Getty Images
It was largely heard behind the scenes, but there was a fair amount criticism among Democratic congressional candidates in 2012 that President Obama was focused too much on his election prospects, and not enough on theirs. The concerns were not without merit -- though Democrats fared quite well anyway, Obama and his team spent the year largely ignoring down-ballot races.
Looking ahead, the president has very different plans for 2014. Obama no longer has to worry about his own re-election, and he intends to take a keen interest in congressional races.
President Barack Obama has agreed to do more than just raise money for House Democrats' effort to win back the majority in 2014: He is also going to help with candidate recruitment.
Obama will headline eight fundraising events in 2013 for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and more fundraisers are planned for 2014. But Obama's agreement to help DCCC Chairman Steve Israel of New York make the sell to would-be candidates in targeted districts is also significant.
"It's transformational," Israel said in an interview, adding that House Democrats are "firing on all cylinders like I've never seen before."
The Roll Call piece suggests this is an even greater priority for the president than one might imagine. Remember Obama's victory speech in Chicago at 2 a.m. on Election Night? One of the very first things he did after leaving the stage was call Steve Israel and Nancy Pelosi, stressing his interest in the 2014 midterms.
Indeed, what the president has volunteered to do for Democratic candidates reportedly exceeds what party leaders had even asked him to do.
In late January, Messina got in touch. Israel carefully weighed his "ask" and hoped for the best. [Jim Messina, the president's top political aide] came back with more than Israel even expected. That included Obama's fundraising and recruitment help, as well as support from the president's political apparatus. Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. will be doing fundraising events on behalf of House Democrats as well.
While I don't doubt House Democrats are delighted to have this kind of backing, the it's unclear how much Team Obama can realistically expect to do.
Remember, in Election 2012, Democratic congressional candidates defeated Republican congressional candidates in raw vote totals by well over 1 million votes. It helped shrink the House GOP majority, but it wasn't nearly enough -- Republicans at the state level had carefully gerrymandered district lines so that GOP candidates would win, even if Democrats earned more votes.
Indeed, it was the central feature of the Republicans' "REDMAP" initiative, which they remain quite proud of.
Looking ahead to 2014, Democrats would need a net gain of 17 House seats to reclaim their majority. That's not at all an enormous number, but given just how few competitive districts remain, it's a real challenge.
That said, Obama knows all too well that success on this front will very likely make the difference between a successful second term and a frustrating one -- the only thing standing in the way of the White House's agenda is a radicalized House GOP majority. Is it any wonder the president wants to invest his energies in replacing it?
The hints of a Democratic campaign message are even starting to take shape: they intend to run against "chaos."
Democrats, facing a challenging fight to retake the House of Representatives in 2014, see a promising new line of attack rising out of the fiscal cliff follies: casting the Republican congressional majority as a terminally dysfunctional body that cannot perform the basic functions of government, let alone lead the country through difficult times.
It's easy to imagine the ads, asking voters if they remember the recent past, before there were frequent government-shutdown threats, debt-ceiling crises, and unbreakable gridlock.
It's a heavy lift, but Obama told House Dems last week, "I would expect that Nancy Pelosi is going to be Speaker again pretty soon."
Leave a Comment:
Please, oh please, oh please help recruit a great Democratic candidate for MD-1. Please.
Well, it's about freaking time the President noted that he needed the house. Despite the "learning experience" of 2010, there was zero focus on the House in 2012.
The pity was that if the Obama campaign had spend just a sliver of its one billion in financing on some of these races, we would have the house.
We have heard the inside the beltway excuse from the political hacks why their Dem candidates lost. It was redistricting! Well that's crap. Here are the facts:
If these persuadable voters were targeted in the manner that Obama targeted his voters, we could have easily picked up 27 seats, and Nancy would be Speaker NOW. So give me a break. Fire Steve Israel and put in someone who understands modern OFA style campaigning.
John, I don't know where you were for the last two years, but I thought Obama had to get re-elected. He had to do it with 80% of the media in the hands of a few .1%ers. He had to do it with the money of Citizens United marshalled against him. He even had to do with "progressive websites" asking its members not to contribute or volunteer for Obama. He had to do it when a major "news" network, Fox and the radio talkshow hosts like Limbaugh and Hannity were the only voices heard in market after market and in state after state. He got reelected and he brought more Democrats into the house and senate with him.
