Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

kpete

(71,901 posts)
Thu May 30, 2013, 10:24 AM May 2013

Obama: Dems have ‘great chance’ of regaining House majority in 2014

Source: The Hill

Obama: Dems have ‘great chance’ of regaining House majority in 2014
By Meghashyam Mali - 05/30/13 06:53 AM ET

President Obama at a fundraiser in Chicago on Wednesday told Democratic donors the party had a “great chance” of retaking the House in 2014.

Speaking at an event for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) in his hometown, Obama blamed congressional Republicans for holding up his second-term agenda and urged supporters to redouble their efforts to win back the House.


“One of the best ways to work around it is to have a Democratic House of Representatives,” Obama said.

“We’ve got a great chance of taking back the House. And I’m going to be working tirelessly wherever I get the opportunity to make the case to the American people that our ideas are the right ones,” he added.





Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/302477-obama-dems-have-great-chance-of-regaining-house-majority-in-2014#ixzz2Umn2oMgj

49 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Obama: Dems have ‘great chance’ of regaining House majority in 2014 (Original Post) kpete May 2013 OP
18 is a number that is easily attainable. Michelle Bachmann's seat for instance. graham4anything May 2013 #1
Hardly "easily" FBaggins May 2013 #6
If Presidents Obama, Clinton and Clinton can convince everyone to come out everywhere graham4anything May 2013 #32
In 1986, Reagan's popularity was at 60% brooklynite May 2013 #33
I look FORWARD not backward. The demographics are different now graham4anything May 2013 #34
You didn't say "miracle"... you said "easily attanable" FBaggins May 2013 #35
18 is not a big number. The ins can be voted out (and the repubs are the ones in) graham4anything May 2013 #40
Michelle Bachmann's seat much less likely pickup with her retiring HERVEPA May 2013 #27
Not to be a downer. Ash_F May 2013 #2
Don't underestimate Pelosi BlueStreak May 2013 #4
Concur. sofa king May 2013 #16
The two sides of the Gerrymandering coin BlueStreak May 2013 #18
We need a candidate in every district. sofa king May 2013 #45
I absolutely agree BlueStreak May 2013 #46
Over 200 bills passed the House with Pelosi as Speaker. It was the most productive Liberal_Stalwart71 May 2013 #19
I not trying to blame Pelosi for anything. Ash_F May 2013 #44
That is WHY they demonize her BlueStreak May 2013 #47
Clean House Berlum May 2013 #3
the house repugs have given us an issue to use too. Botany May 2013 #5
Doubtful. Lazy Obama voters will stay home for the mid-terms again. onehandle May 2013 #7
This is true if, like in 2010, Obama demoralizes his base again. PSPS May 2013 #12
He demoralized the base? How? He faced obstruction every which way. Liberal_Stalwart71 May 2013 #21
By appointing Bush Republicans to run the FBI, for example Doctor_J May 2013 #49
People need to be inspired. Fearless May 2013 #29
And then complain when Obama can't get anything progressive passed through Congress. Liberal_Stalwart71 May 2013 #20
Not likely when all the republicans will be running on stoipping Obama bowens43 May 2013 #8
no they won't. Democratic voters have a problem with that, republican voters are motivated by still_one May 2013 #10
Follow the money highmindedhavi May 2013 #9
I didn't know President Obama was in Chicago. Major Hogwash May 2013 #11
Highly unlikely. Laelth May 2013 #13
Simply point out GOP votes on the Big Three. RedCloud May 2013 #14
The man is delusional Kelvin Mace May 2013 #15
Don't speak for me. President Obama is amazing! He's one of the greatest presidents we've ever Liberal_Stalwart71 May 2013 #22
Really? Kelvin Mace May 2013 #25
In my view, President Obama will go down in history as one of the greatest presidents this country Liberal_Stalwart71 May 2013 #30
Hey Liberal Stalwart.. Cha May 2013 #39
I've been getting demolished by the haters all day long but I'm hanging in there!! Liberal_Stalwart71 May 2013 #41
You're hangin in there Cha May 2013 #42
Yes, possible. The big difference is the economy. DCBob May 2013 #17
Need the turnout to be big or else it's 2010 again. muntrv May 2013 #23
If voters think Dems want to cut SS, then they'll stay home. closeupready May 2013 #24
Pelosi is a kick-ass Leader railsback May 2013 #26
Obama must be smoking weed again HERVEPA May 2013 #28
Why would he be wrong? Isn't it up to us? And look at the numbers: people distrust Republicans. Liberal_Stalwart71 May 2013 #31
People also hate Congress.....except for their own member brooklynite May 2013 #36
True. Liberal_Stalwart71 May 2013 #37
I'm glad President Obama is envisioning this.. I know he and OFA are Cha May 2013 #38
A Citizens United majority. Orsino May 2013 #43
This is total bullshit, BTW. He knows it, the donors know it. Makes good copy tho. nt Poll_Blind May 2013 #48

