Charlotte, NC to Host 2012 Democratic Convention

Michelle Obama announced today that Charlotte, N.C. beat St. Louis, Cleveland and Minneapolis as the site of the Democratic National Convention in 2012.

Republicans have chosen Tampa.

< A Million People in the Streets of Cairo | Egypt's Mubarak Won't Run for Re-election >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Two conventions in the south (none / 0) (#1)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 10:40:07 AM EST
    Someone must think that's an important region to get votes from. Hmm.....

    Thinking and getting (none / 0) (#2)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 10:43:42 AM EST
    are two different things...

    And Charlotte is not that big. The place will be a zoo...'

    But everyone can run to Hickory and get some great deals of top end furniture.


    It's more (none / 0) (#4)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 10:48:53 AM EST
    about the status of choosing a place in the state of North Carolina.

    What's the state (none / 0) (#6)
    by cal1942 on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 11:18:46 AM EST
    of the furniture industry in NC these days, recession aside?

    We made a trip to NC in '94 and saved a lot of money on good stuff.

    I ask about the state of the industry there because I've noticed that some furniture is now being made overseas just like other manufactures.


    Not a Bad Choice (none / 0) (#3)
    by Dan the Man on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 10:46:26 AM EST
    Obama was able to win in 2008 in NC.  According to exit polls, Obama won by getting 95% of the black vote and 35% of the white vote.  So in NC, Obama doesn't need much white votes to win.  Just as long as he can get the black vote to come out for him, getting slightly over a third of the white vote might be all that's needed to win in NC.  If the GOP nominates Huckabee, I would expect Huckabee to win in NC.  But if the GOP nominates Romney, I would expect Obama has a pretty good chance in NC because of the anti-Mormon bias among many Southern white protestants.

    The anti-Mormon bias (none / 0) (#5)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 10:49:31 AM EST
    Might be outweighed by the Anti-Obama and Anti- Democrat votes.

    Yeah (none / 0) (#10)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 12:01:50 PM EST
    but you have to realize that many of the white people probably didn't show up in 2008. NC is precarious for Obama as is VA. He won the state by such low margins that I wouldn't expect him to win the state again no matter who the GOP nominee is though it will be closer if Romney is the nominee vs. Huckabee.

    Some may be thinking, tho... (none / 0) (#12)
    by christinep on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 12:14:53 PM EST
    that the demographics in North Carolina actually favor the Dems (and that the locale enhances coverage in nearby Va.) E.g., if Romney is the Repub nominee, the number of Repubs not so enamored of hime (see the routs in Repub 2008 primaries as well as articles about the decided lack of appear to evangelicals) might be tamped down. In a "I don't want either" contest, the incumbent gains an extra advantage.

    The locale (none / 0) (#13)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 12:18:34 PM EST
    is more for South Carolina - which Obama will not win.  Charlotte is on the southern border, and just because North Carolina borders Virginia, Charlotte is so far removed, it won't matter.  Even if it does "bleed into" Virginia, that's rural southern Virigina, and those people aren't going to vote for Obama either.

    SC is irrelevant even (none / 0) (#18)
    by brodie on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 12:39:32 PM EST
    if Charlotte is close to that border.  SC is not the question, that's solidly GOP.  And Charlotte being on the border is misleading -- in 2008 Mecklenburg County (Charlotte) went heavily for Obama.

    Obama is experiencing a noticeable comeback in NC accd'g to latest state polling (PPP) and also leads head-to-head against GOP contenders.  

    I kinda like the idea of the Dems playing down South in a state other than the usual FL convention destination.  


    The demographics (none / 0) (#14)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 12:22:18 PM EST
    in NC do not favor the Dems. They are actually unfavorable to dems and Obama's huge problems with working class whites is not going to help him in a lot of states and actually hurts him in places like NC.

    The PPP polls show Obama ahead (none / 0) (#19)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 12:40:10 PM EST
    at present in Virginia and North Carolina.  He won both last time.  He is ahead in both right now.  That is the state of the data.

    Perhaps things will change.  And everyone has his or her own anecdotal views....But the data is clear.


    The (none / 0) (#21)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 12:56:17 PM EST
    polls are not reliable when it comes to Obama for some reason. His approval rating was not bad enough to lose 60 plus seats in the house this past Nov. A 60 plus loss is for someone who has an approval rating below 40 and they don't show motivation right now.

