of yore."

Ryan, who speaks at CPAC on Friday, embodies many of these very tensions. He warns of deficits and debt, but supported the Iraq war, the Bush tax cuts, and the Medicare prescription-drug benefit. He believes in the free market, but voted for the Troubled Assets Relief Program (or TARP). And he now supports comprehensive immigration reform (and maybe even a path to citizenship), but was on a presidential ticket opposing it.

Of course, it's only natural for a party outside the White House to experience an identity crisis. After all, there's no one true leader to unify the different constituencies. And the one unifying force is opposing the president in power -- and that's true whether a Democrat or Republican sits in the Oval Office.

Indeed, after their second-straight presidential loss in 2004, Democrats faced a similar identity crisis. Should it strenuously oppose the Iraq war, or support it? Push for universal health care, or ignore it? Disagree with the Bush-era tax cuts, or call for them to expire?

Yet by the time the Democratic race for president began, the top candidates -- Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Bill Richardson -- were unified on all the big issues. They opposed the Iraq war; they supported universal health care; they were against the Bush tax cuts. That's why the Democratic primary was fought over the margins (like whether there should be a mandate for health insurance).

And for Republicans, that's the story to watch over the next couple of years. It's one thing for the party to experience an identity crisis in 2013 and 2014. It's another thing -- as Obama prepares to exit office -- to experience that in 2015 and 2016. 

During his presidential bids in 2008 and 2012, former Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) was an easy target for establishment Republicans to ridicule.

Many laughed at his demands to "end" the Federal Reserve and reinstitute the gold standard. At debates, they sometimes booed his non-interventionist views on foreign policy and national security. And he never won a single nominating contest during those two presidential runs, though he did rack up delegates in 2012.

But Paul -- and his son, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) -- could be the ones laughing now.

Indeed, Rand Paul's marathon filibuster on Wednesday against President Obama's pick to head the CIA -- joined by other GOP senators (including conservative stars like Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, as well as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell) -- was the latest evidence that the Pauls might have had a larger imprint on today's Republican Party than its last two presidential nominees.

Consider the libertarianism in the Tea Party, the calls to cut spending, the growing suspicion of the Federal Reserve, and some growing skepticism about the use of force.

That sounds much more like Ron Paul than John McCain or Mitt Romney. And son Rand is already being viewed as a potential 2016 presidential candidate.

But it also doesn't mean that all Republicans have jumped on board. On Thursday, McCain and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) took to the Senate floor to denounce Rand Paul's criticism of the Obama administration's drone program -- the issue at the heart of his filibuster.

"If Mr. Paul wants to be taken seriously, he needs to do more than pull political stunts that fire up impressionable libertarian kids in their college dorms," McCain said, quoting the conservative Wall Street Journal editorial page.

"To somehow allege or infer that the president of the United States is going to kill somebody like Jane Fonda or someone who disagrees with the policies is a stretch of imagination, which is frankly ridiculous," McCain added.

But that even this drone debate is taking place inside the GOP -- and that Cruz and Rubio joined Paul's filibuster -- shows the growing influence that the Pauls have had on the GOP and conservatism.

Over the last several years, the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll has chronicled a decline in the public's attitude about key institutions.

Fewer Americans have confidence in the U.S. Supreme Court, corporations, the federal government and the news media than they once had.  

But the most recent NBC/WSJ poll highlights another American institution that has lost its luster: the sports athlete.

According to the survey, only 42 percent of adults believe that athletes are good role models for children, versus 48 percent who disagree.

Why those numbers are so jaw-dropping: When another poll asked this exact same question in 1982, a whopping 75 percent of respondents said athletes are good role models, while just 19 percent said they weren't.

"That is a profound change over a generation," said Republican pollster Bill McInturff, who co-conducts the NBC/WSJ poll.

Of course, it's not difficult to explain the change. Just think about all of the scandals over the last few years involving performance-enhancing drugs or sex. Lance Armstrong. Barry Bonds. Tiger Woods. The list goes on.