FBaggins

(26,697 posts)
6. Hardly "easily"
Thu May 30, 2013, 10:44 AM
May 2013

They did too well with redistricting and simply don't have many vulnerable seats. Moreover, the President's party hardly ever wins any net House seats in the second-term mid-cycle election. Usually they're lucky to limit their losses. There aren't currently 18 republican-held seats that are even considered potentially competitive this cycle.

Michelle Bachmann's seat for instance.

An open seat doesn't automatically become competitive. The MN 6th is an R+8 district. No easy task absent a badly damaged opponent.

 

graham4anything

(11,464 posts)
32. If Presidents Obama, Clinton and Clinton can convince everyone to come out everywhere
Thu May 30, 2013, 03:17 PM
May 2013

just because draconians run the governors offices, don't mean the people in the republican party will vote that way.

If the protest votes stay home, well, that vote will mean one more needed and as always, a protest vote won't help anything at all.

If 36% of the voters in a district come out, and 25% are the draconians, that means only 9%.
If 66% of the voters come out, and 25% are draconians, then 41% Is a winning number over 25

brooklynite

(93,878 posts)
33. In 1986, Reagan's popularity was at 60%
Thu May 30, 2013, 03:25 PM
May 2013

He'd just won a massive landslide election. And his pitch was: "you can't vote for me, but you can help me by voting for Republican candidates."

Didn't work

FBaggins

(26,697 posts)
35. You didn't say "miracle"... you said "easily attanable"
Thu May 30, 2013, 03:42 PM
May 2013

Sure... if we can convince all the right people to show up... we'll win. That's always the case.

It's just that that's pretty hard in a mid-term election (particularly second term). It isn't as if it hasn't been tried (almost every cycle).

As of right now, there's one R seat (the CA 31st) that's a tossup (with about half a dozen D seats rated there) and each side is defending another 10-12 that are in play (but not badly in danger). We would have to hold on to everything we have that's in play... and win all of their endangered seats... and still pick up a few that aren't thought to be in danger. That's a wave election (even if a small one), and those aren't likely just because the big guns try to GOTV.

To top it all off... the Senate could be in play - so we're going to spend most of our time/money/efforts to hold on there. There are five "D" seats in real danger and another half dozen that are at least potentially in play (with hardly any "R" seats even marginally within reach).

 

graham4anything

(11,464 posts)
40. 18 is not a big number. The ins can be voted out (and the repubs are the ones in)
Thu May 30, 2013, 04:31 PM
May 2013

all it takes is the voters to vote



 

HERVEPA

(6,107 posts)
27. Michelle Bachmann's seat much less likely pickup with her retiring
Thu May 30, 2013, 02:39 PM
May 2013

What are you smoking?

Check out Nate in 538 for more info.

Ash_F

(5,861 posts)
2. Not to be a downer.
Thu May 30, 2013, 10:29 AM
May 2013

But even with a majority a lot of Dems will just vote with the Pubs.

Dems need a BIG majority to get anything done.

 

BlueStreak

(8,377 posts)
4. Don't underestimate Pelosi
Thu May 30, 2013, 10:39 AM
May 2013

Often times when there are votes with many Dems wandering off, that was with the permission of the Speaker.

If we have a one-vote majority, we take over the agenda of the body and that is huge. If we have a 10-vote margin, Pelosi can get some meaningful things passed.

If Obama makes it painful on Republicans to obstruct everything, some of the GOP will vote our way on some bills.

sofa king

(10,857 posts)
16. Concur.
Thu May 30, 2013, 12:25 PM
May 2013

A one-vote majority in the House (while holding the Senate) would end all of the tail-chase investigations of the President and would allow Congressional Democrats to begin head-hunting for the campaign finance irregularities which appear to have benefited virtually all Republicans in 2012. Bachmann may only be the first of many Congressional Republicans who suddenly decide to retire.

