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.
Weve got a great chance of taking back the House. And Im 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
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)FBaggins
(26,697 posts)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)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)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
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)and just wait til 2016
FBaggins
(26,697 posts)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)all it takes is the voters to vote
HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)What are you smoking?
Check out Nate in 538 for more info.
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)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)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)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)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)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)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)Congress ever!! The corporate media won't tell you that. They just want everyone to demonize Pelosi.
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)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.
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)She gets things done, and that is threatening to the powers that be.
Berlum
(7,044 posts)Sweep the joint...
Botany
(70,291 posts)House repugs voted to get rid of overtime pay.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)They saddled him with this Congress in 2010.
What makes anyone think 2014 will be different?
PSPS
(13,516 posts)We don't need any more "president cave in" or elevation of war criminals.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)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)if you don't think this demoralizes some people who thought things were going to "Change", you're really far from reality
Fearless
(18,421 posts)They're not.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)bowens43
(16,064 posts)from cutting social security.
still_one
(91,965 posts)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
highmindedhavi
(355 posts)If Banks/Wall St are the main campaign donors, nothing changes.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)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)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)Remember that it happened in a century's old GOP district in New York? That turned Blue baby.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)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)had! I know that makes you angry but it's the truth.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)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)has ever seen.
That's my opinion.
Thanks for sharing.
Cha
(295,929 posts)You Go Girl!
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)Cha
(295,929 posts)Strong.. you're armed with facts.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)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)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)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)I don't think Boehner has even yet passed her first year of legislative pieces.
HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)Or is he really thaat out of touch.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)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?
brooklynite
(93,878 posts)Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)Cha
(295,929 posts)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
Orsino
(37,428 posts)Yeah, I'm hoping Dems win, but what sort of Dems will rule us?
Poll_Blind
(23,864 posts)PB