And so does the decline in another American institution.

The NBC/WSJ poll was taken Feb. 21-24 of 1,000 adults (including 300 cell phone-only respondents), and it has a margin of error of plus-minus 3.1 percentage points.

Americans For Responsible Solutions, the gun-control group founded by former Rep. Gabby Giffords and her husband Mark Kelly, is airing TV ads in Arizona and Iowa to persuade Sens. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) and Chuck Grassley (R-IA) to back universal background checks.

"We have a problem -- where we shop, where we pray, where our children go to school," Giffords says to the camera in one of the ads. "But there are solutions we can agree on, even gun owners like us." The screen then says: "Tell Senator Grassley to support background checks."

Recommended: Jeb Bush lays down his marker

Grassley is the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee that's considering all the gun-control legislation, and Flake also is a member of the committee. (Flake also represents the state, Arizona, where Giffords once served as a congresswoman before she was shot by a gunman.)

The ads -- a combined six-figure ad buy through this week and next -- are almost carbon copies of the advertisements Americans For Responsible Solutions aired last month.

With the automatic across-the-board spending cuts set to begin on Friday, Americans are split over whether President Barack Obama is emphasizing unifying the country or taking a partisan approach, according to a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.

But by nearly a 3-to-1 margin, respondents conclude that the Republican Party is emphasizing partisanship more than unity.

In the poll, 48 percent say Obama is pursuing a path to unify the country in a bipartisan way, while 43 percent say he's taking a partisan approach that doesn't unify the country.

Recommended: Boehner blasts Senate Democrats for inaction

By comparison, 64 percent say the Republican Party is taking a partisan approach, versus 22 percent who say it's focused on unity.

As for the Democratic Party, a plurality of respondents -- by a 49 percent to 37 percent margin -- think it is emphasizing partisanship more than unity.

The full NBC/WSJ poll -- which was conducted Feb. 21-24 of 1,000 adults, and which has a margin of error of plus-minus 3.1 percentage points -- comes out beginning at 6:30 pm ET.

It's unclear if the tragic shooting at Connecticut's Sandy Hook Elementary School -- as well as the subsequent ones across the country -- will lead to passage of gun-control legislation in Congress. But they might have had this immediate result: transforming the politics and focus inside the Democratic Party, at least in solid-blue districts and states.

Look no farther than Tuesday's upcoming Democratic special congressional primary in Illinois to fill Jesse Jackson Jr.'s vacant seat in the Chicago area, where Cook County Chief Administrative Officer Robin Kelly has become the front-runner, thanks in large part to the issue of guns.

"Robin Kelly has spent her career fighting to get deadly weapons off our streets," goes one of her TV ads. "In Congress, Kelly will keep taking on the NRA, fighting to ban assault weapons and outlaw high-capacity ammunition clips."

Recommended: Third Republican comes out in support of Hagel; 15 others ask Obama to withdraw nomination

A super PAC funded by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Independence USA, has spent more than $2 million in the race to both endorse Kelly and knock two of her opponents with strong gun-rights records, including former Congresswoman Debbie Halvorson (the only white candidate running in this multi-candidate field).

"In the race to replace Jesse Jackson, watch out for Debbie Halvorson. When she was in Congress before, Halvorson got an 'A' from the NRA," argued an Independence USA TV ad, adding: "Debbie Halvorson -- when it comes to preventing gun violence, she gets an 'F.'"

Another ad by the group goes, "In the race for Congress, the big issue -- fighting gun violence. Debbie Halvorson and Toi Hutchison both earned an 'A' from the NRA. They can't be trusted."

(Hutchison has since dropped out of the race and has endorsed Kelly, providing more evidence that Kelly is the candidate to beat on Feb. 26.)

