Will Dem 2008 Convention Be Held In New York?
Officials in Denver are growing pessimistic about their chances of landing the 2008 Democratic National Convention, with some top Dems thinking that New York is better equipped to put on a glitch-free convention, the Associated Press is reporting. "Colorado Sen. Ken Salazar said this week that in private conversations Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean had expressed legitimate concerns about whether Denver can raise the necessary $55 million and put on a seamless convention," the AP says.
If the Dems do pick New York over Denver, the decision would without doubt disappoint Dems who see the west -- where the party made gains in the 2006 midterm election -- as a region with the growth potential to help Dems capture the Presidency in 2008. On the other hand, the argument in favor of New York is that it's a world city with a proven track record in handling the immensely complex logistical challenge of hosting conventions. The last two Dem Presidents -- Jimmy Carter in 1976 and Bill Clinton in 1992 -- launched successful campaigns from New York.
A decision is expected by the end of the year.
I don't think the location of the Convention really matters very much.
December 16, 2006 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ohiomeister's right that the convention matters only so much - this choice won't make or break us.
But isn't the smarter choice Denver? Should be able to get free media out of it - a few days of stories about how the Democratic party is newly competitive (maybe even the majority?) in the West?
Locally, I'd expect media coverage to be positive (it's just in the nature of local news to say nice things about people bringing money to the state), and a convention would generate goodies to hand out to local pols and party workers, along with the excitement of the party coming to town. If we can grab a point or two in Colorado from it, I'm for it. (If we need a point or two in NY, forget it; we aren't winning anything.)
On the other hand, I suppose you can get good media wherever you host the convention; and broadcasting from NYC might not be a bad story for our party either. The nominee can remind everyone of 9/11 and talk about how ours is the party that will focus on our real national security issues. (I'm pretty sure the GOP isn't planning to go back there anytime soon...)
Also, it's true, if Denver isn't up to the logistics then you could end up with a really bad story and convention vibe. (Lost bags at the airport; poor transportation) So all else equal logistics has got to trump.
December 16, 2006 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
IMO the location is irrelevant, considering the conventions today are highly scripted PR affairs that only hard core political hacks take seriously.
December 17, 2006 12:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think for territorial purposes, Denver is a more appealing choice, since New York and New England are already Democratic strongholds and the interior west is in the waiting to be won. What I think is a bit more relevent is the timing of the conventions. It was my understanding that there was a "gentleman's agreement" on which party had the advantage of having their convention last, and getting the "bump" that often occurs afterward and closer to the general election. Well, "W" got to have both of his conventions last(and as we all know in 2004, his party used 9/11 and had the latest convention in history in New york), and now the Republican convention is again slated to come after the Democrats. I believe the Dems should address this.
December 17, 2006 9:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
NYC (my town) would be a much worse choice.
The West is a new source of Democratic strength, and it would be an opportunity to say, this is not your father's party.
Dumb move. I guess it continues to be our father's party...
Dissent Protects Democracy.
December 17, 2006 9:36 PM | Reply | Permalink