    I'm arguing demographics are Obama's problem not his poll numbers. Unless he can rectify his demographic problems he is not carrying NC. A party of latte liberals and minorities which Obama has shrunk the party down to doesn't create a winning coalition for a state like NC.


    Could be, but the PPP polls (none / 0) (#24)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 01:02:55 PM EST
    were very good in 2010.  They were accurate in the Senate state-wide races in particular.....

    Sure, people tossed out the Democrats from the House--10% unemployment will do that.  But they have shown very little inclination to show Obama the door.


    It seems (none / 0) (#26)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 01:06:28 PM EST
    to me that the voters were showing him the door in 2010. He took one of the HUGEST losses in history in the house. I don't think that's exactly making Obama a shoo in for 2012. If he keeps up what he's been doing, he's going to deliver a trifecta for the GOP in 2012.

    Those minorities are the reason (none / 0) (#25)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 01:04:03 PM EST
    why Obama won Viriginia and North Carolina last time and why he is currently ahead.

    There (none / 0) (#27)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 01:09:02 PM EST
    aren't enough minorities in places like NC to carry Obama. He has to expand. Even the African American former Labor Commissioner here in GA said that the party cannot survive with just minorities and latte liberals. It has to expand it's base. We are back to the Dukakis coalition right now. Do you remember President Dukakis?

    You overstate (none / 0) (#29)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 01:16:17 PM EST
    Minorities and latte liberals--conservatives have been heaping scorn on these voters for a long time now--perhaps out of envy.

    Sure other voters are good too.  But there is very little data to show that Obama is in trouble right now.

    Obama seems likely to win re-election--given the current state of affairs. And even Rove seems to tacitly agree with (if not expressly state) that assessment...

    Of course, all could change with a terrorist attack or worsening economy.


    My point (none / 0) (#31)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 01:24:37 PM EST
    being is that there's nothing wrong with minorities but that you have to have more. Those demographics are not enough to deliver an election.

    And women abandoned him in mass last November too. There's no evidence that they'll show up either. No one wants to hear Roe V. Wade when Obama threw women under the bus to appease the Stupak coalition.

    I'm sorry but I just don't believe the polls on Obama after last November. He seems to over poll for some reason or his poll numbers simply don't translate into anything.

    And as far as Rove goes, he could be playing his game of saying that Obama's going to win to make people complacent. I would take what he says with a grain of salt. The guy should be in prison right now.


    There is no evidence of Obama (none / 0) (#32)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 01:28:48 PM EST
    ever "overpolling."  None.  He outperformed many polls in 2008.

    Gallup shows a positive job approval too.  Even Rasmussen, as biased as he is, shows Obama doing pretty well.

    On the one hand, we have almost all the pollsters showing the same thing.  On the other hand, we have your gut instinct.  

    This is just your construct.


    No (none / 0) (#36)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 01:37:35 PM EST
    I am going on the fact of what Obama's poll numbers were and what happened in November. That is the data that leads me to believe that his poll numbers are wrong. Have you ever considered the fact that people might be lying to pollsters so they won't be thought to be "racist" but when they actually get in the polling place, they don't vote for Obama?

    No--that is rubbish (none / 0) (#38)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 01:40:30 PM EST
    There has been no Bradley effect.  The data show that conclusively.  The polling has not overstated his support.

    Your suggestion is offensive.  Basically Obama is where he is just becasue he is African American....Conservatives say that stuff all the time....


    stop taking offense so easily (2.00 / 0) (#66)
    by TeresaInPa on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 04:12:03 PM EST
    a white guy who was as clueless to what he really believed as he was, who spoke so poorly on his/or her feet (and had to refuse to debate his opponent after she wiped the floor with him, who had so little experience, who ran for his next position the second he won an election, who specialized in knee capping his opponents so openly, who exploited sexism and racism so often, would never have been president of the USA.  
    But African Americans and guilty white liberals came together with independents who were worn out by Bush and they gave him the GE.  The independents are gone unless he goes even farther to the right.
    They left him in 2010 and they will leave again in 2012.  It all depends on how much of a republican he becomes.  Polling right now is completely meaningless.

    The other thing that happened in 2010 is that lots of elitist/guilty white liberals figured out that he was not even remotely liberal and they stayed home in droves.  That will probably happen again.


    More of the same rubbish (none / 0) (#73)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 05:16:12 PM EST
    Obama won just because he is Black.  

