Political Animal
Blog
Both Republicans and some MSM purveyors of a snail’s-eye-view have been richly enjoying the drip-drip-drip of “stories” about this or that Democratic pol in a highly competitive race deciding to skip the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte. You’d think this statement by the chair of the Democratic House campaign operation would put to rest claims that party members are shocked and terrified by the prospect of convening without Joe Manchin or Jim Matheson:
The man responsible for getting Democrats elected to the Congress this fall has a message for his party’s candidates: Stay away from the Democratic National Convention in September.
“If they want to win an election, they need to be in their districts,” New York congressman Steve Israel, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, told the Reuters Washington Summit on Tuesday.
Israel emphasized that Democratic President Barack Obama’s poll ratings - which have hovered around 50 percent - have little to do with his stance.
“I don’t care if the president was at 122 percent favorability right now,” he said. “I think (candidates) should be in their districts,” rather than spend time at the convention, which will be in Charlotte, North Carolina, September 3-6.
“A trip to Charlotte may be interesting,” Israel said, “but why leave your districts?”
Why indeed?
Look, don’t get me wrong: I love national party conventions, God help me. I’ve been to six of the suckers myself, and have watched as much as I could of both parties’ conventions since 1964. Hell, there are years when it was about the only thing I watched on TV, other than election night coverage itself and University of Georgia football games.
But let’s face it: national conventions lost their deliberative functions long ago. The last multi-ballot affair was in 1952, long before the advent of the modern primary system. The last convention where there was any doubt after the opening gavel about the identity of the nominee was in 1976, and that was only because of a miraculously close primary finish between Reagan and Ford. The last time there was any serious convention maneuvering over the platform was in 1980, when the Carter forces blithely caved to a full-employment plank designed to embarrass the president.
Yes, conventions serve various significant purposes. Despite ever-shrinking broadcast TV coverage, they remain a well-timed opportunity for message delivery. Small numbers of super-prime time speakers get the chance to make a big impression, like Barack Obama did in 2004. All sorts of behind-the-scenes meetings take place involving fundraising and GOTV preparations. But for most participants, these events are primarily social. For a junior congressional candidate in a tough race, it’s time better spent either on the hustings or dialing for dollars—much better than appearing on CSPAN for a mid-afternoon speech mouthing the work-that-works-for-working-families pieties allowed by the presidential campaign staff that control every moment (which can get weird, viz. the famous 2004 last-minute edict of the Kerry campaign, based on focus group sessions with battleground-state independents, that no convention speakers bash the opposing party).
So let’s give the no-show meme a rest, folks. It’s news about nothing from nowhere.
Facebook
Twitter
c u n d gulag on June 27, 2012 3:09 PM:
I've been a Convention junkie since 1968, when I was 10 years old.
And I realize that there are no more smoke-filled rooms.
But, unless R's decide to stay away rather than be seen with the MITT2012 cyborg, then the MSM will not let this story drop - not matter how unimportant Conventions are anymore.
What the feck else will they have to cover until Obama and Biden speak?
So, the jabbering from "The Chattering Class" about this will be feckin' endless!
JGH on June 27, 2012 3:12 PM:
I am pretty sure they could have flown in for a cup of coffee. Or just quietly not shown up at the last minute. But making grand announcements months away sends a pretty clear signal that any taint of liberalism or whatever Eisenhower-ism Obama represents is anathema to them. So, they should probably stop asking liberals for money. As is often the case, Pierce cuts to the heart of the matter:
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/claire-mccaskill-convention-10059473
jjm on June 27, 2012 3:26 PM:
I chalk it up to the fact that there won't be any drama, any doubt about the outcome of the nominating process.
exlibra on June 27, 2012 3:37 PM:
Israel knows what he's talking about:
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/steve-israel-did-not-attend-2000-convention
Ron Byers on June 27, 2012 3:47 PM:
That Democratic candidates would consider skipping the convention out of fear of being identified as a Democrat tells me all I need to know about the modern Democratic party--its leadership are a feckless bunch of cowards who stand for nothing. This is why the Republicans are winning. They aren't being opposed.
thersites on June 27, 2012 3:50 PM:
Maybe they're just afraid some of the black will rub off on them. Fucking disgrace is what it is.
DJ on June 27, 2012 3:52 PM:
How many Republicans aren't going to Tampa? Their candidate for Senate in Montana isn't. Scott Brown is said to not be going. Any others? Perhaps the media should tell us.
Oh, who am I kidding?
Steve on June 27, 2012 3:54 PM:
Another meme Ed might consider discussing is the "Dems can't raise enough money for their convention" meme. Apparently Dems are short on cash right now because they passed a rule (wisely or foolishly) banning corporate contributions and limiting individual contributions for this year's convention, which is a new thing. But from where I sit, it doesn't seem like they've publicized the rule very much, so they get no political mileage from it and leave themselves open to these stupid attacks.
castanea on June 27, 2012 3:57 PM:
And if Democrats were 100 percent in favor of everyone attending the convention, it would be because they fear a Republican victory and are trying to drum up support.
Such are today's American media. Whatever Democrats do, it is an indication that they are worried, weak, etc.
At some point, sane commenters have to realize that the American media don't specialize in reporting news, they specialize in propagating memes.
David in NY on June 27, 2012 4:30 PM:
there are years when it was about the only thing I watched on TV, other than election night coverage itself and University of [Michigan] football games
Me too.
Old Uncle Dave on June 27, 2012 7:35 PM:
The conventions used to be fun to watch, back when they nominated the candidates. Now, with the primary system, there's no suspense. They're nothing but noisy campaign ads.
Doug on June 27, 2012 8:06 PM:
DJ and castanea seem to have the correct perspective.
Unless a Senator or Representative is a candidate or delegate or there's no clear nominee, there's no need for them to clutter up a modern-day convention. As best as I can recall, no Senators OR Representatives are delegates and the nominee is the incumbent.
Personally, I look on it as spiking the guns of the media. When the convention occurs, the talking heads won't be able to breathlessly announce "Sen. X or Rep. Z" AREN'T attending! What does THAT mean for President Obama? Here with the latest is..." THAT'S what passes for "political reporting" nowadays.
Pitiful, just pitiful...