WE'VE MOVED! Democratic Convention Watch is now at http://www.DemocraticConventionWatch.com
I wrote just before Thanksgiving that while Hillary Clinton publicly supported New York to host the 2008 Democratic Convention, a Denver (i.e., non-New York) convention would better help her to highlight her midwestern and southern roots, assuming she gets the nomination, of course. The Rocky Mountain News looks at this further: A decision on which city will host the 2008 convention could come this week, and politicians such as Clinton and Sen. Ken Salazar, D- Colo., have been pushing for their home states. Ironically, many analysts say that of the leading contenders, Clinton might get the biggest boost from a Denver convention. To win, a Democratic presidential nominee must reach out beyond the party's base in the Northeast and on the West Coast. That's especially true for a senator from New York. Political analyst Jennifer Duffy, of The Cook Political Report, said that Clinton can't count on any big boost from a hometown convention in New York City. She noted that Sen. John Kerry, of Massachusetts, was nominated in Boston, a choice that made it easier for his opponents to paint him as an out-of-touch "Massachusetts liberal." "My gut tells me (that) going to Denver is better for her," Duffy said of Clinton, and she said the same logic applies to virtually every other top-tier Democratic presidential contender. "If any Democrat, including her, is going to win the presidency, they've got to win a state that Bush won last time, and there are a number of potential battlegrounds in the West, including Colorado." Meanwhile, Clinton is a known entity in New York, and going there "sort of gives the perception this is the same Democratic Party we always see," Duffy said. "They're trying to put a new face on it." If Denver wins the Democratic National Convention over New York City, the potential presidential nominee with the most to gain from a Denver confab is likely one of the people lobbying against it: Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, of New York.
del.icio.us
2 comments:
I think Clinton's presidential campaign wouldn't gain much from a NYC convention. However, it would probably lend to her locally if she could get the convention held there, being a sort of reward for NY for electing her to the senate.
Minneapolis would have been a good compromise location for the convention. It would have paid tribute to Democratic heritage while playing to heartland of the country.
With Minneapolis gone, there are two distinct choices left. Dems can choose Denver and highlight a moderate agenda that could give them a boost nationwide. Or, they can choose NYC, which would highlight more traditional liberal issues, appealing to the base.
The most important factor in the selection has to be the most recent midterm elections. Dems campaigned on a moderate agenda and won. This should be influencing the decision. Dems can acknowledge this successful strategy, or mistake it for an approval of strong liberal feelings. If Dems do choose NYC, expect a lot grandstanding from voices in the party that should be more moderated.
I feel that while Dean may not want to throw Clinton a bone by choosing NYC, he may also be open to showcasing a liberal platform. That is what worries me. He is also has his own roots from the northeast.
Denver would offer the most to all candidates, since it would be far more neutral to all candidates, allowing for more options in terms of directions on a national agenda.
I'm from Queensbury,NY in the Adirondack Mtns. It was just PUBLISHED in a local paper that the DNC will be held in QUEENBURY (about 30 mins. north of the capital - Albany). I can't google anything about this which seems strange to say the least. What's up with the Democratic National Convention site for 2008?????
Post a Comment