Why are they considering Salt Lake City for our '16 national convention?

[Ken Burch]

Phoenix, I can see...Arizona's slowing edging towards purple...Nashville, maybe...Tennessee could eventually come around.

But Utah is pretty much a permanent dead zone for us.

What's the point in having a convention in a state we have no chance of ever carrying again?

[AZ Mike]

1. I'm hoping for Miami.

I'd love it to be here in Phoenix do I could experience the festivities, but Miami would seal the deal in fickle Florida. Plus, with Crist as governor, I would assume there would be no electoral malfeasance a la 2000.

If we could seal Florida along with our guaranteed other states, there is no map for the GOP.

[Warpy]

2. SLC is, as usual for big cities in red states, quite liberal.

Look up Rocky Anderson, mayor during some of the worst of Stupid's misadministration.

The state as a whole has been a dead red zone mostly because Democrats have largely ignored the mountain west as far as spending goes. There are relatively few electoral votes to be gained and it's almost like they've thrown in the towel for everything between the coastal states and the Mississippi River and let the Koch Boys spend like drunken sailors and get most of it sewn up for the Republicans.

A convention out west would certainly help and Phoenix and SLC both have venues large enough, unlike deep blue NM. I'm not sure about pale blue Colorado.

[Ken Burch]

6. I know about Rocky and SLC.

Still, it's hard to imagine flipping over a state that votes 70% against us most of the time. My best wishes to those who are trying to do that, though.

[Warpy]

9. I don't think they have any illusions about flipping the whole state

They're just trying to find a venue that can manage a convention out west. I think that's a damned good idea even if the state itself is a poor fit.

At least people will watch it if it's in their home state. Some of them might even think the Democrats have better ideas than the Benghazi obsessed, slogan spewing Republicans.

You never know. The results won't be immediate, but you might see them 10-15 years later.

[politicat]

36. Denver hosted DNC 2008, so we're out of the running.

I would personally like to see ABQ/SF have it, but I don't know if the facilities are available. 2008 stretched Denver's capacity.

And yes, having the convention helps flip the state. I wish the DNC would realize that the mountain west is worth attending to -- lots of natural allies, if they just frame it right.

[Jim Lane]

51. Not so fast. NYC had it in 1976, 1980, and 1992.

Going back to Denver after eight years isn't out of the question.

Can Denver accommodate ten to thirty million protesters, though?

[politicat]

53. Uh... Maybe.

So... Here's the advantage of 10-30M protesters. (And seriously? Really? That's up to 10% of the total population. Subtract 20% as under 16 (so unlikely to be there without parents), 20% as over 70 (and likely to be unable to travel to protest due to health, finances). That leaves 180M people. Protesting takes disposable time and income (at least enough to get there and back), which eliminates 50% of the remainder. 90M. And 90% of everyone wouldn't protest anything that would take actual effort. That's about 9 million potential probably inclined and able to protest. (Even the most contentious actual national convention protests -- Chicago 68 -- only drew about a quarter million people. And they had very clear, life-or-death motivations. Economic survival is much, much, much tougher to talk about and organize and keep people engaged.)

But assume a best case protesting scenario -- an actual 9 million people find the average of $500 disposable dollars to get to Colorado ($140 train ticket from the Midwest, $170 from the west coast, $180 from the east coast; planes are about the same if you get a good deal; $25 a day for food, assuming food truck/street cart/grocery; $30 a night for shelter or gear for Occupying). They all get here -- and note the pot shops. Downtown has many, and that's our current major point of difference from most of the country. (Washington would have the same draw.) Even if only 10% of that 9 million decide to take advantage, that's a 10% calming influence. Which does have an effect.

Now, can we pack 9 million people into the streets of LoDo? Nope. But NYC can't pack that many people into its streets, either. It doesn't take that many to make an impact -- 200K does the job very well. (That was the approximate census of the 93 WTO protests, and the maximal high of the NYC Occupy days, and that's just under the size of the 68 March on Washington.) And 200K, oh yes, we can handle that very well -- no matter which side the DPD comes down on. And Denver LoDo is a hard city to set up good kettles -- many small streets, alleys, open spaces and lots of geeks and public web cameras which can be used for counter-surveillance. I have heard through the maker community that the locals are building anti-kettle tech.

Why are we expecting such an enormous protest? Not that I don't support the idea, but I tend to be pretty realistic when it comes to getting people to stand up for themselves.

[alcibiades_mystery]

54. I feel bad that you wrote that whole post and the 10-30 million was a joke

It was the number estimated to appear in DC for Operation American Spring organizers. they got maybe 200 instead.

[politicat]

55. I considered it a serious question, worth considering -- and caught the "American Spring" reference.

They're deep in a collective folie a deux. They've insulated themselves so deeply in their own bubbles that if their belief was in aliens or the voices in their heads, I could make the argument for delusional. I won't call them a joke... They're pitiable. Them, we can totally deal with, mostly by ignoring.