Recommended: GOP's weak position on the sequester

While this is just one race occurring in a city that has been plagued by gun violence, next week’s special primary highlights three important points:

1. The National Rifle Association has become anathema to many Democratic voters. That’s especially true in the wake of the organization’s combative public relations campaign after the Newtown shootings, which included the NRA invoking President Barack Obama’s daughters in an advertisement attacking the president. According to last month’s NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, just 20 percent of Democrats had a favorable view of the NRA, versus 57 percent who had an unfavorable view. (That’s compared with 64 percent of Republicans and even 49 percent of independents who hold a favorable view of the organization.) In past Democratic primaries, an NRA endorsement was either a badge of honor or something that at least wasn't viewed as a major liability. That may not be true anymore, at least in congressional districts like this one in Illinois.

2. Bloomberg’s organizations have become a countervailing force. Mark Glaze, the executive director for another Bloomberg organization, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, argues that one of the biggest reasons why gun-control laws have been weakened over the past decade is because “the NRA has been the only game in town.” But as the Illinois race has proved, Bloomberg’s groups are willing to spend millions in races on behalf of candidates supporting gun control. (Interestingly, the NRA has not spent money in this particular Democratic primary.) As one Democratic strategist tells First Read, “Candidates no longer have to fear the NRA mobilizing disproportionate force against them. They just need some backup.”

3. But does this apply outside of urban areas? That could be the biggest question moving forward after Tuesday’s race. While the NRA is unpopular with Democrats and while Bloomberg’s group have displayed their muscle, does that also hold true in places like West Virginia (where Democrats will be competing to replace retiring Sen. Jay Rockefeller) or even in Iowa (which has open Senate and House seats in 2014)? “West Virginia and Illinois will always be different,” Glaze says, noting that states like West Virginia have “more hunting, more guns, and less crime.” He adds, “That creates a different political dynamic.” Indeed, the NRA is running newspaper ads in states like Arkansas, Louisiana, and North Carolina -- where Democratic senators are running for re-election next year -- opposing the Obama administration’s gun-control proposals.

Here’s one of the eternal truths of American politics: The stories never stop, even after a presidential election.

So next month in South Carolina, former Republican Gov. Mark Sanford will run in a primary for his old congressional seat. Yes, that's the same Mark Sanford who was once supposed to be hiking the Appalachian Trail. Instead, he was with his Argentine mistress, sparking quite a scandal.

Then, later this spring in Massachusetts, there will be the race for the Senate seat vacated by new Secretary of State John Kerry. Yet with former Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass., declining to run, the seat will likely remain in Democratic hands.

And between now and the summer, there will be plenty of other races, legislative fights and controversies across the country to follow.

But as the political world begins turning its attention to the next presidential race -- still more than 1,300 days away -- no state will be more important to watch over the next four years than Florida.

It will be important to watch because of next year's gubernatorial race, which could be a contest between current Republican Gov. Rick Scott and Charlie Crist, a Democrat who once served as the state’s Republican governor.

It will be important to watch because two high-profile Floridians -- Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., and Jeb Bush, another former governor -- could very well run for president in 2016. 

And it will be important because Florida, with its growing Latino vote, has emerged as a state that Republicans have to win in order to triumph in future presidential elections.

Demography is destiny in Florida
The Sunshine State consists of different geographic regions, each with their own politics. There’s the conservative-leaning Panhandle, as well as the liberal-leaning southern part of the state (mixed with its fascinating Cuban-American politics).

And then there's that swing I-4 Corridor -- Orlando, Tampa, and St. Petersburg -- although the most recent elections have suggested the region might be less swing (and more Democratic leaning) than in past cycles.

But the most fascinating part of Florida isn't geography; it's its demography.

To understand Florida’s changing demographics and the growing power of the Latino vote, consider these statistics.

In 2012, Barack Obama won just 37 percent of the white vote in the state, which was five points worse than John Kerry in 2004.

But unlike Kerry, Obama won Florida. How did he do it? For one thing, the Latino population increased from 15 percent of Florida’s electorate in 2004 to 17 percent in 2012.