    Glenn Beck could not have said it any better.  


    No (none / 0) (#39)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 01:42:16 PM EST
    I'm saying that he should not have taken the shellacking he took with those numbers. So either people are lying to the pollsters or the polls are off. There's no other conclusion you can come to from November.

    Obama (none / 0) (#43)
    by lilburro on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 01:44:50 PM EST
    was not on the ballot in November...

    He was (none / 0) (#48)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 01:49:41 PM EST
    in every campaign ad I saw.

    Yes, that is what (none / 0) (#45)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 01:47:00 PM EST
    you say.

    Not what others say.  Not what the data says....

    You are saying that all the polls are wrong because they do not square with your theory that Obama should have done no worse than Reagan and Clinton in the midterms....

    The reason for the losses?  10% unemployment.  That is not so hard to fathom....What was the rate in 1994?  So, that's the difference between the midterm losses under Clinton and those under Obama....


    It's (none / 0) (#50)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 01:55:00 PM EST
    not a theory. It's a fact that we have approval ratings and seats lost. Even your beloved Rove did a whole spread sheet of that back in 2001 or so.

    Obama had a historic loss of seats. There's no debating that fact is there?

    Then if we are going by the unemployment rate Obama is a sure loser in '12 simply because from everything I have read things aren't supposed to get better until '14.

    And a President with a 10% unemployment rate shouldn't have a mid forties approval rating should he? I mean Carter had 10% unemployment and he didn't get reelected either and his approval rating was way less than Obama's.


    So maybe the approval rating is the salient (none / 0) (#77)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 06:11:28 PM EST
    piece of data?

    Carter's job approval was terrible, so he was not re-elected.  Obama's is not terrible so he has a better chance.....

    Your explanation of Obama's high (in your view) approval rating being based on white guilt or a Bradley effect is racist drivel.

    When all else fails, Occam's razor tends to work.  Job approval is the clearest piece of data we have.

    Perhaps it will change, but it is what we have now.

    Your theory that a President can't have a "mid forties approval rating with unemployment at 10%" is not shared by anyone else.  Your theory is a convoluted way of backstopping your bias against Obama...


    Why do (none / 0) (#42)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 01:44:20 PM EST
    you think Obama took a historic loss with those poll numbers then?

    The unemployment rate (none / 0) (#46)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 01:47:40 PM EST
    What you have a hard time (none / 0) (#49)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 01:52:08 PM EST
    imagining is that most Americans actually like Obama.  That is because you are biased against him.

    So, the voters sent Obama a message to do a better job on jobs.

    That is basically the message.  Not we want to elect a Republican as President.  That message could come if the economy worsens, but it has not yet been sent.


    Agree with MKS (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by lilburro on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 01:58:29 PM EST
    historic turnout, the unemployment rate, anti-incumbent sentiment generally, all had more to do with the results of the election.  I just think it's a mistake to read "we want to elect a Republican as President" out of an election in which he wasn't even on the ballot.  

    I also don't think the Bradley effect is happening.  After 2 years in office most people don't seem to worry about whether their views on him seem racist to others.  I would think Obama having been President for 2 years would have some affect on the possibility of the Bradley effect, anyway.


    I don't (none / 0) (#53)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 02:04:25 PM EST
    necessarily think that it means we want a Republican president. I'm just saying that Obama definitely was a factor in the historic loss in November. I mean the unemployment number was high because Obama failed to do the right thing about the economy and the botched HCR was something that was his fault too.

    And for a Republican to win, they can do it just like Bush did in 2004--they other guy is worse. I actually think this is Obama's strategy--the GOP is worse. It's the one he used in 2010 to terrible results. What is going to give people to vote for?

    He's had two years so far and hasn't done what is needed.


    And he (none / 0) (#51)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 01:57:30 PM EST
    missed the message. His answer has been to embrace the failed supply side economics even more. I agree that those people "like" or say they "like" Obama but apparently that doesn't translate into votes like was proven back in November.

    I think it's too early (none / 0) (#41)
    by lilburro on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 01:43:59 PM EST
    to read the polls, but c'mon, Obama's approval in November wasn't that awful (44/49), and my guess would be that people's feelings on Congress had more to do with the Congressional elections than anything else.  

