The four are Charlotte, St. Louis, Minneapolis, and Cleveland. It’s apparently not clear when the final decision will be made, though apparently the final decision does rest with Obama.

At first I assumed Democrats would pick a swing state city, likely St. Louis or Cleveland. But apparently, according to the Times,  hosting the convention in a state doesn’t improve the odds of you carrying the state.

Whatever city Mr. Obama picks — in the end, it is his decision — he is not guaranteed of carrying the state where the convention is held. In fact, as often as not, the Democratic nominee has lost the host state, according to a new study from the University of Minnesota.

Since the first Democratic convention, held in Baltimore in 1832, the study found, the nominee has lost the host state 23 times and won it 22 times.

Perhaps that’s because a convention doesn’t just bring an influx of cash into the area. It also brings throngs of people, more cars on the road, crowded public spaces, and other headaches for locals. Perhaps the benefit is canceled out by the stress and inconvenience.

More: Heh. An interesting case for NOT picking Charlotte.

Some Democrats may be uncomfortable with Charlotte’s image as the nation’s second-biggest banking center, after New York, and its banks were major recipients of bailout money.

Also, North Carolina doesn’t require employees to support the union establishment, so union supporters of the Democratic Party won’t like that.

Meanwhile, St. Louis has the support of Illinois (Obama’s home state) and apparently has the most unionized facilities in the country. Who knew.

Cleveland seems outdated, multiple Democratic officials are under investigation for corruption, and Democrats have lost serious territory in an increasingly-unfriendly Ohio.

Minneapolis is nice but Republicans just held their convention there in 2008. It sends the wrong message and seems like a replay of a lost cause.

I say Obama picks St. Louis.