However... On our side? I believe that we do need massive protests (thus my preference for as central as possible national party conventions rather than coastal ones -- equally inconvenient) because it seems to be boots on pavement that makes for a cultural shift, and those boots need to come from the left flank of the party.

I think the DNC could be a rally point, especially if we've got a contested nomination and it's between the neoliberal way and a green-economic populist side.

I've seen this work at the local level: our county commissioner caucus race was contested this year; we had a left-flank challenger to the center-left incumbent. The left-flank challenge forced the more moderate (and better candidate) to move left, which is exactly what the county needs. His grassroots protest candidacy motivated people to get involved in the process and pay attention. I live in a deep blue county, so our fights are at the caucus/primary level. At the national level, the way to do this is contested national conventions and large-scale protest/participation.

I'd like to have Denver back in consideration, but I'm not expecting it.

[Jim Lane]

56. Left-flank challenge? I agree. Do it by protests outside the convention? I disagree.

The effort should instead go into the primaries and caucuses. A big protest supporting the 3% of delegates who are progressive would be nice, but I'd feel much better if our side had no protest outside and 30% of the delegates inside.

Until I read your post, I'd managed to forget about the pot shops. I wonder how that would affect the selection process. The Democratic Party might legitimately fear that the Republicans would depict the choice as being motivated by a desire to get high and party. This would of course be ridiculous -- both parties' conventions have always been occasions for partying, and for some people getting high, although that's been secondary to getting drunk. Nevertheless, I could see the perception as being a concern..

[otohara]

62. The RNC Is Considering Denver

Just say NO to the Mildly High City RNC.

[politicat]

63. I know.

So not wanted. Denver-Boulder metro is very blue.

We're also not equipped. Given the reports from NYC escort services about demand spiking during the NYC RNC, I don't think we can cover their needs.

On the other hand, an RNC would get a heavy protester contingent.

[KamaAina]

64. "deep blue NM"? What about Tejana Susana?

[Warpy]

67. I think her last name swept her into power, along with her law'n'order past

She's been cagey the last couple of years, keeping a low profile within the state.

The state is deep blue in the north. The rural south keeps getting suckered by Republicans. However, we've managed to send two good senators to DC.

[MohRokTah]

3. Salt LAke City is the WORST possible location.

If the DNC chooses SLC, they are stupider than I ever gave them credit for being.

It would guarantee a GOP win in 2016.

[pinto]

5. How so?

[Warpy]

10. When you make a sweeping statement like that

you are expected to defend it.

Ball's in your court.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

31. I don't know what his reasoning is, but

I'm blanking on trying to think of a worse place. Unless they were to take it outside of the country, and maybe hold it in the caymans, for instance.

SLC is inextricably linked to Mitt Romney, 'saviour' of the SLC Winter Olympics, and is the stomping grounds of the LDS, mortal enemies of marriage equality. And, as an added bonus, more small-time domestic financial scams originate in Utah than anywhere else. (I say small-time, because most of the big ones originate on Wall Street. Utah is the home of retail scamming, not wholesale.)

Holding the convention there won't win a single vote for Dems, won't reward any 'loyal' city or move any 'purple' one left.

[ecstatic]

60. Agreed. It would feel like a slap in the face-

like those of us who actually elect dems are being taken for granted. I don't think it would cause us to lose the election though. Those who would be the most offended by that choice--for many of the reasons you cited--are probably more partisan than most and will vote democratic no matter what.

[MohRokTah]

34. It would depress the base.

You want the convention in a state where we have a chance to win. The odds of winning Utah are dismal. A location like Phoenix sends a better message and fires up the base because of the potential to take Arizona.

Denver was chosen in 2008 because we had a chance to win Colorado. We did win it.

[pinto]

4. I've no clue to how the choice is made. Any idea?

[davidn3600]

7. Is there any evidence these things even provide much bump anyway to the host state?

Maybe it motivates a ground organization, but I seriously doubt anyone bases their vote on which city a political party holds their convention. I think that's a little overrated.

[Recursion]

43. They help the state parties some, but that doesn't pay off for years

I really think it's just the same sort of criteria other national organizations use (are there enough hotel rooms? is there enough meeting space? etc.)

[JI7]

8. because where one holds a convention usually doesn't affect the election in that state

conventions are usually about having a place that will be able to host a convention that will go smoothly and offer a nice place for people to see as they watch the convention.

salt lake city is liberal and would provide a great scenery .

[snot]

13. It's liberal – really???

Are Mormons liberal?

[JI7]

15. i'm talking about salt lake city itself, not the entire state of utah

the percentage of mormons in slc is less than it is state wide and other parts of utah. in slc they don't even make up the majority.

[snot]

17. I know; but I've been to SLC, and would not have guessed it was generally liberal.

[JI7]

19. what do you consider liberal ?

[snot]

20. Well, to set a fairly low bar, did a majority of the city vote for Obama?

[JI7]

21. in 2008 they did, not sure about 2012 but i think it could be because

of larger than usual turn out for romney.

slc is considered gay friendly also.