    That's (none / 0) (#44)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 01:45:49 PM EST
    my point. His numbers weren't awful and the party took a historic shellacking. So what gives? The numbers had to be wrong. It wasn't like he wasn't part of the GOP campaign. They tied every Dem candidate to Obama.

    No, it was a Rove slip (none / 0) (#33)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 01:29:41 PM EST
    talking about 2016 as if Obama had won re-election.....

    Or take a look at Intrade (none / 0) (#35)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 01:35:32 PM EST
    They put Obama's re-election chances at 62.2%.

    You want to bet against the Irish?


    Intrade (none / 0) (#37)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 01:39:09 PM EST
    had Kerry winning at one point in 2004 didn't they? I'm sure they are saying that he's going to win because 1. we don't know who the GOP candidate is going to be and 2. he's the incumbent.

    Sure, all based on current data--which (none / 0) (#40)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 01:42:26 PM EST
    can change.

    Look, you wanted Obama to resign in March 2009 or thereabouts.  So, you are too biased to see what most everyone else sees--including professional opinion surveyors.


    I said (none / 0) (#47)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 01:49:00 PM EST
    Obama was not up to doing the job of President which he has proven more and more everyday. I did not say that in 2009. I said it after Obama had been in office for a year and had shown no tendency towards actually DOING the job of president and leading. He still DOESN'T lead. I don't think community organizing Washington has led to successful results has it?

    You have a post on March 25, 2009 (none / 0) (#56)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 02:22:53 PM EST
    and another one in early April 2009 saying that the American people would likely ask Obama to step down as President.

    In early April 2009, you also relentlessly bash Michelle Obama for the way she was dressed.

    You are too biased to have a credible view on the polls being wrong.


    You (none / 0) (#57)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 02:57:05 PM EST
    are saying that I said "the people" now. Before you said I said he should step down. Since I don't have time to research it, I imagine I probably said that people would ask Obama to step down if he couldn't fix things. He has not fixed things. The party has chosen to cling to him and not stand up to him and it has pretty much destroyed the party.

    Michelle Obama looked hideous in some turquoise outfit. My statement was if you want to be a fashion diva embrace it and get some help. It was like she wanted to have it both ways. She wanted to call herself a fashion diva yet look silly.

    Of course, it's easier to attack me than to debate the facts I see.


    "The people" was what you project (none / 0) (#58)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 03:03:57 PM EST
    on them....

    You are (none / 0) (#61)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 03:10:39 PM EST
    really out there. I'm sure when I said the "people" i either meant the people of this country OR the "people" who are party members. Your guilt is showing by your post.

    I was not so consumed for hatred (none / 0) (#75)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 05:35:52 PM EST
    of everything Obama that I would go out of my way to repeatedly bash Michelle Obama for what she wore....

    In terms of being out there, you have been calling for Obama to resign fro almost two years, either directly or through the guise of what you think the "people" want, which really is just you projecting your own beliefs.....  

    No one has suggeted that Obama resign--not even Palin or Glenn Beck.  It seems to me you are the one who is "out there."

    Guilt?  I remembered your post from two years ago pretty well.  Got the month, year and topic (resignation) right, and I think the fact that you were the one who wanted it to happen....


    Silly (none / 0) (#78)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 06:22:06 PM EST
    Everything she wore? Really it was just one bad outfit but apparently that sends you into oblivion. If you want to be a fashion diva like Michelle has claimed, embrace it and get help with your wardrobe. Don't try to be a fashion diva and then get upset when people critique what you are wearing. If you haven't noticed, most of the fashion "divas" have people who pick out their clothes for them anyway.

    Palin would never ask for Obama to step down because she likes the fact that the economy is failing and he has rewarded her with the continuation of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. I mean this is a win/win for people like her. She gets to get everything she wants and gets to keep poking at Obama behind twitter. Why would Beck want him to resign? I mean Obama walks around with a kick me sign on his back and someone like that is the perfect foil for Beck. They only want to get rid of Presidents that stand up to them not ones that beg for their approval.

    I called for Obama to step down because he has been an unmitigated disaster after one year. The situation in this country is so dire right now that we need leadership.

    Here's a quote from MLK that Obama should pay attention to:
    A genuine leader is not a searcher for consensus but a molder of consensus. We need leadership and Obama simply is not up to the job nor does he posses the ideology, if he even has any core beliefs, to take the country out of the current situation.

    Like I said, you are certainly welcome to make all the excuses for Obama that you want to.


