Swing State Project

« VT-AL: Doesn't Look Like Much of a Dem Primary Here | Main | MT-Sen: Tester Hauls in $324K »

Friday, October 14, 2005

Denver is the Perfect Spot for the Dem Convention

Posted by DavidNYC

The other day, Bob wrote about the idea of a "Western Primary," to give this fast-growing region a bigger voice in choosing our party's presidential candidate. I think it's a great idea, and one way to capitalize on it would be to have our convention out west. Fortunately, some folks out in Colorado are trying to make this happen.

Denver came very close to hosting the convention in 2000 - hopefully it can be our site in 2008. If nothing else, I have to imagine the summer weather in Denver's mountain air is about a million times more pleasant than the sultry heat you'll find in the northeast.

Posted at 11:53 AM in 2008 Election - President, Colorado, Democrats | Technorati

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.swingstateproject.com/mt/mt-track-ssp.cgi/1834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Denver is the Perfect Spot for the Dem Convention:

» Dem Convention in Denver? from DemNotes
Okay; it's not good when national blogs scoop your own blog on your own meeting that you've known about for months. But I've been away from the computer all day, and haven't had an opportunity to blog on the Rocky article this morning, or on my meeting... [Read More]

Tracked on October 14, 2005 09:44 PM

Comments

I was blown away by how well Kerry did in metropolitan Denver. He scored nearly as well there as he did in metropolitan Minneapolis-St. Paul last year. Any efforts we can make to continue swinging the former GOP strongholds of Jefferson, Arapahoe and Larimer Counties our way will be most useful. A Dem convention in Denver would be a fantastic idea.

Posted by: Mark at October 14, 2005 12:13 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I see some upside to the Denver Convention, and think that it might help push us over the edge there. But I am rooting for a Cleveland Convention... the city needs it more, it more symbolic, and is much more important electorally. Remember, NO REPUBLICAN HAS EVER BEEN ELECTED PRESIDENT WITHOUT CARRYING OHIO.

Posted by: OH-09Dem at October 14, 2005 12:14 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

If you want an exciting convention, there is only one way...maybe two ways.

1. Do not let ANYONE know who the V.P. candidate is. Have all the candidates "run" for office throughout the remainder of the primary season. Imagine last election with John Edwards focusing all this attention on NC/VA, Clark in AK, someone else in PA, OH, Richardson in NV,NM,AZ, Gephardt in IA, MO. We could have cleaned up.

2. Let the convention vote and decide on the VP. why the hell not? In this period of P.R. and sound-bites, show the people that Democrats believe in Democracy. Power to the People.

Posted by: chuckles at October 14, 2005 12:21 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Chuckles, sounds like you liked last season's West Wing finale eh?

Posted by: OH-09Dem at October 14, 2005 01:38 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

What happened?

I don't have a TV anymore...haven't seen anything since he went numb...

But, I can find comments from days after the 04 election with the same idea.

Posted by: chuckles at October 14, 2005 02:43 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

What about...dare I say....New Orleans....Or is this too 9/11 GOP like?

I agree though Denver is a great choice. Either than or Miami.

Posted by: jkfp2004 at October 14, 2005 06:13 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

JKPF: I saw a lot of talk about the GOP going to New Orleans on Hotline today. But I don't think it's just a GOP impulse - the Dems wanted to be in NYC, too, but Terry McAuliffe (in a very stupid move) told Mike Bloomberg he'd do it in NYC if ONLY the Dems could do it in NYC. Sigh... glad he's gone.

I agree that doing it in NO would be a nice gesture. But there's no question that states like NV, CO, NM, AZ and even MT are our future, and I think doing it in Denver sends a very strong message.

Also, I can't even imagine the weather in NO in August. ;)

Posted by: DavidNYC at October 14, 2005 06:57 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

First time poster here

I think New Orleans is way too Republican-like for me. I don't want to make such a naked political move like that. I just don't think its right.

