Pollster: Obama May Be The ‘Most Destructive’ President To His Own Party

Screen Shot 2014-11-04 at 4.44.03 PM

NEIL MUNRO
White House Correspondent

If pre-election polls prove true, President Barack Obama will have inflicted more midterm damage to his own party than any modern president, according to pollster Glen Bolger.

Obama is “likely to be [the] most destructive president to his party in mid-terms in recent political history,” according to Bolger, a founder of the GOP-aligned polling firm, Public Opinion Strategies.

He’s on track to lose 70 Democratic House seats and at least nine Senate seats that were held by his party when he was sworn into office Jan. 20, 2009, Bolger wrote in a blog post.

That’s worse than President Richard Nixon, who lost a total of 60 GOP-held House seats and three GOP-held Senate seats in the 1970 and 1974 midterms.

President Bill Clinton cost his party eight Senate seats and 47 House seats, largely because of his disastrous loss to Rep. Newt Gingrich in the 1994 midterm, when the GOP gained control of the House after a decade of Democratic control.

Obama has already lost 63 seats in his disastrous post-Obamacare midterm in 2010, when the tea party swept the GOP’s populist legislators and establishment leaders back into power.

Ob
That “shellacking” gives him a comfortable lead over Nixon’s 60-seat House loss.

Obama also lost six Senate seats in 2010, and he’s expected to lose another five to nine seats on Tuesday.

If he loses five in 2014, he will have lost 11 seats, giving him a large lead over Clinton’s loss of eight seats.

If Obama loses seven Senate seats, he’ll have a commanding lead of minus 13 Senate seats that may last for decades.

Surprisingly, George W. Bush has a much better record than Obama in midterm losses. He only lost 22 GOP House seats and four GOP Senate seats in 2002 and 2006.

Awkward: DNC Chair Can’t Name One Senate Race Where Obama Has Campaigned

DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz was unable to name a single Senate race in which President Obama has campaigned.

Bloomberg’s Mark Halperin asked Wasserman Schultz why Bill Clinton has been campaigning in competitive Senate races instead of Obama.

“The president is campaigning in competitive races during this election cycle,” Wasserman Schultz said, deliberately avoiding the word “Senate.”

After a slew of unsatisfying answers and some Deb-splaining, co-host John Heilemann made an effort to call Wasserman Schultz out for avoiding the crux of the question.

“But what competitive Senate races is the president campaigning in?” Heilemman asked. “Is there one?”

“There are races that the president is campaigning in around the country, and he’s also governing,” Wasserman Schultz said. “He’s doing his job and he’s also spent time recording robo calls, and doing radio spots, and making sure that our GOTV focus is aggressive as possible.”

Wasserman Schultz has made a concerted effort to distance the president from at-risk Democratic Senate candidates, constantly reiterating that “Barack Obama is not on the ballot.”

WIRE: Obama allies getting harder to find…

Screen Shot 2014-09-30 at 5.11.51 PM

BY JULIE PACE
AP WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama is finding himself with few friends in Washington.

His former Pentagon chief is criticizing his foreign policy. Longtime political advisers are questioning his campaign strategy. And Democrats locked in tough midterm campaigns don’t want Obama anywhere near them between now and Election Day.

The disenchantment with Obama is in part a reflection of inevitable fatigue with a president entering his final years in office. But some Democrats say it is also a consequence of the president’s insular approach to governing and his preference for relying on a small cadre of White House advisers, leaving him with few loyal allies on Capitol Hill or elsewhere.

“This president is supremely independent,” said Paul Begala, a Democratic strategist and longtime adviser to President Bill Clinton. “In many ways that is a very good thing. He probably came to the presidency owing less to other people than any president in memory. The risk is that independence can morph into isolation.”

While White House officials dispute the notion of an isolated or weakened president, there’s little doubt that Obama’s standing with the American people and his own party has fallen since his resounding re-election in 2012. Battered by a flurry of crises at home and abroad, the president’s approval rating has hovered near record lows for much of the year. His party is at risk of losing the Senate in the November midterms and not one Democrat locked in a close race has chosen to make a campaign appearance alongside the president thus far.

It’s against that backdrop that some of Obama’s longtime advisers have begun levying unsparing criticism, most notably Leon Panetta, the widely respected former congressman who served as CIA director and defense secretary in Obama’s first term. In a new memoir and a series of interviews, Panetta has taken aim at both Obama’s foreign policy decision-making and overall leadership skills.

Panetta writes that as Pentagon chief, he feared that Obama’s withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq in late 2011 could put that country at risk of becoming “a new haven for terrorists to plot attacks against the U.S.” The U.S. is now launching airstrikes against a militant group in Iraq, as well as Syria, that Obama administration officials warn could ultimately pose a threat to the West.

But Panetta’s most scathing critique is reserved for Obama’s leadership style. Writing about Obama’s inability to stop deep budget cuts at the Pentagon, Panetta said the episode reflected the president’s “most conspicuous weakness, a frustrating reticence to engage his opponents and rally support for his cause.”

“Too often, in my view, the president relies on the logic of a law professor rather than the passion of a leader,” Panetta added.

Panetta’s critique echoes regular complaints from lawmakers in both parties who say the president has made little effort to forge relationships on Capitol Hill and often keeps lawmakers out of the loop on decision-making. Indeed, the president rarely makes trips to Capitol Hill or socializes with lawmakers, preferring instead to spend his time with his family and a small team of longtime aides.

The president has repeatedly dismissed the notion that more extracurricular activities, particularly with Republicans, would help him muscle legislation through Congress.

“When I’m over here at the congressional picnic and folks are coming up and taking pictures with their family, I promise you, Michelle and I are very nice to them and we have a wonderful time,” Obama said last year. “But it doesn’t prevent them from going onto the floor of the House and blasting me for being a big-spending socialist.”

But the criticism from Panetta and others has suggested that Obama may not only lack a reserve of support outside the administration, but that he may also struggle to command loyalty from those who have advised him most closely.

Beyond Panetta, Obama has endured criticism of his foreign policy this year from two other former Cabinet secretaries: former Defense Secretary Robert Gates and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. On Sunday, Obama also took a hit from his longtime political adviser David Axelrod, who said Obama made “a mistake” when he said last week that his economic policies were on the ballot in November.

“I wouldn’t put that line there,” Axelrod said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

White House advisers and others close to the president have dismissed the flood of criticism and the distance from Democrats as part of the natural arc of the presidency.

“This is very much the product of the six-year itch,” said Anita Dunn, Obama’s former White House communications director. “If you’re sitting in the White House, you put your head down and you do your job and realize that at the end of the day, you still have two more years to do a great deal.”

But Jim Manley, a former senior adviser to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said that job may only get harder if Democrats in Washington turn even further away from the president as the race to replace him gets underway.

“The fact of the matter is the president and his team have done a pretty poor job of trying to build of a group of loyal Democrats,” Manley said. “They don’t have too deep of a well to dip into anymore.”