Is there a substantial political impact to the parties choice of national convention sites?
What an instructive question with which to conclude this Crystal Ball. Every four years, a grove of trees is sacrificed to print silly, foolish stories about the political impact of the geographic sites selected by the parties for their conclaves. The Bush Republicans tried the gambit twice. In 2000 the GOP National Convention in Philadelphia was going to win Pennsylvania for Bush; he lost it decisively. In 2004 the New York City-based GOP Convention was going to reemphasize Bush’s September 11th leadership and put the states of New York and New Jersey into play; he lost both handily. The only time the Crystal Ball can remember a convention site actively helping or hurting was the 1984 Democratic National Convention, held in San Francisco. That pleasant, very liberal Golden Gate city helped the Republicans to further define the Democratic ticket of Walter Mondale and Geraldine Ferraro as leftist. The prominent TV appearances on the Democratic convention floor by the transvestite fake n
Related Questions
- Do Parties data on national GHG emissions/removals under the Convention and the Kyoto Protocol cover the same geographical area?
- Is there a substantial political impact to the parties choice of national convention sites?
- Is there a substantial political impact to the parties’ choice of national convention sites?
