Democrats Still Torn Between Denver And New York For Convention
Democrats are still struggling to choose between Denver and New York as the site to host their 2008 Presidential convention, and have now postponed a decision until mid-January, the Associated Press reports. While Denver is fraught with labor and logistical problems, New York's mayor, Michael Bloomberg, is hinting that he may not be able to raise the money to host a convention, having squeezed New York donors hard for other causes in the recent past, such as the World Trade Center memorial.
Meanwhile, an interesting dynamic surrounding the convention question has taken hold in New York: It turns out that the fact that New York is home to influential Dems like Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer may not be helping the city's bid. Both Clinton and Schumer have other fundraising commitments -- Clinton is raising cash for her likely Presidential run, and Schumer continuing as chair of the DSCC. What's more, while New York is generally seen as having a track record in staging successful conventions, many Dems think Denver would be the ideal location to continue building on the Dems' dramatic gains in the west in the 2006 midterms.















Of course, this is a hard decision for the DC Dems. Since any child can see that the obvious choice is Denver, ergo, DC Dems are torn and indecisive. They will follow SOP and dither and dilly-dally until it is so obvious that they don’t want to go to Denver that when they eventually pick Denver in the 11th hour, even Denver officials will be irritated. Denver shows that modern Dem Party is new, fresh, committed to changing the Status Quo and looking toward the new, not trying to relive the old. Not to mention, NYC will look like we are literally one-step behind the Republicans. 6 years after 9-11, ground zero is the personification of political and bureaucratic incompetence. None of the R candidates we are opposing in 08 has anything to do with that particular incompetence; so what advantage do we get from highlighting that issue?
January 6, 2007 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
The track for New York conventions is good, though. The last two Dems who had conventions there, Carter and Clinton, won. I have no problem with either location.
January 6, 2007 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you want to highlight climate abnormality, take your pick. Denver: When will the blizzards end? New York: Barefoot in the park and it's January.
January 7, 2007 8:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
First - I think the effect that convention city selection has on the general voting populace is negligible. Certainly it can reinforce a stereotype ("Massachusetts Democrat" anyone?) but does NYC or Denver really matter anywhere other than the respective states? (And the GOP lost NY in 2004 in a huge way.)
Second - If the Dems are determined to make a bold statement with a city choice, there is no other choice than New Orleans, LA. The problem is that now that the Dems have Congress, if things are still going to hell-in-a-handbasket in the Big Easy, the Dem's share of blame could bite them in the arse.
Give it to Detroit. They could use the help more than anyone else. The last convention there was the '80 GOP that nominated Reagan.
January 7, 2007 11:43 PM | Reply | Permalink