It would cut months off of the appropriations process, because House Republicans would be unable to send up completely contradictory and unworkable appropriations bills. Conference Committees could complete their work in days instead of through weeks of heavy drinking in the basement of the Hawk and Dove.

It would cripple Republican delay tactics in the Senate, too, because without the threat of support from the House, several of the delay tactics (like killing sister-bills in Committee in the House) Republicans are currently using would be off the table.

But the most important thing, sadly enough, is this: once the House flips one more time, the Republicans are never going to get it back again. They currently balance precariously upon a carefully gerrymandered house of cards, but their own policies have ablated supporters, diluted the voting power of those that remain with them, and even killed off an entire generation of conservative voters several cycles earlier than once expected.

I've been boring you all for over three years about how President Obama and the Democrats have been playing a long game around the 2014 election and the attempt to secure an iron-clad Democratic majority for the last two years of President Obama's term. So far, my guess has proven to be largely correct (except those 500 electoral votes I thought the President could bag in 2012, ha ha). This move by the President is only the first overt move toward that objective.

 

BlueStreak

(8,377 posts)
18. The two sides of the Gerrymandering coin
Thu May 30, 2013, 01:24 PM
May 2013

I agree with you. Gerrymandering helps the GOP in the short term, but it hurts them in the longer term in two ways:

1) The demographics are changing rapidly. The old scared white men, the core of the GOP base, are dying, and they are not being replaced one-for-one with "like kind" voters. The GOP strategy has been to create a smaller number of very safe Dem districts at the expense of a larger number of "semi-safe" GOP districts. As this demographic shift continues, our safe districts will remain safe (assuming we field capable candidates that run good campaigns.) BUT some of those those "semi-safe" GOP districts are very definitely at risk as the demographics shift. In other words, the current situation puts more GOP districts at risk than Dem districts. No doubt 150 of the districts are pretty safe for the GOP for another 2 or 3 election cycles, but there will be 75 of their districts that come into range for us. And we only need 15-25 of them this go-around.

2) Gerrymandering has created the situation where moderates are just not welcome in the GOP. And as these demographics shift, the extremism of the GOP will really hurt them. It is just the ticket for holding on to those 150 really red districts, but ultimately it will be a loser for them.

We need leadership that recognizes these realities -- that understands that 2014 is very definitely winnable, and each successive cycle should be more to our advantage. Obama is giving some indication that he is starting to realize that. I do not share your view that this is all part of his great master plan. But it doesn't really matter. What's done is done. At this point, either Obama helps us win the House in 2014 or else he can enjoy the longest lame duck period in American history. He doesn't have any other option really.

sofa king

(10,857 posts)
45. We need a candidate in every district.
Fri May 31, 2013, 01:20 PM
May 2013

Dean's 50-state strategy is the perfect solution to this problem, I think. The President will be free to campaign in the hottest races, and even as a lame duck he'll still have coattails.

I think it is critically important to threaten the safest Republican districts as well as the most vulnerable.

From a behavioral point of view, the greed and fear of conservatives can be leveraged against them simply by providing a reasonable opponent in each one's back yard. Even the safest Republicans will prioritize their own challenged race over any others, thus ensuring that huge sums of money are retained by those shoo-ins and not dispersed among candidates with tougher races.

I further doubt the ability of Republicans to run a concerted national campaign any longer. Too many competing interests have powerful roles in Republican planning, too many Republican candidates and MOCs have spawned in the cesspools Republicans formerly only tapped for votes. They are now unified only by their fear and hatred and voters nationwide are tiring of both.

And then there is the burnt-hand theory of donations in the wake of the first Citizens United electoral disaster. Corporate interests pissed away billions in the last two elections and for many of them, their investment led directly to the loss of a trillion dollars in future income--for the defense industry alone! It led directly to the raising of taxes on the wealthy; it has reduced government handouts across the corporate spectrum, and now corporations have to deal with the problem of increasing profits in an improving economic climate, the creation of which they vehemently opposed.

They lost HUGE on Republicans, and are already getting rich off of the policies of this Democratic President. So I think it is entirely possible that corporate donations to Republican candidates will be a fraction of what it was last year.

I hope many Democratic candidates refuse corporate money, just to keep the jackals boxed out for a cycle.

