Friday, April 07, 2006

2012 convention dates

WE'VE MOVED! Democratic Convention Watch is now at

2012 Democratic National Convention Site Selection News
2012 Republican National Convention Site Selection News

Taking all this date gamesmanship to its logical conclusion, I think Dean should just go ahead and announce the 2012 Demoratic Convention dates! The 2012 London Olympics end on August 12, 2012, and Labor Day is September 3. I think the Democrats should announce they are holding their 2012 convention starting on August 27, 2012. If a Democrat wins in 2008, the GOP can have their convention the previous week (or even the week before, starting the day after the Olympics end). If the GOP wins in 2008, they can have their convention the following week, starting on Labor Day, just like they are doing in 2008. The tradition of the party in the White House having their convention second is kept, and the Democrats can start their site selection even earlier. Denver, Orlando, and everyone else, interested in hosting the 2012 convention?


Anonymous said...

I know that Denver's going to get the 2008 Democratic National Convention (and I'm excited, being I'm from Denver), and I think that it would be great to host it again in 2012. Denver could be destined to become another Chicago as far as the DNC goes. I also get the feeling that New Orleans will get the RNC, as it appears Republicans like to go to accident sites for their convention (New York in 2004, New Orleans 2008).

Anonymous said...

I agree with the above statements.

Anonymous said...

Don't toss New Orleans aside so quickly. I think its interesting that the DNC is heading there in two weeks. Could just be a test trip to see if the city is up to holding a large convention. I really don't want to put it aside.

Matt said...

The DNC meeting won't be much of a test for New Orleans as it's too small. But there are large conventions happening in New Orleans this summer, and I'm sure the DNC will be watching to see how they go,

oregonDemocrat101 said...

Why does it have to be held in an extremely large city? I'd like to see it come here to the Northwest. I don't want the Dems to forget about us.

Obviously, I realize many think Portland is too small, I tend to disagree, but I'll accept it. But why not Seattle? The Northwest is blue, and bringing the Convention up here would go a long way for those who aren't quite sure which way to vote. (I am, but others aren't always so loyal!)

I think the only reason Kerry came up here was to para-sail. Bush, except on one or two occasions, completely stayed away...which is fine.

Matt said...

Both Seattle and Portland were invited by the Democrats to bid on the convention, but neither city did. My guess is that small/medium cities don't have enough hotel rooms close in to meet the convention requirements. Also, the costs, especially the security costs, might be too large for a mid-size city to handle.

Anonymous said...

Seattle has a very harsh liberal look about it, and could appear out of touch (something that might have been taken with Boston in 2004). Denver, on the other hand, has a good appeal in the fact that it's a liberal city in the heart of Republican's so called "red state" Colorado.

Also, Denver is considered more of a hub than Seattle or Portland as well. The fact is Democrats are loosing when we've brought the convention to "blue states" in recent years (California, Massachusetts). Bringing the convention into the heart of the West, in Colorado, would boost morale and likely attract more center-minded voters, and maybe even liberal Republicans.

As for Republicans, I agree that they will probably fight to go to New Orleans to add another "you know where I stand" type convention to there belt (which could and I predict will not go well). These days, the DNC has gotten smarter and more strategic with adding Dean to their roster. And they know they need a city in a red state to usher in a new era for Democrats, preferably in the West, where Dean is buying extensive stock for 2008. Where the RNC sees that they appear to have a good thing going with the current status quo, New York was blue before and after the 04 convention. Now, I would think, that by trying to score New Orleans for 2008, the heart and sole of Republican-owned Louisiana, they think they'll have a New York 2004 type of appeal with the voters, while gaining less division in sceptics and more liberal Republicans (by holding it in a red state).

The Northwest won't work anytime soon, I think, because the DNC will have more of a focus on the "mother" West through 2012.

Anonymous said...

New Orleans is a bad idea for Democrats. It's to in-your-face for the party to go there. Republicans fit the in-your-face mentality better, and them going to New Orleans will work better for Democrats. The DNC is better off in Denver.

Anonymous said...

Matt, 2012 !?!

No way should we pick our 2012 location yet.

First of all, there is no "if" the Democrats win in 2008.


We WILL win, and we WILL have a convention after the losers who need to be booted not in '08 but --> NOW!

And finally, if we select this far out, just think of all the time the wingnuts will have to figure out how to screw us over somehow.

Nah. Let's keep them wondering! ;o) Libby

Anonymous said...

Amen to that!!!!!!!!!

simplykyle said...

2012 should be in Atlanta. It's like a Denver. Our State Attorney General (D) sued the Governor (R) over redistricting the political map- and the Attorney won.

It's a battleground city in a Democratic state turned Republican. We can win it back.

rick said...

I think Baltimore should be the site of the 2012 convention. It will be the 100th anniversary of the Woodrow Wilson 1912 convention- a great year for Democrats. Also, Baltimore held the first Democratic Convention- in 1832- and held many more in the 19th century.
The city is building a new 18000 seat arena close to the Inner Harbor, within walking distance of 10000 hotel rooms.
I would think Maryland natives like Speaker Pelosi and Stenny Hoyer would be in our corner.
I hope Governor O'Malley and our Democratic Senators have considered this and start planning for it.

Anonymous said...


Monica Roberts said...

If the Democratic party is serious about taking Texas away from the GOP in 2012, the convention needs to held in Houston or Dallas.

While Dallas has hosted RNC conventions and was Republican before it was trendy to be a Repug in Texas, Dallas County threw out the GOP bums in 2006 and probably needs to be rewarded for that.

Houston as the largest city in the state last hosted the DNC in 1928. It is starting to throw out the GOP bums as well and made significant strides toward that in this election cycle.

Both have the facilities to handle major conventions and have the advantage of retractable roofed stadiums should President Obama wish to give an acceptance speech in a large venue like he did in Denver.

mizraw said...

I think the 2012 DNC should come To the beautiful city of Philadelphia

mizraw said...

I think the 2012 DNC should be in the city of brotherly love, home of the world series champs, home of the liberty Bell------Philadelphia...... Bring em on we are ready to host the event....

Lex said...

for 2012.. hmmm.. tough one, but i think the following cities should try: Tampa, Charlotte, Miami, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Phoenix, Cleveland. i think either of the cities i named will be a very viable option for the Dems. But they have really big shoes to fill after what Denver gave us. really big shoes.