An extremely short diary, but important today before events at the convention begin and the volume of content begins to overwhelm us, that:
Huge HAT TIP to Team Obama for picking Charlotte, NC for the convention.
As you may recall, Democrats were considering
Cleveland,
Minneapolis,
St. Louis and
Charlotte for the convention; these were the four finalists.
I'm an Ohioan and pulled at the time for Cleveland (which ended up being the runner-up). It's a city that has struggled mightily in recent years and is, hopefully, in the early stages of a renaissance. I don't know as much about Minneapolis or St. Louis, but by all accounts they are somewhat similar (though not nearly so badly off, I suspect).
But from a state-by-state electoral standpoint, Charlotte was hands down the right call.
Polls show Obama leading in Minnesota by double digits. To me, the optics of him heading up north following the GOP event down south would be one of retreat, to circling the wagons and having a safe convention in a safe state Obama was all but assured of winning. Bad.
Conversely, Missouri looks like a safe bet for the GOP, with recent polls averaging a Romney lead of six points. There is some flux there of course, on the heels of the Todd Akin controversy, and one never knows. But overall my sense is that the optics of a Missouri convention would be that of overreach, of Obama hubris trying to naively force a win in a state that was impossible to win. There's also the likelihood that a Missouri convention would have drawn even greater attention to Akin's remarks than there will be already (if that's possible), and while on the whole it's clearly a winning issue for Democrats, I think one runs the risk of having a "small" convention too focused on one issue rather than one that thinks big and looks at the whole picture.
Finally Cleveland. Ohio is certainly a battleground again this year, and a near must-win for anyone's winning coalition. It's a state that went for Obama in 2008 but swung hard to the right in 2010 in state offices and the governorship, and a convention here could have made a statement by Democrats eager to take it back.
But the state offices in question aren't on the ballot in 2012, so that desire would have felt misplaced. And every state officeholder, all Republicans, would have been working against him. And with polls showing Obama holding an oddly stable lead here (if only of 1-2 points), a convention here might again take on that "circling the wagons" feel. Gotta hold Ohio. Can't lose that one. Safe. Hesitant. Anxious.
* * * * *
Charlotte is different. North Carolina is the perfect battleground for Democrats this year. You can argue about whether Virginia is "the south" or not (to this Ohioan, it is), and some think of Florida as somehow not "the south" either, but there's no doubt about North Carolina. That's the south. Not Mississippi, but definitely the south. And Democrats are competing there now. Obama won it against all odds in 2008, by a hair, and would like to do so again. Polls show a tight race -- certainly in the 1-2 point range -- with Obama behind. So it's a reach -- but not a naive one, not a waste of money, not an overreach. Contesting it forces the GOP to spend here. And it's in the "hold" category, not the "new win" category.
Honestly if you skim down the list of RCP battleground states as of September 4, 2012, I'm not sure you could pick one better than NC.
All of this is to say kudos to the planners that decided more than a year ago to hold the convention there. The weather, the economy, the statements of others, international events, state-by-state polling, etc. -- all of these were unknowns, and they could just as easily have gotten unlucky. But they didn't. They got it right.
Can't wait to see what happens.
[short prediction below the jump for anyone interested]
My wife is a fairly typical middle-of-the-road independent. Intellectual, inclined to vote Dem, but open to being convinced not to. Her father talks up the right, I talk up the left; she gets both sides. We watched most of last week's primetime RNC, and we'll do the same this week I think. So I'm curious as to her reaction.
But my prediction is that she -- and millions more like her -- will be reminded how far we really HAVE come under Obama, and their vote will be solidified in the D column. I think a lot of undecideds are going to begin to decide after this week, and most of it will come simply from reminding them of all that actually has happened these last 3.5 years to their favor. Are you better off than you were four years ago?
Is that a serious question?
I can answer it incredibly easily: of course!
When Obama took office:
- we were spending billions every month in Iraq; he promised to end that war, and he has (independents' reaction: "Oh yeah -- I haven't been hearing headlines about Iraq imploding without us... I guess that went ok!)
- the economy was in freefall; he promised to create jobs and has (typical charts, figures, etc. -- "we lost nearly 800,000 jobs the month he took office, since then..." etc.)
- your taxes were higher; he promised to cut them and has (noting tax cuts in stimulus, multiple middle class tax cuts, other programs, small business tax cuts, IRS figures on lowest tax receipts on record, etc. etc. ("huh, that's not what I heard from the GOP... weird...")
- Osama was after us; Obama promised to go after him, he did, and he's gone. 'Nuff said.
- healthcare was killing this country; Obama promised to fix it, and he took a huge first step with ACA
.... and so on.
I disagree with the many pundits who hedge and wring their hands about whether we're better off or not, and how to state it, and how to spin it, etc.
I think it's easy to do that. I think the job this week is not to bash Romney and Ryan (though it's easy so why not?), or to lay out a particularly fresh and inspiring vision for the next four years.
I think Obama simply has to literally remind low-info, busy, not-really-paying-attention-ever-at-all voters WHAT HAS ACTUALLY HAPPENED over the last four years, and he'll get 70% of them in his column. "Oh yeah," they'll think, "things really WERE shitty." He never has to mention George W. Bush, he never has to blame Congress, he never has to scare anyone. He just has to say look, you elected me to do a lot. I've done a lot. There's more to do. Send me back, and I'll do more.
And obviously I think he wins NC again. :)