Last year, Democratic officials announced the 2012 Democratic National Convention will be held the week of September 3. What they still have not settled yet is where the convention will take place. Four cities are reported to be in contention: Charlotte, NC; Cleveland, OH; Minneapolis, MN; and St. Louis, MO.
Each city has its strengths and weaknesses as a convention city. By that, I mean things like hotels, entertainment, transportation, etc. I don't want to start civic pride wars over that. I would like to weigh the politics of the choice, however.
When Howard Dean chose Denver, CO, in early 2007 as the site for the Democratic National Convention, it was not the consensus choice of the political elite. At that time, the Washington powerbrokers would have much preferred a brief Acela ride to New York City. For many of them it would have been no trip at all. But Dean was focused on a 50-state strategy and that meant planting the Democratic flag in the Mountain West. By all accounts, the 2008 convention was a big success. Not only did it showcase a future president, but it could have been the nail in the coffin for John McCain's chances to win Colorado. President Obama carried Colorado by almost 10 points. Even in the most recent election, Colorado was one of the few Democratic bright spots in a Republican year. We beat the Tea Party in Colorado and in nearby Nevada.
The choice of where to place the convention must take into account how it will impact Democratic political fortunes.
Well, now that President Obama is in charge of the convention, it is only natural that the choice will be made relative to his political fortunes. So what are we looking at here?
Minneapolis
The Twin Cities hosted the Republican Convention in 2008 and by all accounts it was a good convention, thanks to the electrifying effect Sarah Palin had on the GOP base. But that move did little for McCain's fortunes in Minnesota. President Obama carried the state comfortably by 10 points, so it seems somewhat unlikely that President Obama will pick Minneapolis again. However, 2010 illustrated that the upper Midwest, and the Midwest generally, is the problem region for this president. It could make sense to go to Minneapolis, allowing staff and political advisors to get some face time with campaigners in Wisconsin. Get 'em fired up and ready to go...again. On the other hand, without a compelling Republican challenger, President Obama may feel some leeway to do what he did last time: expand the playing field.
St. Louis
Which brings us to St. Louis. For me, Missouri will always be remembered as "the one that got away." I remember watching the election results all night as Missouri tottered between Obama and McCain. In the end, Obama lost Missouri by a point, or just under 4,000 votes out of 2.8 million cast. I always feel like we could have turned that vote out and made Obama's 2008 sweep of the Midwest complete. So if there is any argument for Missouri, it is this: We wont let her get away this time. We're gonna show her, as they say. Senator Claire McCaskill has been particularly vocal in her advocacy for St. Louis, naturally. A convention offers a lot of opportunity to get some intimate contact with local voters and it is just a hop from Obama High Command in Chicago. Still, Senator McCaskill is "worried" about competition from the South.
Charlotte
And that brings us to the understood frontrunner, Charlotte. I'll admit to being biased towards Charlotte. I remember the city fondly from the road trip days of my youth. But politically as well, Charlotte makes sense. President Obama did something no Democrat has done in one seems like ages: He won North Carolina. Strengthening his position there puts him on offense in a state he has won before and that Republicans need if they are going to get back to a more G.W. Bush-like map. On the downside, playing in Charlotte could be a waste of time considering how solidly conservative the region is and that there is no spillover effect in neighboring South Carolina and Tennessee. But Charlotte as a choice most certainly would be as bold an in-you-face move as the president has on this list. He'd be telling the GOP: I'm in the South. Feel me?
Cleveland
Probably the least talked-about contender on the list should be the No. 1 contender. Democrats suffered a nuclear disaster in Ohio in 2010. The GOP swept the statewide races and kicked out five Democratic representatives to boot. If there is anywhere the party needs some repair to regain its footing, it is pivotal Ohio. Obama won Ohio by five points in 2008, and he seems to be in decent shape there right now. But I can't think of a good reason to skip over Cleveland, except this one: The president intends to campaign there early and often in 2012 to build up a big lead in the state so he can campaign elsewhere in the fall.
All of the four cities are excellent. There are a couple of others that I think should have been on the list: Phoenix, AZ, and Tampa, FL. Both cities would offer a real opportunity for Democrats to expand outreach and sew up the ever-expanding Latino vote. And Phoenix would make it clear to conservatives that we intend to stand and fight for the West. Of course, conventions being what they are, the TV will be the same no matter where the convention is held.