More importantly, Obama won 60 percent of those voters, versus Kerry losing them in ’04. Obama also won a majority of the Cuban-American vote.

That’s the demographic reality now facing the Republican Party, and why some national Republicans like Rubio and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., are working to pass comprehensive immigration reform. (It’s also why Florida has wanted to have an early role in GOP presidential nominating contests.)

As McCain recently said, “The Republican Party is losing the support of our Hispanic citizens."

And if Republicans can’t win Florida in presidential elections, it’s next to impossible to win the White House.

After all, a Democratic candidate winning just the three states of California, Florida and New York gets 113 electoral votes -- more than 40 percent of the necessary 270 electoral votes to win the presidency.

Scott vs. Crist?
After its losses in 2012, the first test of how the Republican Party is faring in Florida will be its competitive gubernatorial contest next year.

While the race is more than a year away, here are three sets of figures to keep in mind.

The first is 31 -- that’s the percentage of Floridians holding a favorable view of Republican Gov. Rick Scott, according to a December Quinnipiac poll. Compare that with 54 percent for President Obama and 47 percent for Republican-turned Democrat Charlie Crist.

The second number is 8.0 percent -- that’s Florida’s current unemployment rate. It’s a high number, slightly above U.S. average. But it’s down from the 10.9 percent it was when Scott first took office. That’s progress Rick Scott can point to.

The third and final number is 80 -- as in the $80 million Scott spent in his successful gubernatorial bid in 2010. That’s a lot of money, and money Democrats won’t be able to match. And it’s now being reported that Scott could spend as much as $100 million in next year’s race.

In addition to those three sets of numbers, there are three unresolved questions:

-- Does Charlie Crist run? If he does, he’d be the Democratic front-runner, despite his recent conversion to the Democratic Party.

-- Can Scott improve his standing with independent voters? In that December Quinnipiac poll, just 25 percent of independents had a favorable view of the governor.

-- And can Scott and Republicans make better inroads with the growing Latino vote?

2016: Rubio and Jeb
So that’s for 2014. But there’s another story already developing involving the Sunshine State – the 2016 presidential election.

Yes, it’s early. Yes, things are fluid. And, yes, everything right now is speculation. But it’s also clear that freshman Sen, Marco Rubio is more than eyeing a potential presidential bid.

As one Florida Democratic strategist told First Read: “I believe [Rubio] runs in 2016 for the same reason that President Obama ran in 2008 -- you never know when the window opens and closes.”

Rubio has assembled a top-notch staff. What’s more, he’s part of a group of bipartisan senators pushing for comprehensive immigration reform, whose principles are broadly supported by President Obama.

Rubio’s current task is selling this reform to prominent conservative voices like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity. 

And on Tuesday night, Rubio will be delivering the Republican response to President Obama’s State of the Union on Tuesday, which is a huge platform for the Florida senator.

But here’s the question for him: Does he run if another Floridian -- former Gov. Jeb Bush -- runs? Is there enough space for two Florida Republicans in a potential 2016 GOP primary?

As Buzzfeed recently wrote, “With their shared passion for immigration reform, overlapping donor networks, and long, healthy alliance, Rubio and Bush have put Miami's political class in the improbable position of having two ‘favorite sons’ in the top tier of 2016 speculation — and sources say both men are actively mulling it.

Indeed, there are indications Bush is at least considering a presidential run. Next month, he is scheduled to speak at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, DC, an annual cattle call that’s a must for potential Republican presidential candidates. And this will be the first time Bush has spoken to this group.

Jeb Bush. Marco Rubio. Rick Scott. Charlie Crist. Demographics. Close races (some decided by hanging chads).

Florida has been the place for some of America’s best political stories for more than a decade. And, it’s safe to say, that will continue over the next four years.

Editor’s note: This article was adapted from a recent speech the author gave at Flagler College in St. Augustine, Fla.