Dems worried about empty seats at convention

by NW Spotlight

Clint Eastwood’s empty chair may not be the Democrats’ only empty chair problem. Enthusiasm is way down for President Obama since 2008, and Democrats are concerned that Hillary Clinton and Gov. Kitzhaber aren’t the only Democrats who have, ahem, “other commitments” during the Democratic National Convention that starts today.

The AP is reporting that Democrats have been fretting for months that President Obama won’t be able to draw a crowd big enough to fill this year’s 74,000-seat stadium.

Back in 2008, then-candidate Obama easily filled the 84,000-seat stadium in Denver. But that was back when he was easily attracting tens of thousands of people to his campaign rallies. The AP notes “This time around, Obama’s crowds are far smaller. He drew his biggest audience at his campaign kick-off rally in May, a 14,000-person crowd at Ohio State University.”

This year’s Democratic National Convention is being held in Charlotte, N.C., and starts today and concludes on Thursday.

There was controversy about the selection of Charlotte. The NY Times reported last month that the main cheerleader for securing Charlotte as the site of this year’s Democratic convention has been a supporter of President Obama’s and the Democrats’ energy initiatives. In return, his company has been paid back with $204 million in stimulus money and a $22 million grant to develop wind energy technologies.

UPDATE (9/5): Dems move Obama speech to smaller venue

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 05:00 | Posted in 2012 Presidential Election | 4 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Rupert in Springfield

    Obamas now well tracked inability to fill a speaking hall for the past several months is another one of those indicators that really make you wonder about the polling of this race in general. How is it that a president with consistently low poll numbers, whose speeches of late have been noted for their empty meeting halls able to poll a few points ahead of his rival in all but the last week or so? How does this make any sense when combined with the fact that Romney seems to have no problem at all filling whatever speaking engagement he cares to give and has donations coming in by the truck load compared while Obama asks couples to donate their wedding gifts to his campaign?

    In other words, what we see in reality bears absolutely no relationship to what we see in the polling numbers. Why that is is anyone’s guess. My answer is it is simply easier to say one is leaning Obama than anything else. It’s not like if you do some rabid Romney supporter is going to start accusing you of racism, hating poor people or equating your indifference to Sandra Fluke having a co pay for her birth control pills to support of rape camps for women. However if you say you support Romney you do very likely run such a risk.

    It’s the Facebook election. People have always been aware that some of their friends have different political views than they do. However with Facebook they are now more aware of it than ever. Social network sites in my experience have a distinct leftward tilt. If you see a political post you will see far more from your left leaning friends than your right leaning ones, and the left leaning posts will be vastly more clever.

    It’s really always been this way. Left leaning political humor, cartoons and now Facebook memes have always been funnier and better done than right leaning ones. On Facebook there are endless left wing social pages with endless funny memes one can post to ones page. While there are right wing Facebook pages, they have no where near the quantity and quality of memes of the left.

    So that’s my answer, at least partially. People are simply being safe when the pollster calls. Obama is that safe answer. No Facebook memes equating you with racist lynch mobs for mentioning the deficit. No insinuation that you hate your wife and daughter because you suggest a woman who runs up $1,000 in co pays on birth control each year is very likely an idiot.

    • 3H

      Actually, I believe that was a $1000.00 per year without insurance. No insurance, no co-pays.

  • bartles

    News report this morning that attendance at the Republican convention was hugely down from four years ago.

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)