Despite the fact that Democrats have been able to take California for granted for a generation, I believe it would be a good idea for the party to hold their next national convention in San Francisco.
The City by the Bay was brought into the talk of potential 2016 convention sites last August when a California Democratic Campaign Strategist named Bob Mulholland urged San Francisco's Mayor Ed Lee to submit a bid to the Democratic National Committee.
San Francisco is no stranger when it comes to hosting national political conventions. It has hosted either a Democratic or Republican National Convention a total of four times, and the last time it hosted a Democratic Convention was in 1984 when Geraldine Ferraro became the first woman to run on a major party presidential ticket. With the likelihood that a certain former first lady will become the party's next Presidential nominee, that historical allusion would become all the more significant.
The conventional wisdom is that the Democrats should hold their next convention in a battleground state, such as Ohio. But 2012 may have proven that convention locations really don't matter that much anymore. Obama lost North Carolina despite his convention taking place in Charlotte, while Romney lost Florida despite having his convention in Tampa. I believe what's more important than the convention location is the message the convention sends. While a Democratic Convention in, say, Columbus, Ohio would send a message that the Democrats are serious about winning the Buckeye State and white-working class voters, having their convention in San Francisco would send the message that the Democratic Party is the party of gay rights. This is turn could boost turnout among millenials, one of the components of the Obama Coalition that also includes single women and non-white voters. As the country becomes less white, it is a better idea for the Democrats to spend more time enacting Get-out-the-vote efforts among the Obama Coalition than trying to win over swing voters.
San Francisco's reputation as a city of gay rights and gay activism is not as harmful as it once was when it comes to a potential bid. The country has come a long way in the past decade in terms of acceptance of gay rights. In 2004 Democrats treated then-San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom as a political pariah when he ordered marriage licenses to be issued to same-sex couples. But in 2012 Obama won re-election despite his support of same-sex marriage. He may have even won voters because of his support for same-sex marriage. And voters who voted against Obama because of that one issue probably wouldn't have voted for him anyway.
Another reason why I think the Democrats should hold their convention in San Francisco is the issue of money. Despite going off without a glitch, the last Democratic Convention in Charlotte ended up deeply in the red. It takes a lot of money to host a national political convention, which is why not every major city in America is rushing to host one. A convention in San Francisco has the potential to be well-funded and in the black thanks to Silicon-Valley Democratic donors, who have become a major donor group within the Democratic Party in par with Hollywood liberals.
As of this writing, Mayor Lee has yet to make a decision on whether or not to submit a bid. But I believe his city would be more helpful to the Democratic Party than any city in any swing-state could.
The City by the Bay was brought into the talk of potential 2016 convention sites last August when a California Democratic Campaign Strategist named Bob Mulholland urged San Francisco's Mayor Ed Lee to submit a bid to the Democratic National Committee.
San Francisco is no stranger when it comes to hosting national political conventions. It has hosted either a Democratic or Republican National Convention a total of four times, and the last time it hosted a Democratic Convention was in 1984 when Geraldine Ferraro became the first woman to run on a major party presidential ticket. With the likelihood that a certain former first lady will become the party's next Presidential nominee, that historical allusion would become all the more significant.
The conventional wisdom is that the Democrats should hold their next convention in a battleground state, such as Ohio. But 2012 may have proven that convention locations really don't matter that much anymore. Obama lost North Carolina despite his convention taking place in Charlotte, while Romney lost Florida despite having his convention in Tampa. I believe what's more important than the convention location is the message the convention sends. While a Democratic Convention in, say, Columbus, Ohio would send a message that the Democrats are serious about winning the Buckeye State and white-working class voters, having their convention in San Francisco would send the message that the Democratic Party is the party of gay rights. This is turn could boost turnout among millenials, one of the components of the Obama Coalition that also includes single women and non-white voters. As the country becomes less white, it is a better idea for the Democrats to spend more time enacting Get-out-the-vote efforts among the Obama Coalition than trying to win over swing voters.
San Francisco's reputation as a city of gay rights and gay activism is not as harmful as it once was when it comes to a potential bid. The country has come a long way in the past decade in terms of acceptance of gay rights. In 2004 Democrats treated then-San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom as a political pariah when he ordered marriage licenses to be issued to same-sex couples. But in 2012 Obama won re-election despite his support of same-sex marriage. He may have even won voters because of his support for same-sex marriage. And voters who voted against Obama because of that one issue probably wouldn't have voted for him anyway.
Another reason why I think the Democrats should hold their convention in San Francisco is the issue of money. Despite going off without a glitch, the last Democratic Convention in Charlotte ended up deeply in the red. It takes a lot of money to host a national political convention, which is why not every major city in America is rushing to host one. A convention in San Francisco has the potential to be well-funded and in the black thanks to Silicon-Valley Democratic donors, who have become a major donor group within the Democratic Party in par with Hollywood liberals.
As of this writing, Mayor Lee has yet to make a decision on whether or not to submit a bid. But I believe his city would be more helpful to the Democratic Party than any city in any swing-state could.
No comments:
Post a Comment