Online exclusive: Campaign 2008
Convention sites a sign that political power going West
ADVERTISEMENT
- Most Commented Stories Today
- Most E-mailed Stories Today
WASHINGTON - There are reasons why the political conventions are in Denver and St. Paul this year that have nothing to do with hospitality.
The host cities were chosen long before Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain emerged as the likely presidential nominees of the Democratic and Republican parties, respectively. But coincidence or not, Denver and the Twin Cities of St. Paul and Minneapolis have turned out to be in states that are pivotal to the hopes and strategies of both men this year.
They also exemplify a 50-year shift in the nation's center of political gravity, as power has migrated west and south. And tactically, Minnesota and Colorado represent what might be called the takeaway strategy of 2008: Poach from the other guy's perceived strengths.
For Democrats, Denver is a gateway to a region that has been a presidential wasteland since the 1960s. Colorado has been trending toward a swing state, but three other intermountain states - Idaho, Wyoming and Utah - haven't voted for a Democrat for president since 1964 and are unlikely to again this year.
At the same time, Colorado and the 10 other most western states in the contiguous 48 have grown from a collective 79 electoral votes in 1960, to 117 this year, an almost 50 percent gain in Electoral College power.
In the Twin Cities, the Republicans have chosen to occupy a cultural and trade center in a Great Lakes-Upper Midwest heartland. That region, which stretches from Ohio to Minnesota, was more reliably Republican in the 1980s. McCain will have to win at least four of the eight states in the region this year if he is to win the presidency. He may need six of the eight if Obama poaches Colorado and Montana or carries western swing states like New Mexico and Nevada.
Since 1960, Minnesota and seven other Midwestern states have fallen from a collective 131 electoral votes to 107 this year, losing about a fifth of their presidential influence.
Convention geopolitics is not always this consequential. In 2004, Democrats convened in John Kerry's Boston back yard. Republicans renominated George W. Bush in New York City, largely to return to the city that bore the brunt of 9/11. Kerry won New York and Massachusetts in landslides, and neither state caught a whiff of a campaign after the convention circuses left town.
But Minnesota and Colorado are already well-beaten political paths in 2008, and are likely to remain so into November.
Minnesota has avoided some of the economic pitfalls of Michigan and Ohio, but Democrats are likely to use the region's struggles to attack GOP economic policies. In the public's mind, Minnesota is both heartland and Rust Belt, according to John Baick, associate professor of history at Western New England College in Springfield, Mass., who has studied political conventions.
But as it turns out, the choice of Denver may have been more fortuitous for Democrats than St. Paul is for Republicans. Denver plays into what could be called Democrat Chairman Howard Dean's "Star Trek" strategy of going where no Democrats have gone. It also brings thousands of Democrats into a region where Obama did well against Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in the Democratic primaries.
"This will have the attention of the world on this city for four days, and it will show how, politically, our party has a great story to tell in this region," said Natalie Wyeth, press secretary for the Democratic National Convention. "It surprises people to know that there is a Democratic governor in Wyoming and a Democratic governor in Montana, and that is a story we want to tell. They aren't your typical party partisans. The leaders out here, the Democratic leaders, are known for bipartisan solutions, common-sense solutions to common problems."
But some Republicans think Denver symbolically highlights the rifts between old and new Democrats.
"To be fair, I think Colorado is a purple state, there is no denying that. Some of that, I think has been peculiar and unique to Colorado," said Lori Weigel, a Denver-based partner in the prominent GOP polling firm, Public Opinion Strategies. She said Democrats have benefited from good organization and deep-pocketed donors in Colorado and credited them for finding candidates that fit the region's culture and political leanings.
But Colorado, Weigel said, "is not emblematic of a purple tide washing over the West."
Weigel said the kind of Democrat that has been successful in the West - cowboy-hat wearing independents like Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo. - are not the Democrats gathering in Denver.
"We are sitting here waiting for the influx of trial lawyers and union members, the really stereotypical Democratic coalitions that are not in keeping with how the West perceives itself to be," Weigel said. "... It becomes a sort of old-time Democratic coalition politics versus a very sort of new and different image that they are trying to portray."
Democrats are likely to use the Denver platform to blame Republicans for bad economic news. But Weigel said Republicans can counter there and in St. Paul that western energy communities and Midwestern farm communities are benefiting from rising oil and natural gas production, the expansion of wind power and the growth of the biofuels industry.
McCain could use the heartland-Rust Belt setting in St. Paul to shoot a political bank shot, making the traditional Republican values appeals while honing his economic recovery pitch.
But some think Minnesota is out of McCain's reach.
"If I were running the GOP, I'd be going to Colorado," said Steven Schier, a political scientist at Minnesota's Carleton College. "I think the environment favors the Democrats this year, and you can see it in the electoral geography. Democrats are seeing new opportunities they haven't seen before, and Republicans are in the unenviable position of defending what they used to take for granted."
Contact GNS Political Writer Chuck Raasch at craasch@)gns.gannett.com.
If the electoral college is so great, why don't we elect all national offices that way? Why is my vote not Counted because I live in a Republican state, but usually vote Democratic?
If one looks at the 2000 and 2004 election the Democrat won the west coast, upper east coast and most of the Great Lake states. These areas have the majority of the population.
The National Popular Vote bill is a bad idea and should be rejected.
The National Popular Vote bill is a disaster waiting to happen especially if you live in a small state. The current system is a two step process. The first step is 51 independent elections running at the same time to elect "electors" to vote on our behalf. The second step is when the electors vote.
Do I like the current system? No way, but it's close. I would make two small changes. The winner of a state election would need a majority of the votes cast. If no candidate gets a majority then a run off election with the top two candidates only. The second change is do away with the electors. They're not needed anymore.
The Electoral College was designed to protect the small states from the big states. As it is the twleve big states have over 270 votes and could gang up on the other 39.