    And how many others have called on (none / 0) (#80)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 06:24:19 PM EST
    Obama to resign?

    Well (none / 0) (#90)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 06:44:43 PM EST
    there have been several who have asked him not to run for reelection.

    I checked and could (none / 0) (#86)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 06:35:09 PM EST
    find nothing that said I said Obama should step down in 2009. I do remember saying it in 2010.

    Do you remember who was (none / 0) (#59)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 03:05:08 PM EST
    pushing the (nonexistent) "Whitey" tape?  It was Democrats who opposed Obama during the Primary...

    Oh (none / 0) (#60)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 03:08:48 PM EST
    geez. That chestnut. You are welcome to make all the excuses for Obama you want. I personally think his policy has stunk but then I don't embrace Reaganomics either.

    I had really low expectations for Obama but amazingly he has managed to turn out to be WORSE than I ever thought.


    Do you remember who was (none / 0) (#62)
    by Yman on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 03:47:30 PM EST
    pushing the (imagined) "darkened" video of Obama?  It was Obama supporters who screamed "Racist!" at anyone who didn't support Obama during the primary ...

    What's your point?


    The point goes back to bias (none / 0) (#74)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 05:18:00 PM EST
    Someone who is so biased that she lambastes Michelle Obama for what she wears, is not credible on saying all the polls are wrong...

    Really? (none / 0) (#76)
    by Yman on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 05:48:00 PM EST
    You had already touched on her criticism of MO's clothing choices.  Why bring up the "Whitey" tape?  Was Ga6thDem actually pushing the "Whitey" tape?


    Didn't think so.


    hmmmm (none / 0) (#67)
    by TeresaInPa on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 04:16:19 PM EST
    some one doesn't agree with you about Obama, he must be too biased to be able to think straight?  The same could be said of you being biased for Obama.  So why is anything you have said useful?

    If you make your arguments on data, (none / 0) (#72)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 05:12:01 PM EST
    that is one thing.

    If you make your arguments contrary to the data, based on your own view, different issue.


    The problems (none / 0) (#79)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 06:24:07 PM EST
    aren't that they are contrary to data. I'm using Obama's approval numbers and actual election results. That is data.

    How many others say there is a (none / 0) (#82)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 06:28:08 PM EST
    flaw in Obama's approval numbers?

    You mix polls.....Not good methodology.


    Nope (none / 0) (#83)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 06:32:23 PM EST
    not mixing polls. Just saying what the approval numbers were in Nov and what happened. What happened doesn't jive with the numbers.

    who shares your view? (none / 0) (#85)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 06:33:56 PM EST
    Are the pollsters (none / 0) (#87)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 06:38:05 PM EST
    going to say that they were wrong on Obama's approval rating? No, that will only happen if he loses election and then they will have to examine it. People should be talking about this.

    "People" (none / 0) (#92)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 06:53:49 PM EST
    I have asked you repeatedly to say who else shares your views....

    And you respond with the generic "people" should discuss this.....That seems very close to your statement in March 2009 that "people" would be calling for Obama to resign--which you admit to doing in 2010.

    "People" is you.  


    I found (none / 0) (#93)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 07:11:32 PM EST
    no such comment when I searched. People should be calling for him to resign because he seems completely incapable or unwilling to do what the country needs done. The party seems willing to be destroyed but I thought they wouldn't want to be destroyed.

    Here you go (none / 0) (#96)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 07:27:48 PM EST

    Here is the March 25, 2009 comment that I referred to earlier:

    Sorry (none / 0) (#81)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 01:26:13 PM EST

    I'm not into blind hope. I'm not going to sit around and sing kumbaya about a plan that robs the taxpayers blind and then hopes it works. You're pretty much saying that all there is.
    Well, if what you say is true and it can't be changed then the country, the party and Obama is sunk. The odds of this working are so slim that you should plan on people starting to advocate that Obama should step down a President.
    The add ons DO NOT enhance the product. You are grasping at straws with that kind of argument. Both of the plans are bailouts. The fact that a few of the details are changed really does all of sudden make it worthy

     Emphasis Added.

    And here is the early April 2009 comment that I referred to:

    At what point (5.00 / 11) (#3)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 01, 2009 at 09:27:10 AM EST

    is Obama going to have done enough to start losing the support of the people who have been with him since the primaries? He's not going to listen to anything you guys tell him because the majority of you guys never made him listen to you. He was able to do whatever he wanted and no one felt that he should be held accountable ever. Well now we have the fruit of all that coming to pass. Is there a point where Obama has passed enought Reaganesque plans that people are going to ask him to step down?