As for cities. My suggestion was a very blue city in a moderate Red State. That leaves 4 great choices: Cleveland, St. Louis, Denver and Miami. I'd be leaning towards Miami myself, but any of the 4 would eb great

Posted by: safi at October 14, 2005 08:35 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Actually, New Orleans is one of the Democratic cities in America. John Kerry got 78% there. The political dynamic will be forever changed post-Katrina however. Tens of thousands of Democratic voters are never likely to return, which bodes badly for Mary Landrieu. With that in mind, maybe it wouldn't be such a bad idea to have the convention there....to try to keep LA from slipping completely out of our hands. But there's always the risk of looking like shameless opportunists.

Posted by: Mark at October 14, 2005 09:01 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Mark... I think safi meant Repub like because of the NYC/9/11 Convention stunt they pulled in 2004. Like I said before, I think Cleveland would be the best, but I fully agree with safi that St.Louis, Miami, and Denver in that order would be my next choices.

Posted by: OH-09Dem at October 14, 2005 10:46 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

With all due respect to the great city of Cleveland, the average American's perception of Cleveland is not exactly one of a thirving cultural metropolis. Although we know of the city's history and culture, the idea of stuffy, borring politicians gathering in Cleveland seems to be the exact opposite of the youthful vitality democratic party needs to convey.

Posted by: jkfp2004 at October 14, 2005 10:58 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

obviously you haven't been to Cleveland... unlike every single Democratic candidate for President on election day since Kennedy

Posted by: OH-09Dem at October 14, 2005 11:35 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

No I have never been to Cleveland, so I have no first hand proof, but I do know what people think. All I'm saying is that if the Republicans have their convention in some exotic place (Miami, NYC, Phily, LA, etc) and the dems go to Cleveland, the late night jokes will be numerous.

Posted by: jkfp2004 at October 15, 2005 12:34 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Denver would be a great place for a midterm convention!

Posted by: MNW at October 15, 2005 12:54 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Jkfp....just wondering if you know where the RNC just had their big spring National Chairmans's election strategy pow-wow... it wasn't Cleveland was it? http://www.gopconvention.com/News/RisingTideRead.aspx?ID=105

Posted by: OH-09Dem at October 15, 2005 01:04 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Denver sounds good, but 2008 seems a bit too early. I still agree with those who say Ohio is key -- especially with Dems barely holding the upper midwest and losing Iowa (A Dukakais state) in 2004. Winning a few western states won't mean muich if we can't hold the traditional democratic midwest. Why not Columbus? Ohio is a big prize and one that's been consistently close. Holding the convention in Boston was a mistake if we want to show Dems are secure in the "heartland" as well as the coasts. I also read that Columbus was recognized as the best city for African-Americans to live looking at education, income, health, etc. If not Columbus, maybe over the border in Pittsburgh? Let's choose a traditionally "middle American" location with a Democratic history.

Posted by: mcittone at October 16, 2005 12:17 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I think a Denver convention would be beautiful beyond words. But I've heard it argued that a key problem is that the city's hotels aren't all that unionized, so it wouldn't be possible.

Any comments confirming or denying this as a potential sticking point? Any way to push past it if it is a sticking point?

Posted by: Andy Albertson at October 16, 2005 07:59 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

St. Louis? Why is it that everyone thinkk that St. Louis is the ONLY city in Missouri? Kansas City is larger by population, land area, and has better transportation systems, convention capacity and democratic base. Kerry performed very well in Kansas City proper last election. In 2008 Kansas City will literally have JUST finished a new downtown arena, convention center expansion, addition of hundreds of bed of hotel space, and a new shopping and entertainment district a block from all these things. Aside from it's closeness to the geographic center of the continent, I see no drawbacks from a convention here.

Posted by: Tyler at November 10, 2005 12:48 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Hosting a convention does not give one a bigger voice to the Party. We have no voice unless we take out Lieberman and elect Ciro. We really do need to take our Party back from the lobbyists and DLC politicians. No more Bush kissing and no more NAFTA.

Posted by: Oakland at February 22, 2006 06:39 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment