President Obama is bad at securing victories in elections when his name isn’t on the ballot.
In 2010, the most prolific fundraiser in the history of the Democratic Party was accused of not doing enough to help liberals keep control of both chambers of Congress. Four years later, red-state Democrats told him to stay away, relegating the commander in chief to the sidelines in what turned out to be another disastrous result.
The contrast in how Obama performed in his own elections versus those involving solely his allies has left Democrats to wonder how Obama can break the streak in 2016, when his tenure ends.
The White House insists that Obama will do everything possible to help the Democratic nominee in 2016, as that person will be tasked with preserving the accomplishments central to his legacy.
The candidate who emerges from the Democratic primary will have to somewhat embrace an agenda that has taken on a decidedly progressive streak recently.
Yet doubts remain about whether Obama can help his potential successor amass the coalition of minorities, millennials and women that Democrats need to win the White House in two years.
Others say the president has been either stingy or disinterested in using the tools at his disposal to help Democrats, something they doubt will change as the president eyes the exits.
In November, just a day after embarrassing losses in the midterms, then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s chief of staff blamed the White House for the dismal Democratic performance.
It was a belief that was hardly unique to Reid’s office.
“I think it’s remarkable how quickly Democrats blamed Obama for the midterm losses,” said Nathan Gonzales, editor and publisher of the Rothenberg & Gonzales Political Report. “I think one of the big question marks moving forward is how to make the Obama coalition work for another candidate and what role the president will play in that process.”
The White House counters that Obama has been an effective surrogate for Democrats.
Even with his approval ratings hovering around 40 percent in 2013, he broke records for fundraising. And already, Obama is absorbing plenty of flak for former secretary of state Hillary Clinton, the presumed frontrunner for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination.
Democrats know the Obama coalition is no sure bet to show up as it did in 2008 and 2012. Liberal leaders have talked about making inroads with voters increasingly migrating to the GOP, perhaps lessening the need to duplicate the turnout from the Obama presidential contests.
Some suggest that Clinton, for example, is a more appealing choice for the types of blue-collar, white voters who resisted Obama.
Analysts predict that Obama’s role in 2016 will come down to whether he is more interested in burnishing his own legacy or helping his party.
“Obama is quite a liberal guy,” said Jeremy Mayer, a political scientist at George Mason University. “On things like climate change, he’s going to have to decide whether to help himself or Hillary. She can’t fully embrace Obama.”
But it’s not just about the political climate in Obama’s final two years. Some Democrats worry that the president’s 2014 mindset was indicative of how he would approach 2016.
“Part of it is inevitable. You can’t expect the same results from 2008,” a veteran Democratic pollster told the Washington Examiner. “But to me, he just looks like a fundamentally different guy when it’s not his own ass on the line — and so does his team. He should be treating it like the national championship, but it seems like just another game to him.”