 

BlueStreak

(8,377 posts)
46. I absolutely agree
Fri May 31, 2013, 03:29 PM
May 2013

It may take 3 or 4 cycles to win over the reddest districts, but we need to start the dialog now. Even if we don't win the reddest districts, if we start picking up 5% each cycle, this will start to make the right wing extremists question whether it is really safe and smart to be out there with the craziest, most extreme positions.

If I am winning 75% to 25% and never getting serious challenger, then I am free to be as crazy as I want to be. But if that tightens to 60/40, I have to start to wonder if the national Dems will target my district precisely BECAUSE I am an extremist radical. With a real focus, we can win some of the races that look like they are 64/40 against us, and that is enough to get many of those craziest to start looking over their shoulders.

Those 60/40 districts aren't the ones we go after hard in 2014, but we definitely should be recruiting good candidates in all of the "relatively safe red" districts. It is probably a waste of resources to worry about the 50 reddest districts at this stage.

 

Liberal_Stalwart71

(20,450 posts)
19. Over 200 bills passed the House with Pelosi as Speaker. It was the most productive
Thu May 30, 2013, 02:08 PM
May 2013

Congress ever!! The corporate media won't tell you that. They just want everyone to demonize Pelosi.

Ash_F

(5,861 posts)
44. I not trying to blame Pelosi for anything.
Fri May 31, 2013, 03:20 AM
May 2013

I just remember the last time Dems had the house, there was always this contingent of 10-15 Dems that would vote with the pubs often enough to be noticeable. Dems need maybe a 30 seat lead.

Botany

(70,291 posts)
5. the house repugs have given us an issue to use too.
Thu May 30, 2013, 10:41 AM
May 2013

House repugs voted to get rid of overtime pay.

onehandle

(51,122 posts)
7. Doubtful. Lazy Obama voters will stay home for the mid-terms again.
Thu May 30, 2013, 10:50 AM
May 2013

They saddled him with this Congress in 2010.

What makes anyone think 2014 will be different?

PSPS

(13,516 posts)
12. This is true if, like in 2010, Obama demoralizes his base again.
Thu May 30, 2013, 11:19 AM
May 2013

We don't need any more "president cave in" or elevation of war criminals.

 

Liberal_Stalwart71

(20,450 posts)
21. He demoralized the base? How? He faced obstruction every which way.
Thu May 30, 2013, 02:10 PM
May 2013

President Obama will be considered one of the greatest president's this nation has ever seen when it's call said and done.

 

Doctor_J

(36,392 posts)
49. By appointing Bush Republicans to run the FBI, for example
Fri May 31, 2013, 04:08 PM
May 2013

if you don't think this demoralizes some people who thought things were going to "Change", you're really far from reality

 

bowens43

(16,064 posts)
8. Not likely when all the republicans will be running on stoipping Obama
Thu May 30, 2013, 10:50 AM
May 2013

from cutting social security.

still_one

(91,965 posts)
10. no they won't. Democratic voters have a problem with that, republican voters are motivated by
Thu May 30, 2013, 11:00 AM
May 2013

animosity

There is no way republicans are going to run as the saviors of Social Security. The problem is, there are some Democrats in Congress who do not hold SS sacred, and that creates a real issue

Major Hogwash

(17,656 posts)
11. I didn't know President Obama was in Chicago.
Thu May 30, 2013, 11:06 AM
May 2013

He needs to get out of the house more often.
The White House, that is.

Hahahaha!!!

Yeah, I think the chances that the Democrats will get back control of the House Of Representatives is within reach.
I loves me some Obama.

O-bama, o-bama, o-bama.
The weird thing is, I was an Alabama football fan long before he ran for the White House.
So, changing the "Go 'Bama" chant was rather easy to do when he started running in 2007.



Laelth

(32,017 posts)
13. Highly unlikely.
Thu May 30, 2013, 11:19 AM
May 2013

Turn-out for Democrats in an off-season, mid-term election is, ordinarily, abysmally low. No reason to believe that 2014 will be different. We will be lucky to limit our losses.

That said, I fully support the President's stated desire to make history and actually pick up some House seats in 2014. I just think it's unlikely that we will pick up more than a few, and it's quite unrealistic to believe that we will actually gain control of the House.

But, what do I know?