I worked hard in Iowa for the President's re-election and I know I was surprised when Republicans told me that they didn't like Obama. The voters that I and thousands of other Iowans registered and got to vote made the difference.
Keep in mind that Obama for America had the most sophisticated data base and voter turnout operation in history. Rest assured, Organizing for Action will get the job done in 2014. By the way, Steve israel did a great job in 2012 to increase the number of House Democrats.
Thanks for your work. I was under the impression that due to the complexity of hominid neural structures, we had achieved the capability of walking and chewing gum simultaneously. Since you have access to OFA records, you will see my support for the President goes back before his first election committee was formed, and was rather extreme in the 2008 campaign.
In 2012, I was working to get Nancy back in the drivers seat and would have appreciated a little more help.
Still waiting for an explanation of those 14 districts. A phone bank line for those districts to help the local candidate might have been nice. Say- Iowa's 3rd district went for Obama by 4 points, yet elected a GOP representative.
Explain why someone voting for Obama would vote for Tom Latham.
But no. Most Dems were focused on just one shining object, and now we must deal for 2 years with this bozo Boehner, while Nancy sits on the sidelines.
Brilliant.
We worked very hard for Bruce Braley who had a re-run against a T.E.A. who almost defeated himl in 2010. In 2012, Braley with Obama's organization had a run away victory. The Repubs won two seats because we shrunk from 5 to 4 congressional districts. One Repub incumbent defeated a Dem incumbent. The abortion issue won for the two Repubs.
2010 was won so overwhelmingly by the Repubs and it was a redistricting year. The Repubs didn't play fair as we would expect from the Koch-Rove-ALEC inspired state legislatures.
I am glad to hear of your long support for Barack. Keep up the good hard work and 2014 will be broadly blue.
Do you have any idea why some Obama voters voted for the republican- Latham in IA-3? Because as I said it was a clear Obama district by 4 points as shown in the above referenced spread sheet. It seems to me that if OFA callers were reminding people to support the Dem, Leonard Boswell, that it might have been some help. None of the scripts I ever read had any such recommendation.
So was it because the Boswell people didn't want help, or that no one wanted to help a not so progressive Dem (Boswell has an NRA A rating) or that no one really thought to help Boswell out?
Because that one baffles me. He was an incumbent and experienced, and the district when for Obama.
Given the current crop of
incompetentsincumbents in Congress, replacing them with Qualified Democrats should be easy.Of course, first we have to find some "Qualified Democrats".
It's all about turnout...
Yes.
People it's every two years!
The real concentration should be on the States like Florida,Michigan and Ohio where Republican legislatures and Governors are doing their best to disable the level playing field through redistricting and voter ID laws. Remember we had a plurality of votes in the house last election. With their handicapping , we are starting with a disadvantage.
It should be a 50 state strategy. Turn the red states blue. I can (and I believe will) be done.
My WildAssedGuess why? Bill Clinton asked him to 'pay it forward'.
President Obama began laying the groundwork for Democrats in 2014 with his SOTU address. Certainly Obama understands that the Republican congress will not pass the bulk of his agenda. But by proposing an agenda that the vast majority of the public already agrees with, Obama has provided Democrats with a number of issues that they can contrast with their opponents in 2014.
Let Republicans explain to their constituency why they oppose a minimum wage hike and an expansion of preschool and background checks for gun purchases and rebuilding our roads and bridges and investing in science and clean energy jobs and election reform. Good luck with that.
I think you're correct, I hope you're correct. Meanwhile, we still have no plans in place to reduce carbon load on the atmosphere.
It's nice and all that the President is going to help democrats try to gain more seats in Congress; but WE the PEOPLE must also become more engaged in our democracy. WE must attend these town halls, attend political rallies and start asking more questions about the issues of concern to US, along with demanding more from "our politicians". That is the only way that we're going to effect the changes that are so desperately needed in our politics! When politicians on both sides of the aisle see how much more engaged on the issues that WE are, they will have NO choice except to start responding!
Course WE also have to show up to vote!
The Dems need to talk about WHY the Republicans need to gerrymander districts, suppress the vote and restrict the Progressive vote. It's because they can't govern, have no ideas and are intellectually lazy and morally bankrupt. They think cheating is okay because it's how over-privileged, white, frat boys graduate from college and become Newt, George, Mitt and their ilk in Washington. The electorate needs to know....