    Emphasis Added.

    You then drop the reference to "people" asking him to step down and admit you do that yourself (without standing behind the defensive cloak of the "people") in 2010.


    You initially (none / 0) (#98)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 07:30:56 PM EST
    said I called for him to step down which I DID NOT. I predicted that people would be calling for him to step down but I thought that people would not be willing to put up with all that they have.

    You owe me an apology for misstating what I said.


    No, I do not (none / 0) (#101)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 07:36:09 PM EST
    My first comment was from recollection--which was pretty good....Right month, right year, right subject, right commentator...and two years after the fact.

    And I have argued that when you refer to "people" you are referring to yourself....The Royal We, so to speak....

    And, you wanted him to resign according to your own admission one year into his term.....


    No (none / 0) (#106)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 07:44:24 PM EST
    you are making that up. When I say "people" is talking about party members, rank and file voters etc. I did DIRECTLY call for Obama to step down in 2010 after he had shown a year of complete failure. You are trying to twist what I said to make it be what you want it to be. You should apologize.

    I told (none / 0) (#94)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 07:13:08 PM EST
    you that several people have said that Obama should not run for reelection. That's pretty close to saying he should resign in my book.

    "there's nothing wrong with (none / 0) (#84)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 06:33:22 PM EST

    You do sound quite dismissive....


    I was (none / 0) (#88)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 06:39:30 PM EST
    just replying to what you were saying. You apparently want to turn everything into a racial incident. You guys remind me of the Bushies who screamed "traitor" at every criticism of Obama.

    Do you really think he has done a good job?


    You injected race into this (none / 0) (#91)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 06:48:45 PM EST
    discussion by asserting that the current polling is wrong because of a Bradley effect.  That theory was shown to be invalid in 2008.

      Yet, you raise race as the reason for Obama's high poll numbers.....

    Doing a good job?  In some ways....But you change the subject....

    If we are to be different than Palin and Beck who just pop off and make up stuff to support their theories, then actual facts and data matter.....

    There is no Bradley effect with Obama....


    Well (none / 0) (#95)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 07:14:14 PM EST
    then how do you explain what happened in November? Time and again approval ratings have correlated with losses in congress.

    Are you still relying on the Bradley effect? (none / 0) (#97)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 07:29:57 PM EST
    You are now just making up stuff to support your theory....

    You have no data to show a Bradley effect.  The data is to the contrary.

    But you are undeterred and firmly in Palin country now.


    Actually (none / 0) (#100)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 07:34:26 PM EST
    I found the reason. Rasmussen said that he has an -11 approval among people who feel the strongest. So there's the reason. There is a huge enthusiasm gap and the people who feel strongest against Obama were willing to go out and vote and had a huge advantage in numbers.

    So there were polls that were saying this apparently and the top line approval numbers were telling you basically nothing like I thought.


    Rasmussen is not credible (none / 0) (#103)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 07:38:09 PM EST
    He had a good track record which was apparently based on luck and a large Republican turnout in 2004.

    In 2010 not so much.....Very biased in favor of Republicans......


    Actually (none / 0) (#104)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 07:42:24 PM EST
    I wasn't going to use him but Fordham University had his numbers as the most accurate of all the pollsters like him or not.

    Even if you want to keep (none / 0) (#99)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 07:32:26 PM EST
    your theory the polls are wrong, don't prop it up with the racist Bradley theory......You are better than that....

    The top (none / 0) (#102)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 07:36:23 PM EST
    line numbers don't mean anything. So that would explain the disconnect between his approval numbers and the election.  You have to look at the strongly disapprove and strongly approve numbers.

    That is a fair point (none / 0) (#105)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 07:42:58 PM EST
    But voter enthusiasm was not the explanation I hoped it would be when I looked at it....

    Basically turnout was not all that different from the usual midterm, if I recall this right....

    The argument that the Dems lost the Indies had more support than I would have liked.....


    All premature anyway (none / 0) (#107)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 07:45:28 PM EST
    Unemployment and jobs and maybe some future event will be key....

    North Carolina (none / 0) (#81)
    by Politalkix on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 06:26:32 PM EST
    has lots of universities, young people, basketball mania, research triangle park, minorities, transplants from the north east.