-Laelth

RedCloud

(9,230 posts)
14. Simply point out GOP votes on the Big Three.
Thu May 30, 2013, 11:29 AM
May 2013

Remember that it happened in a century's old GOP district in New York? That turned Blue baby.

 

Kelvin Mace

(17,469 posts)
15. The man is delusional
Thu May 30, 2013, 12:20 PM
May 2013

But then we knew this. He also still seems to believe that the more he caters to Wall Street, the more they will help him.

The stock market has improved $12 trillion since March 2009, and yet Obama's reward for not prosecuting anyone and helping to suppress the Occupy Movement has been to see money continue to flow into his opponents coffers.

This is a new kind of stupid.

 

Liberal_Stalwart71

(20,450 posts)
22. Don't speak for me. President Obama is amazing! He's one of the greatest presidents we've ever
Thu May 30, 2013, 02:11 PM
May 2013

had! I know that makes you angry but it's the truth.

 

Kelvin Mace

(17,469 posts)
25. Really?
Thu May 30, 2013, 02:33 PM
May 2013

You have low standards for greatness.

He has not only refused to prosecute anyone for Bush era war crimes/civil rights violations, he has embraced and expanded many of those programs and made them his own. He has create the Obama Doctrine which states, the President of the United States may order the assassination of any citizen based solely on a secret process which he pinky swears is perfectly legal, despite the "legal" action being a prima facia violation of the 5th, 6th and 8 Amendment of the Constitution.

Despite promising to close Guantanamo, he has kept it open and now engaged in further civil rights violations of people who the even CIA/NSA/FBI/Pentagon have deemed innocent. (He is force-feeding hunger-strikers who have been held for over ten years without charge or trial)

Despite promising transparency by signing the STOCK Act, he quietly repealed the key provisions which prohibit members of congress (and the White House) from engaging in insider trading.

And this is just three examples of the more egregious immoral acts he has undertaken as president. There are dozens more examples.

Liberal Stalwart are you?

Then why would you praise a president to the Right of Nixon as the "greatest"

Angry? No, just bitterly disappointed that he is just like every other politician: bought and paid for by the people who paid for his election.

 

Liberal_Stalwart71

(20,450 posts)
30. In my view, President Obama will go down in history as one of the greatest presidents this country
Thu May 30, 2013, 02:45 PM
May 2013

has ever seen.

That's my opinion.

Thanks for sharing.

DCBob

(24,689 posts)
17. Yes, possible. The big difference is the economy.
Thu May 30, 2013, 12:28 PM
May 2013

I blame the recession more for Dems loses in 2010 than anything else. That issue is mostly off-the-table now. The GOPers will still try to make it an issue but most wont buy it since things are improving for most folks.

muntrv

(14,505 posts)
23. Need the turnout to be big or else it's 2010 again.
Thu May 30, 2013, 02:26 PM
May 2013

ON EDIT: Also, we need to get rid of the teabagging governors like Rick Snyder, John Kasich, Scott Walker, Rick Scott.

 

closeupready

(29,503 posts)
24. If voters think Dems want to cut SS, then they'll stay home.
Thu May 30, 2013, 02:28 PM
May 2013

Or many will, in protest. Or simply out of apathy, since it won't seem to matter what they do - Republicans always win, even when they lose.

 

railsback

(1,881 posts)
26. Pelosi is a kick-ass Leader
Thu May 30, 2013, 02:38 PM
May 2013

I don't think Boehner has even yet passed her first year of legislative pieces.

 

Liberal_Stalwart71

(20,450 posts)
31. Why would he be wrong? Isn't it up to us? And look at the numbers: people distrust Republicans.
Thu May 30, 2013, 02:48 PM
May 2013

The Republican leadership, Republican governors have low approval ratings (other than McDonnell who's term limited anyway). By contrast, look at the president's approval ratings. He's doing o.k. despite all the faux outrage.

At any rate, if the president were smoking weed, could you blame him considering all that he has faced?

Cha

(295,929 posts)
38. I'm glad President Obama is envisioning this.. I know he and OFA are
Thu May 30, 2013, 04:24 PM
May 2013

going to work their butts off to make this happen.

Those sitting around behind their keyboards saying it won't will have no effect on their efforts.

Pissing on a Positive outcome for the 2014 Elections are what Whiners do.

thanks kpete

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Obama: Dems have ‘great c...