Democrats feeling pretty pumped about Obama’s commitment to help out with 2014

posted at 7:01 pm on February 9, 2013 by Erika Johnsen

Many Democrats have not been pleased with President Obama’s lack of involvement or interest in both them and their campaigns over the past few years, and have been getting increasingly restive about it — but certain House Dems left their three-day retreat yesterday apparently feeling enervated by the White House’s announced commitment to various fundraising events with the DCCC and the DSCC in 2013, and the promise of even more in 2014 as the midterms get closer, reports The Hill:

House Democrats left their three-day retreat speaking of unity and voicing confidence that President Obama will help them win back a majority in 2014. …

“The president absolutely ignited the Democratic caucus by announcing this massive commitment,” crowed an ebullient Rep. Steve Israel (N.Y.), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

The president, during a private session at the Lansdowne Resort on Thursday, pledged to host eight separate fund-raising events for House Democrats in 2013 and more in 2014. … He is giving equal support to the Senate Democrats’ campaign arm.

“Today he put his schedule where his heart is,” Israel said.

Yep, I’d say he certainly did put his schedule where his heart is, ’cause his heart is probably pretty set on on a successful and legacy-building second term, as Robert Shrum usefully illuminates over at the Daily Beast. He absolutely cannot afford to let the Democrats lose control of the Senate, and will want to pull out all of the stops to try and take back the House. An uber-liberal presidential agenda isn’t much good without a non-obstructionist, hostage-taking Congress to blithely pass it, you know.

President Obama may have to defy history—again. To pass much of his agenda for change, he not only will have to hold the Senate, but may have to gain the House in 2014, or come close, opening the way to what has eluded every two-term president in modern times—and at almost any time: a final two years of important, even historic, achievement in domestic affairs. …

But what can and should Barack Obama do to secure his landmark objectives and assure that his final two years aren’t a token presidency in the domestic arena? He will have to invoke the full persuasive power of the bully pulpit—and sustain the full firepower of his vaunted political organization in 2014. In effect, he will have to run all out for a third term in the midterms.

As Philip Klein points out, however, post-Civil War history is entirely against the president; he’d have to beat the traditional “six-year itch” that traditionally pits voters against the president’s party during his sixth year in office.

Liberal Kevin Drum at Mother Jones has argued that 2014 might break this trend. But I think it’s likely to hold, for several reasons. One, the redrawn Congressional maps are likely to protect Republicans at least until the second half of the decade. Two, the composition of the electorate in midterm elections is likely to be much more favorable to Republicans than the electorate Obama was able to galvanize during a presidential election year. Three, Obamacare’s major provisions will be implemented in 2014 and I’m betting against it going smoothly. This isn’t saying it can’t be done — seven such elections  is a pretty small sample size and Republicans aren’t exactly popular right now. But it’s still unlikely.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

And rather than tamping down the scandal situation, they’ve only fanned with flames with another week’s worth of questions and denials to come.

Sweet. How sweet it is.

Finally, Obama’s chikkinzzz are coming home to roost.

petefrt on May 19, 2013 at 8:22 PM

“We’re not crooks – we’re incompetent” is their battlecry. The water is circling the drain, Barry.

Philly on May 19, 2013 at 3:46 PM

This.

When you have to plead incompetence to defend against charges of malfeasance, you know you might be in trouble.

petefrt on May 19, 2013 at 8:36 PM

ear relevant…

driguana on May 19, 2013 at 8:59 PM

Flush this lying tudd down the drain with the rest of the Obamacrap.

kemojr on May 19, 2013 at 9:34 PM

This was Dan Pfeiffer’s week in the barrel, like Susan Rice he was given the White House talking points and sent on a mission. He really needs to get copies of these tapes and watch them and see how foolish and unbelievable he looked and sounded. The White House is losing the little credibility it still had by sending these shills out every week trying to do damage control. Community organizers make poor leaders.

savage24 on May 19, 2013 at 9:42 PM

Pfeiffer’s statement that the law is irrelevant because the IRS conduct was “outrageous” and “inexcusable”, tells us all we need to know about this administration.

However, the follow-up should have been, “On what standard do you judge their conduct to be outrageous and inexcusable since the law is apparently not an appropriate standard?” (At least in Pfeiffer’s mind.)

What this comes down to is this: “if the Administrative deems something “outrageous” and “inexcusable,” then it is declared such. As we have seen in so many other areas, if the Administrative deems something to not be “outrageous” and “inexcusable,” then it is declared such.

In their mind, the law is – in fact – irrelevant. That’s what makes this situation so dangerous.

It’s not socialism. It’s worse.

EdmundBurke247 on May 19, 2013 at 10:36 PM

Irrelevant = “What Difference Does It Make?”

jaydee_007 on May 19, 2013 at 10:41 PM

In their mind, the law is – in fact – irrelevant. That’s what makes this situation so dangerous.

It’s not socialism. It’s worse.

EdmundBurke247 on May 19, 2013 at 10:36 PM

A fitting capstone to Ed’s story about loss-prevention (aka employee theft) and management’s “permission structure” in this post.

(Not to mention the jaw-dropping statements of Eleanor Clift in this one.)

AesopFan on May 19, 2013 at 11:40 PM

I enjoy popcorn and hope it is a long week.

Drill and Fill on May 20, 2013 at 12:41 AM

Hey give Barky a break. He had to get his sorry ass out to Vegas.

tbear44 on May 20, 2013 at 4:49 AM

Of course they sent Pfeiffer out to do the Sunday shows. He was the most senior expendable staff member they had . . .

BigAlSouth on May 20, 2013 at 5:39 AM

BigAlSouth on May 20, 2013 at 5:39 AM

Pfeiffer… The guy with the red shirt in the landing party…

Boudica on May 20, 2013 at 5:53 AM

Irrelevant = “What Difference Does It Make?”

jaydee_007 on May 19, 2013 at 10:41 PM

Perfect!

lea on May 20, 2013 at 7:11 AM

Does anybody else remember the campaign in 2008 when Obama defended his lack of administrative experience by saying he was just so smart and tuned in that his instincts were better than experience. Someone needs to dredge up these sound bites and play then with the current line about the government being too large to control and that the White House only knows what it reads in the newspaper.

bartbeast on May 20, 2013 at 8:43 AM

If where the president was during the Benghazi crisis is “irrelevant”, then he wasn’t where one would expect the Commander-in-Chief to be. So, where was he? Was he watching a movie in the residence? Was he bowling? Or was he having a bi-curious outing with his good buddy Reggie Love? If Obama was AWOL, as I suspect he was, it is he who is irrelevant. This entire stinkin’ criminal Obama Regime must go and now!

SpiderMike on May 20, 2013 at 9:31 AM

Comment pages: 1 2