Obama with a House Stint

[Deleted member 109224]

President Obama's biggest issue, aside from being a bit big headed, was his lack of experience in Congress I think. When you account for how he started campaigning in 2006, he really only had 2/2.5 years in the Senate before being president. He had to rely a lot on others and did not have strong enough personal relationships and working relationships (or political muscle memory) to be effective early on when he was President. Once he only got so much done the first two or three years, he was stuck dealing with holdovers from that the next five or six years.

What if Barack Obama had won his 2000 house race, served two terms in Congress, and then run for Senate in 2004? Let's hold the broader political dynamic constant (still gets nominated in 2004, still gives the DNC speech, serves similarly as Senator as he historically did) for this thought experiment.

How would President Obama have been had be had more experience in Congress before being President?

 

[Deleted member 16736]

How would he vote in regard to the Iraq War, I wonder? IOTL he was against the war, but he had the advantage of not being in Congress at the time. That was a huge advantage for him in 2008 over Hillary, who had voted for the war. If his stance changes, he might not even make it to the party nomination as he wouldn't be quite the change candidate as he wound up being.

 

[David T]

I'd have to say that Obama probably never had much of a chance against Bobby Rush in 2000.

What sealed Obama's doom was no doubt missing a gun control vote in Springfield while on an extended Hawaiian vacation. (Obama later explained that he extended it because Malia, then 18 months old, became ill.) Most of the voters in the First Congressional District were probably unaware of Obama's Hawaiian roots, and the idea of escaping a Chicago winter by going to Hawaii is just a dream to most South Siders. It all played in with Rush's "plain folks like you and me versus some professor from Hyde Park" theme.

But even without Obama's missed vote, Rush would probably have won. Obama just was not well known enough outside his own state senatorial district.

 

[David T]

BTW, if somehow Obama had won the House seat in 2000, it is by no means clear he would have run for the Senate in 2004. He would have a safe congressional seat (at least in the general election, and there is no reason he would be particularly vulnerable in primaries) and might not want to give it up for what looked at the time like a long-shot Senate race. (By contrast, he had nothing to lose in OTL since his State Senate seat did not come up for re-election until 2006.)

Vey likely Obama would stay in the House and be typecast as a "black Congressman" representing a "black seat" (IL-01 was the first northern congressional district to elect an African American congressman, something it has done continuously since 1928) in a way he was not in OTL.

 

[Wallet]

Obama's first two years OTL were the most successful first two years of any president since FDR. He had a very good relationship with Reid and Peloski, they endorsed him over Hillary. I really doubt being in the House ATL would make him more successful

 

[David T]

How would he vote in regard to the Iraq War, I wonder? IOTL he was against the war, but he had the advantage of not being in Congress at the time. That was a huge advantage for him in 2008 over Hillary, who had voted for the war. If his stance changes, he might not even make it to the party nomination as he wouldn't be quite the change candidate as he wound up being.

IL-01 is as safe a Democratic district as there is in the US. There would be no risk whatever for Obama in voting against the authorization of force. In fact, every Illinois Democrat in the House voted against authorizing force except one from downstate (David Phelps). Every Democrat from the Chicago area--even the relatively conservative William Lipinski--voted No. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/107-2002/h455

If anything, in Obama's district, it would be politically riskier to support the war--it would almost guarantee a primary challenge.

 

[Deleted member 109224]

Obama's first two years OTL were the most successful first two years of any president since FDR. He had a very good relationship with Reid and Peloski, they endorsed him over Hillary. I really doubt being in the House ATL would make him more successful

And whereas FDR had 14 more years of effective governing, Obama was stuck dealing the quagmires of the first two years.

It's kind of a thought experiment... had Obama been more politically astute and more politically acculturated, could he have been even more transformational?

 

[Wallet]

And whereas FDR had 14 more years of effective governing, Obama was stuck dealing the quagmires of the first two years.

It's kind of a thought experiment... had Obama been more politically astute and more politically acculturated, could he have been even more transformational?

Like I said I doubt it. He should have campaigned more for House Democrats in 2010. Once the GOP took control of a branch of congress it became a quagmire. Keeping the House and Senate gets more done his first term, he gets reelected easier.

Maybe a House stint would make him campaign more for his fellow congressman. But like others said it could easily butterfly his presidency. He came to national prominence giving the keynote at the 2004 DNC. He was brand new to the national stage. If he was already a congressman, would he still get the keynote address? Would John Kerry still be the 2004 nominee? And what if Kerry wins? Anything could happen with a 2000 POD.

 

[Expat]

And whereas FDR had 14 more years of effective governing, Obama was stuck dealing the quagmires of the first two years.

It's kind of a thought experiment... had Obama been more politically astute and more politically acculturated, could he have been even more transformational?

Respectfully, I question this characterization of events. The strategy from Republicans to unconditionally oppose Obama was on the books before any policy proposals emerged. As Wallet said, as soon as the GOP gets control, everything shuts down. It hardly matters what Obama proposes; short of tax cuts, defense spending, or a sudden conversion to the pro-life camp, they were all set to propose the next thing that came out of his mouth (and even in those cases I have my doubts).

But could he have handled his first two years better with more experience? Almost certainly. ACA negotiations in the House *within* the Democratic caucus were contentious, he could've helped more there. And the same is certainly true of other major legislation like the stimulus.

Could a more effective-looking Democratic-controlled Congress have avoided losing the chamber in 2010 (and possibly hold it in subsequent elections)? It's possible. A backlash was to be expected, and to a significant extent a matter of perception rather than truth. But there's a school of thought that election outcomes are strongly tied to the appearance of effectiveness rather than the ideology or intent of the legislation approved. So if something passes "weakly" like the ACA, it looks weak and confusing to voters, whereas a big inexplicable tax cut rammed through Congress at midnight with no time for politicians to waffle on it looks strong. (I guess we'll test the truth of this hypothesis in November.)

If it turns out it's true that Obama with more experience does a better job of greasing the legislative wheels, and a "smoother" legislative process looks strong and worthy to some voters, you could lessen the Republican gains in 2010 to allow the Democrats to keep the chamber. (If a more experienced Obama avoided one or more of his biggest campaign gaffs and did marginally better in 2008, winning a handful more converts and swinging the closest few House seats into the D column, all the more likely.)

Obama without any major defeats by 2012 could REALLY reduce Republican enthusiasm for that election. With lower R turnout, we could see a more significant bounceback for the Dems in the House.

By this point it's hard to imagine what exactly the Republicans look like. On the one hand, the notion of returning to "regular order" (eyeroll) would be very strong, especially in the Senate. On the other, a movement like the Tea Party isn't just going to go away because the leaders it never fully trusted anyway haven't made any progress on their agenda. Four years is both an eternity and not very long at all in politics. I think some sort of deal might be worked out to make one more attempt for retaking Congress in 2014, and I would say they have a great chance for at least a small victory.

If they fail, god, who knows? I'm always quick to suggest schism because I think it's fun, but there's little historical evidence to suggest that's likely to happen. (But then, as is the constant reminder these days of we who work in Washington Town, stranger things have happened.)

BUT, all of that is conditional on the Democrats not losing the chamber in 2010. If a more experienced Obama only ends up helping on the margins, the OTL quagmire breeds anyway.