    Yes, it does (none / 0) (#89)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 06:40:06 PM EST
    but not enough to turn NC into a swing state.

    it went blue (none / 0) (#110)
    by CST on Wed Feb 02, 2011 at 09:43:44 AM EST
    in the last presidential election.  Even if it goes red in the next one, that's kind of the definition of "swing".

    It's early (none / 0) (#63)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 04:00:12 PM EST
    And don't forget in Virginia, Jim Webb is up for re-election and he's going to have a tough time.

    Obama won Virginia because of Northern Virginia, which is still fairly blue, but there's a lot of discontent here.

    Virginia 2008 blue was a fluke.


    If George 'macaca' Allen (none / 0) (#69)
    by ruffian on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 04:26:31 PM EST
    is the Rep candidate I think Webb will have an easier time than I thought a month ago, and may help the up-ticket.

    Obama won Virginia by 7 points (none / 0) (#115)
    by MKS on Wed Feb 02, 2011 at 12:21:15 PM EST
    That's more than a fluke....

    Cleveland (none / 0) (#7)
    by cal1942 on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 11:22:53 AM EST
    Should have picked Cleveland.  The convention would bring in badly needed money.

    Apparently Obama and Democrats are willing to maintain the trend of allowing the northeast quadrant of the country to go to waste.

    Also (none / 0) (#8)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 11:29:47 AM EST
    Ohio is a state they need to win to keep the WH. Looks tenuous at this stage.

    Obama does not need Ohio (none / 0) (#20)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 12:43:25 PM EST
    or Florida or Virginia--if he keeps Wisconsin and Nevada and Colorado.

    Assuming the economy does not worsen, I cannot see Obama losing either Nevada or Colorado.  The GOTV there is awesome--beating the public polling by 5 points.  

    Wisconsin is The GOP's best hope.


    WI (none / 0) (#22)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 12:58:22 PM EST
    I would consider doubtful at this point. Considering how CO held up in November, he will probably be okay there and Nevada.

    You are dreaming (none / 0) (#64)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 04:01:09 PM EST
    about Virignia.

    the post you responded to (none / 0) (#65)
    by CST on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 04:06:14 PM EST
    said Obama doesn't need to win Virginia to win the election.

    What exactly is being "dreamed" here?


    Thank you (none / 0) (#113)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 02, 2011 at 11:04:29 AM EST
    for being constantly hypervigilant about monitoring all of my posts.

    You are correct - in this particular post, it was not said Virignia was going to go for Obama.  However, previous posts by the same author have tried that same old argument.


    Maybe old but still (none / 0) (#114)
    by MKS on Wed Feb 02, 2011 at 12:16:42 PM EST
    valid.  He won it last time and the polling shows he is ahead.

    Big mistake (none / 0) (#9)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 11:58:59 AM EST
    IMO. St. Louis and Cleveland were better options IMO. Charlotte does not have the infrastructure to handle this and Charlotte is the MOST conservative city in NC. In NC, Raleigh would have been a much better choice.

    Expect lots of tea baggers with ugly signs etc. in Charlotte. The few people that I know there are extremely racist but I don't know if they are in the majority or minority.

    Charlotte is a little small (none / 0) (#11)
    by lilburro on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 12:08:56 PM EST
    but it'll probably handle the convention fine.

    I don't know if Obama will win NC in 2012 but it is a bold choice (and at least, politically, Obama's team is capable of being bold).  It's forward looking, represents his whole "no red states and no blue states" thing, has NASCAR connections, etc.  And NC does have a lot of Democrats on the local level.

    I wonder how strong the Tea Party will be in 2012 after the GOP disappoints them for a year and a half.  They were going to show up wherever the DNC held the Convention anyway.  So who knows.


    Obama (none / 0) (#15)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 12:25:41 PM EST
    can do the whole red state/blue thing he wants but the problem is him. He can't communicate with the voters and that's a huge problem. He can't even fake it like Bush could and then there's the whole problem of his record as president.

    I think a better choice would have been a swing state OR a western state where the party is growing not shrinking like NC and it would be okay if Obama was interested in growing the party but he's not.


    All sorts of possibilities (none / 0) (#17)
    by brodie on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 12:34:09 PM EST
    out there for Dems to go into a swing or close or growing Dem state, but Charlotte NC doesn't strike me as a bad choice.

