Democrats in tough races in red and purple states would probably like nothing more than for Barack Obama to stop helping them.

While for some aspiring Democratic members of Congress, particularly those in states with a large population of African-American voters, the president serves as a key factor motivating partisan Democrats to turn out and vote on November 4, Obama may be doing the majority of his Democratic allies more harm than good.

This week, Obama appeared on a local radio station in Georgia where he expressed his support for surging Democratic Senate candidate Michelle Nunn. The president committed the critical error, however, of telling the truth when he said that a vote for Nunn is a vote for a Democratic Senate majority.

The White House seems to be aware that Obama stepped on a landmine that could cost Nunn some of the GOP support which has vaulted her over her Republican opponent in recent polls. According to The Hill, White House Press Sec Josh Earnest “suggested the president’s comments shouldn’t be taken literally.”

“The observation that he’s making is, even in a difficult environment, like Georgia, that a Democratic candidate can prevail, that that might be an indication that Democratic candidates in other races are faring well, too, in environments, where there is a stronger track record, at least recently, of electing more Democrats to statewide office,” Earnest said.

The White House spokesman added that Obama was “mindful of the electoral map and understands what will be required to reelect enough Democratic senators or to elect enough Democratic candidates.”

So, when Obama said “If Michelle Nunn wins, that means that Democrats keep control of the Senate,” he didn’t mean “If Michelle Nunn wins, that means that Democrats keep control of the Senate.” He was speaking in allusions, in fact, and with nearly unfathomable level of nuance meant to convey that Democrats should turn out to the polls in November with no particular objective in mind.

This embarrassing dance is almost certain to continue indefinitely. Obama has raised the ire of his Democratic allies by consistently undermining their efforts to project independence from the White House. The president’s insistence that his policies are on the ballot on November 4 and that those Democrats distancing themselves from him don’t really mean it have prompted unnamed Senate Democratic aides to express their frustration with Obama in the press.

The clearest indication yet that Democrats would prefer that Obama stop helping them came from Politico on Friday in an article which blamed the president and his general unpopularity for moving a slew of Senate races in the GOP’s direction.

“Each day seems to offer fresh polling bound to make Democrats nervous, showing that their candidates need to win a significant amount of support from voters who now disapprove of the president,” Politico reported. “With early voting underway, 2014 still can go either way, turning into a GOP wave, a narrow Republican victory or Democrats clinging to their majority — even if the GOP is heavily favored thanks in large part to Obama’s sagging approval ratings.”

As I wrote earlier this week, though, Democrats are in a bind. While the president is broadly unpopular, particularly with the likely midterm electorate, the party in power needs the president to motivate critical Democratic voting bloc; namely, African-American voters disinclined to turnout in non-presidential years. The answer to this conundrum thus far has been for Obama to personally microtarget African-American voters a message that the Democratic candidates for whom he is campaigning contradict on the stump.

This suboptimal strategy has thus far been enjoying limited successes.