Welcome to Democratic Convention Watch

Donate to DCW


Follow DCW on Twitter
Follow DCW on Facebook
2016 Democratic Convention
2016 Republican Convention Charlotte Host Committee
DNCC
2010 Census

Follow DCW on Google+
DCW iPhone App Info
A Guide to DemConWatch
Tags
FAQ
2008 Democratic Primary Links
2008 Democratic National Convention Links
DemConWatch Archives '05-'08
DemConWatch Speeches
Inauguration Information
DCW Store

HOME
Mobile Version




Search


Advanced Search
Contributors:
MattOreo
DocJess

This site is not affiliated with the DNC, DNCC, or any campaign.

Email us at

Blog Roll
Frontloading HQ
The Field
MyDD
Swing State Project
DemNotes
DemRulz

DCW in the News
St. Louis Channel 2 News
AP
Politico
Wall Street Journal
The New York Times
NPR
Wired
US News & World Report

DNC announces 2012 Democratic Convention date

by: Matt

Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 15:50:57 PM EDT


Ben Smith:

A DNC source passes on a message from Tim Kaine, who is announcing today the date of the 2012 Democratic National Convention: It's planned for the week of Sept. 3, 2012.
...
Cities interested in hosting the convention — reportedly including Charlotte, N.C., Philadelphia and Phoenix — had to submit letters of interest by Jan. 11, and a DNC official said the committee is now going through a bid process that "will take months."

The only date the Democrats could have chosen at this point, but, for the same reasons the Democrats had the better date in 2008, the GOP has the better date this cycle. The Democrats will have to go up against the start of the NFL season, back-to-school in the north-east, and a cranky media not happy with losing their Labor Day weekend. But, of course, if the DNC had taken my advice almost exactly 4 years ago, this could all have been avoided.

Update: Here's the statement from Tim Kaine:

I am excited to announce that the Democratic Party will gather for our 46th National Convention during the week of September 3, 2012. At the convention, we will re-nominate President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, and re-affirm our party’s values of equality, inclusion, diversity, and respect.

At the Democratic National Committee and across the country, we are looking forward to showcasing our principles on a world stage, and continuing our proud history of fighting for justice and equal opportunities and representing the interests of working Americans.

Wherever you are during the week of September 3, 2012, I hope you’ll join with us in promoting our Democratic agenda and re-nominating President Obama and Vice President Biden. 

Matt :: DNC announces 2012 Democratic Convention date

Follow Democratic Convention Watch on Facebook and Twitter. Iphone/Android apps available.

Tags: , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Interesting to specifically mention names? (4.00 / 1)
I thought it was interesting that Kaine's statement mentioned the names of the POTUS & VPOTUS (twice, no less).  Is that traditional? Anyone have the press release for the announcement for the '96 convention? Was Gore's name in there?

The reason I ask is that I've seen musings in the interwebs (and have had them myself) as to whether it might be smarter for the Democratic Party to find a younger, up-and comer to take on the VP position for Obama's second term to better set up for 2016 (I just don't think Biden would run or would have as strong a chance as a younger, maybe even female, Dem star).  I've even seen speculation that he might want or be good for the Sec. of State position.  

Personally, I don't think (nor want) Hillary to run in 2016 (or be on the ticket as VP in 2012), but if there were an early- to mid-50s female Dem with good experience on the ticket in 2012, that could be great for another 8 years starting in 2016!

Thoughts?


Good observation (0.00 / 0)
It's a good point.

I think the problem with switching VP's would be that Obama is a bit of an enigma--is he a closet centrist who is sometimes dragged left by his base, or a closet liberal who sells out for political advantage?

If he picked someone who looked like a potential 2016 candidate, he'd be signaling whether he wanted the future of the Democratic party to be progressive or more centrist. Either way, part of his coalition would feel betrayed. While he's intervened pretty heavily in some state-level races, I think he might want to stay out of the question of who his successor might be.


[ Parent ]
given the history of Sitting VPs getting elected (4.00 / 1)
i think it might be better for the dems to have biden stay on the ticket, also biden is a GREAT vp, maybe not as great as dick cheney (i hate cheney, too, but given his mission, he was a great VP), and that way in 2016, the dem can either run against the GOP, or against a possibly unpopuklar dem administration, remember, sitting VPs that got elected as a VP were only Martin Van Buren, John Adams, George Herbert Walker Bush, and Thomas Jefferson, out of 49 total VPs, you know a coul;pe of guys named George Clinton and John C Calhoun were both vps under two presidents, but never elected president!

[ Parent ]
I'm sure they would all have mentioned... (0.00 / 0)
both the P and VP. Could you imagine the controversy if Biden's name had been left off?

There have only been two really significant primary challenges in the last 40 years, Reagan/Ford in '76 and Kennedy/Carter in '80. Those would be hard press releases to find...


[ Parent ]
historically, there havent been many one term presidents, not counting the ones killed (0.00 / 0)
and the two modern one termers was an unelected GOPer and the modern Sitting VP... hmmmm.

[ Parent ]
Yeah, I really meant is it normal for both names to be mentioned? (0.00 / 0)
And not just say the location of the convention.  Probably just a formality (and a sign of respect) to have both.

I was more interested in the actual question of who should be on the ticket with Obama in '12.

I like Biden as VP, but it was a disaster for our country when Clinton turned things over to Bush, and I think we SHOULD be strategizing for '16 knowing Biden wouldn't be the best candidate then. Yes, incumbent VPs are rarely elected, but Gore was somewhat screwed by Clinton's screwing (not to mention voting shenanigans). I fully expect Obama not to have any skeletons which would damage another VP.

RE: SarahLawrence's point, by '12, I think everyone will consider Obama a known quantity unlike pre-Inauguration and first year, so I'm not concerned that there will be any "signaling" danger.

Until the Republican party steps back from its extremist abyss, I can't see Obama not doing everything possible to turn the reigns over to another Democrat--even if it means asking Joe to step down.

I was actually shocked that Cheney didn't step down with a year to go so that someone else could have been brought in and given the bully pulpit. But maybe he just held the reigns that tight.


[ Parent ]
Time had the same thoughts (0.00 / 0)
The statement is noteworthy only considering the fact that many in Washington have at some point had a conversation about whether there's a chance Biden could be replaced on the ticket in two years. Of course, it also signals confidence that a significant primary challenger to the president won't emerge.

http://realclearpolitics.blogs...


[ Parent ]


Menu


Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

Make a New Account


Currently 0 user(s) logged on.



Subscribe to Posts

DemConWatch on Twitter
DemConWatch on Facebook


View blog authority

Add to Technorati Favorites

Wikio - Top Blogs - Politics

Who links to my website?

Sign the Petition (A)
Powered by: SoapBlox