    And I may agree that overall his messaging and communicating with the public have been not quite up to his potential, yet he nevertheless appears to be on the popularity uptick in NC -- latest PPP poll shows more approve than disapprove his job performance -- and in head to head polling with Goopers, he is in the lead in that southern state.


    That (none / 0) (#23)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 01:00:39 PM EST
    49% isn't enough in NC. Seeing that make me think he is going to lose NC for sure.

    Besides there is something wrong with his poll numbers. Someone with his poll numbers should not have taken the "shellacking" he took in 2010.


    Obama's polls from all except Rasmussen (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 01:23:13 PM EST
    have been fine....

    PPP did not have any problems in 2010 races.

    You are overlaying your personal views onto the data.....

    Reagan and Clinton lost a lot of House races too in the first midterms.  There is no "rule" that a President's personal job approval has to translate into wins in the House....And Obama was less popular in November than now.

    Indies can like divided government.  They can like the "no red states, no blue states" President while also liking him to be checked by a green eye-shade Congress.  It is not how I see things, but many do view it that way.


    Yes (none / 0) (#34)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 01:34:22 PM EST
    presidential approval directly correlates to an election. Even during the midst of impeachment Clinton had a high approval therefore the Dems won seats. Reagan and Clinton had approval numbers similar to Obama in '82 and '94 but did not lose nearly the seats that Obama did. Obama had a loss of historic proportions in 2010 and that tells me a lot more than the polls do. Apparently people might "like" Obama or "say" they "like" Obama but it doesn't translate into actual votes.

    I don't know about the divided government argument. It doesn't always work since people vote for the President and don't necessarily think about which party is going to control the house and senate.


    In 2010 (none / 0) (#28)
    by lilburro on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 01:12:20 PM EST
    NC did not experience the same sort of "shellacking" as other states did on the national level(Examiner).  

    It's a weird state.  Dems generally dominate local politics.

    If nothing else, it's an interesting, confident move.  Maybe the other locations were too Midwestern-y, I dunno.


    if he has not met his potential (none / 0) (#68)
    by TeresaInPa on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 04:22:06 PM EST
    as President, when is that potential going to kick in exactly and how come we have to wait to get the best President Obama he can be?

    Face it, what you see is what you get.  He's not getting any better.


    Teresa, I posted here (5.00 / 0) (#71)
    by brodie on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 04:39:09 PM EST
    to make factual assertions about the state of NC and Charlotte, and not so much to make political observations about Obama, about whose presidency I have very mixed feelings most days.

    NC-Charlotte therefore is not a bad pick for the Demo Convo from my first impression pov.

    Working to get a little better Obama nominee pick for that convention is another matter for another discussion.


    Oh, (none / 0) (#16)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 12:26:56 PM EST
    and thanks to Obama the Dems lost everything in NC at the state level last election.

    I AGREE Missouri is a swing state and could make (none / 0) (#54)
    by mogal on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 02:18:31 PM EST
    the difference.

    Like the choice of Denver for 2008 was meant to (none / 0) (#55)
    by ruffian on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 02:22:18 PM EST
    signal that the Dems wanted to start playing in west, this choice means they don't want to keep conceding the South.  (Florida does not send that message in the same way, for some reason. so many northern transplants here they resist the 'southern' label. But I'm here to tell ya - it's the south. )

    I just mean to say I think it has little to do with the specific polling data in that particular state.

    north Florida may be the south (none / 0) (#70)
    by TeresaInPa on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 04:26:36 PM EST
    but south Florida is closer to the Manhattan and the boroughs.

    FDL: Dems announce union-free convention city (none / 0) (#108)
    by jawbone on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 08:31:45 PM EST
    Maybe there's more than one message in choosing Charlotte.  Southern city AND no unions?

    Not too nice here under the bus....

    Can my heart (none / 0) (#109)
    by sj on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 10:54:46 PM EST
    sink any lower?  I'm straight up pro-union.  That's all.

    And, don't forget (none / 0) (#111)
    by Zorba on Wed Feb 02, 2011 at 10:33:27 AM EST
    Charlotte houses the corporate center for Bank of America.  Southern city, lack of unions, and the world headquarters for BoA.  It's a win-win-win for Obama, as far as messaging goes.    

    The New Dems (none / 0) (#112)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 02, 2011 at 11:02:40 AM EST
    don't need unions - doncha know?