Denver will Host 2008 Democratic National Convention

[TheresNoMoney]

Decision was made yesterday:

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/

[CPT MikeyMike]

My wife was not happy to hear to we're moving from CO before the convention. Since just missed the '04 one when we left MA.

At the rate we've moving in comparision to the DNC, the '12 one will be in Oklahoma City.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

No real surprise.

[Nym90]

Good move. We need some variety, and we've gone to New York City too many times already. Not to mention getting it out of the Northeast is a good move politically.

[memphis]

Swing state in a quickly growing region. Good move, Dems.

[Tender Branson]

RNC 2008 in:

* Minneapolis/St. Paul (my favorite) - has come to hand

DNC 2008 in:

* Denver (my favorite) - let´s wait and see

We waited and saw ... Good decision !

[Reaganfan]

Very good locations for both conventions.

[Padfoot]

Very good locations for both conventions.

I agree.  It doesn't seem like anyone has realized what a good choice Minnesota was for the GOP.  If they do manage to win in 2008 I think Minnesota and Wisconsin will likely go Republican.

[Rob]

If they do manage to win in 2008 I think Minnesota and Wisconsin will likely go Republican.

Why?

[Reignman]

Very good locations for both conventions.

[12th Doctor]

If I ever get into power, I am going to create a law... all political conventions shall be in either Philadelphia or Chicago 

[Saxwsylvania]

If they do manage to win in 2008 I think Minnesota and Wisconsin will likely go Republican.

Why?

Because supposing the Republicans win in 2008, then it is likely that they will either hold all the Bush states or expand into the purple states.  Because Wisconsin and Minnesota are swing states, the likelihood of it being won by a Republican increases if a Republican wins the presidential election.

[MAS117]

Great choice. This will be a great convention, especially after we win the CO Senate seat in 2008.

[Verily]

Great choice. This will be a great convention, especially after we win the CO Senate seat in 2008.

Presumably it won't come after the impending Democratic victory in Colorado. That would be a bit of a problem for the Democrats, having their convention after the elections.

Good move on the Democrats' part, though.

[Rob]

Because supposing the Republicans win in 2008, then it is likely that they will either hold all the Bush states or expand into the purple states.

Or the Bush states splinter and they expand into the Democratic states. I can see the GOP losing Ohio while taking a state or two that went for Kerry.

Because Wisconsin and Minnesota are swing states, the likelihood of it being won by a Republican increases if a Republican wins the presidential election.

...

Obviously. They're more likely to go Republican in that case, not "likely." There's a difference. In any case, I wouldn't be surprised to see Wisconsin go Republican in '08, but I really doubt that Minnesota flips. That state has been "trending Republican" for about three decades now.

[Saxwsylvania]

Because supposing the Republicans win in 2008, then it is likely that they will either hold all the Bush states or expand into the purple states.

Or the Bush states splinter and they expand into the Democratic states. I can see the GOP losing Ohio while taking a state or two that went for Kerry.

Because Wisconsin and Minnesota are swing states, the likelihood of it being won by a Republican increases if a Republican wins the presidential election.

...

Obviously. They're more likely to go Republican in that case, not "likely." There's a difference. In any case, I wouldn't be surprised to see Wisconsin go Republican in '08, but I really doubt that Minnesota flips. That state has been "trending Republican" for about three decades now.

Well, supposing that everything is 50/50 in '08, you can add in the convention factor.  Then there is Tim Pawlenty - there is a very good chance that he will be the vice presidential nominee.  With Pawlenty on the ticket, Minnesota is almost a certain Republican pick-up.

[Verily]

Because supposing the Republicans win in 2008, then it is likely that they will either hold all the Bush states or expand into the purple states.

Or the Bush states splinter and they expand into the Democratic states. I can see the GOP losing Ohio while taking a state or two that went for Kerry.

Because Wisconsin and Minnesota are swing states, the likelihood of it being won by a Republican increases if a Republican wins the presidential election.

...

Obviously. They're more likely to go Republican in that case, not "likely." There's a difference. In any case, I wouldn't be surprised to see Wisconsin go Republican in '08, but I really doubt that Minnesota flips. That state has been "trending Republican" for about three decades now.

Well, supposing that everything is 50/50 in '08, you can add in the convention factor.  Then there is Tim Pawlenty - there is a very good chance that he will be the vice presidential nominee.  With Pawlenty on the ticket, Minnesota is almost a certain Republican pick-up.

"An almost certain pick-up"? Right. The Republicans might have as good as a 50-50 chance of taking Minnesota if Pawlenty is the VP nominee.

[Rob]

you can add in the convention factor.

There's always the chance that it will disintegrate into chaos, à la Chicago 1968. There will be lots of angry antiwar protestors, methinks...

Then there is Tim Pawlenty - there is a very good chance that he will be the vice presidential nominee.

Aside from a few caveats (he only won 47 percent of the vote, and he's bending over for the DFL legislature in his second term), I think Pawlenty would be a decent choice. Barbour or Huckabee would be better veeps for someone like McCain, though, because a Pawlenty selection would add fuel to the "RINO" fire of the far right.

With Pawlenty on the ticket, Minnesota is almost a certain Republican pick-up.

50/50 at best. He would help more in neighboring Iowa and Wisconsin.

[MAS117]

Great choice. This will be a great convention, especially after we win the CO Senate seat in 2008.

Presumably it won't come after the impending Democratic victory in Colorado. That would be a bit of a problem for the Democrats, having their convention after the elections.

Good move on the Democrats' part, though.

Bad wording, you know what i mean.

[TheresNoMoney]

With Pawlenty on the ticket, Minnesota is almost a certain Republican pick-up.

You're saying this about a guy who barely squeeked out a win with 47% of the vote?

[Reaganfan]

Great choice. This will be a great convention, especially after we win the CO Senate seat in 2008.

Yes, the 2009 Democratic National Convention. You call me stupid?

[Conan]

Excellent decision. Having it in NYC makes no sense.

[Eraserhead]

I would have liked it in New York (as a New Yorker) but Denver makes more sense really. Colorado (like Minnesota) will be one of the major battlegrounds in 2008.

[MAS117]

Great choice. This will be a great convention, especially after we win the CO Senate seat in 2008.

Yes, the 2009 Democratic National Convention. You call me stupid?

Naso, please. People know what I meant, you're an idiot.

[Keystone Phil]

Great choice. This will be a great convention, especially after we win the CO Senate seat in 2008.

Yes, the 2009 Democratic National Convention. You call me stupid?

Naso, please. People know what I meant, you're an idiot.

MAS, grow up with the "you're an idiot!" stuff, ok? I certainly didn't know what you meant and was prepared to comment on it, too, until others called you out on your bad wording. You know you'd attack Naso for a similar comment. The fact that 90% of your posts recently have been attacks on him is really annoying.

As for this move by the Dems, I think we all knew they were going to Colorado ever since they narrowed it down to Denver and NYC. It's a good pick.