Thursday, September 28, 2006

Wasn't Denver our first choice anyway?

WE'VE MOVED! Democratic Convention Watch is now at http://www.DemocraticConventionWatch.com

There is a lot of whining in the blogosphere today about how the Democrats got beat by Republicans to St. Paul, and why did the Democrats move so slow. Enough.

Denver, Minnepolis/St. Paul and New Orleans have been the three favorites to host the convention all year long, and for many of us, Denver has been the most attractive choice. St. Paul is out, and New Orleans decided not to bid. I think we all agree that Denver will make a fantastic host for the 2008 Democratic National Convention, and hopefully Dean and the DNC will choose Denver to host the convention.

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

denver obviously the top choice for the people who make the desicions. the reason it seems is pretty simple..it wasnt the best city!

Pete Ryan said...

Man I wish we had the Democrats coming to town instead of the GOP. :(

Andre said...

Honestly, since Atlanta never submitted a bid (it's still a dream of mine for 2012, if I can get Georgia's Democratic leadership behind it), I think Denver is a good choice.

We already had it in the northeast and we Democrats need to broaden our horizons if we're going to have any future on the national level.

Anonymous said...

I agree. Denver always was the city we wanted. Maybe some bloggers had a love affair with MN for a while, and I could see why. But lets face it, Denver is the place we want to be in 2008. I'm ready for Dean to bust out his John Denver albums.

Matt, cool blog, and welcome back. Go Denver!

Anonymous said...

I don't think there's any argument left - this is Denver's convention, and I'm very happy about that.

Anonymous said...

the one thing everybody on this blog seems to forget is that convention's don't necessarily win votes in the area they are held or convey any sort of message related to the location. it would make sense to have the convention in new york because the press will coverage will be much stronger and favorable with the majority of the media not having to travel

Anonymous said...

yeah it's going to be new york.

Anonymous said...

Originally, I was adamant about having the DNC in St. Paul for the reasons that we've been arguing for the past summer. But now I think the GOP's nod to the Twin Cities may have really panned out for the best. Although Minnesota is shifting from blue to purple, the populace is still fairly liberal and progressive. By holding the RNC in St. Paul, they are setting up for some massive protests. Minneapolis-St.Paul is expected to be more Democratic like any other urban area, but MSP is particularly liberal. This liberal population which I see protesting on the corner daily across the metro area is already galvanized and ready to take the fight to the Republicans. I expect a large crowd outside the Xcel Energy center (or whatever the protests are allowed). A political convention will always be marred by protests, can anyone say Chicago? The GOP may have wanted to put a show of force into a politically shifting area, but the metropolitan area of Minnesota isn't an area that is open to GOP rhetoric. So with a DNC in Denver and a hopefully counterbalanced RNC in St.Paul, this could be a boost. The media will be fixated on the protests (as they were with NYC 04). Ask people about what was said at RNC 04, and they might just say "Protesters". Could St.Paul 08 do the same thing... lets hope.

Anonymous said...

Denver's got this one for a couple reasons: one; no one in the party wants to go to NY for the reason that it represents the "old party" and not Dean's new one. Two; Denver's got the best political ground for us to win 2008. Three; Denver's pretty cool, and the party needs a breath of fresh air after years of east-coasting (and losing again and again). Go Denver!