[Drunken Irishman]

22. Look up Rocky Anderson.

[ecstatic]

61. ABC's "What Would You Do" show filmed an episode in various Utah

cities, including SLC. I was left with the impression that Utah is full of polite bigots (bigots who aren't confrontational / in your face types). To me, that's the worst form of bigotry because it's more insidious and harder to address.

[MADem]

11. I'd say two reasons--outreach and hotel rooms/venues.

The latter they've got from the Olympics; there's infrastructure out there. It's not like they'll all have to be camping or what-have-you. They can be comfortable.

From an outreach perspective, it's been awhile since they've gone out that way. Those western states are growing in population, and it's never too soon to puff 'em up and make 'em feel good, to say nothing of doing a few more things in THEIR time zone, for a change. If we want them on our team, we have to give them reasons to want to work for us. You don't make friends by ignoring a big chunk of your constituency.

Some demographic history from the last Presidential race: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/09/utah-very-republican-but-not-as-conservative-as-it-appears/

[boston bean]

35. Wasn't the 2008 convention held in Denver?

[LeftyMom]

12. Because it would keep the protests to a minimum.

[snot]

14. How, why?

Don't mean to be argumentative; just wondering.

[Ken Burch]

16. Probably because you have to travel a long way to get there

from pretty much any direction.

[LeftyMom]

18. Hardly anybody lives in driving distance.

If you lock up the hotel reservations and the flights early (or at least do so enough to drive up the prices of what's left,) almost nobody can come in to protest.

[Ken Burch]

25. Are there places to camp out near town?

Some could be put up in churches or stuff.

And there are regular train bus connections from the West Coast.

Just wanted to point out that creative possibilities do exist.

[LeftyMom]

27. There's tons of camping.

But camping in the great basin in August? I wouldn't even consider it, and I'm young and healthy.

I think you may be underestimating how long the drive/bus/train/whatever trip is. It's 8 hours from Denver and 10 hours from Reno if you drive directly without stopping, and those are the two closest cities of any size at all.

[yeoman6987]

52. Who would be protesting? If it is Republicans, who cares.

[Drunken Irishman]

23. Salt Lake City won't get the convention...

It's a token bid, and that's if the city decides to make the bid. So, no need to worry.

[Drunken Irishman]

24. BUT I'd say Salt Lake is an option because of its location...

It's right next to four major western swing states - Nevada, Colorado, Arizona and New Mexico.

Colorado already hosted it in 2008. No political party would ever look at hosting their convention in Las Vegas, as too much potential distraction and New Mexico doesn't have the hotel space/arena large enough for it.

Phoenix is the next logical choice and probably a few rungs ahead of SLC. But that's only if the city decides to bid. If they don't, and somehow the Dems want to have an impact in the region, SLC is the next viable option - even if it's odd.

[moonbeam23]

26. SLC could work out great

Flights are plentiful and relatively cheap in and out; the hotels are very cheap for a large city. The food is pretty good (it's not SF, but then, what is?) The mountains are beautiful and the best part is the decent weather in the summer...Phoenix and Vegas are HOT AS HELL!! Who in their right mind would want to go there? Mormons have some weird beliefs, but they don't have horns and most of them are just as nice as can be...(probably because Utah has the highest intake of psyotropic drugs per capita in the US), and SLC is very very gay friendly, as someone else pointed out...

[defacto7]

28. I live in SLC

As far as logistics are concerned, it couldn't be any better anywhere. The problem is, I personally would hate to see all that Democrat money going to the most GOP/red/teabagger state in the US let alone expand the pockets of the one group that owns SLC and Utah... the Mormon Church. It doesn't matter what small island of democrats have had positions in the city... it's owned by the LDS church like no other city in America. Anything spent here will be in their best interests and the interests of the most conservative oligarchs in the US.

Why would we invest in our antagonists?

There is another issue. Mormons make up about 60% of the population of SLC, 35% are Catholics. Catholics are great Democrats I know, bless'm... but that also bring up the fight over LGBT, Women's right to choose, and the SCOTUS who have a strong RW Catholic presence. Would the DNC really want to invite trouble that would cause derision and maybe even cause a split in the party? Believe me, in this city it would be a major problem? You want protests? Come to SLC and fight for LGBT, gun control and abortion in a national forum. Holy shit, I'd go on vacation and hope the place didn't burn down. And don't even start on the subject of separation of church and state or atheists.

Oh yes, there is a tiny contingent of Mormon democrats but it's like.... 3 or so. jk

Then there's the NSA.... this is the place!

Please.... no, no, no.

[Exposethefrauds]

29. Byzantine Alcohol Laws and 3.2% beer will kill any chance of a convention in SLC.

[davidpdx]

30. I know I'm going to get pummeled for saying this

*gulp*

They should consider Dallas. Now wait, hear me out on this one. I'm not a big Texas fan but...

Given there is an important gubernatorial race and Texas is starting to slowly move the opposite direction it is an interesting idea.

Granted there would probably be a lot more protests from the wackjobs like what's his face.

Nah, never mind.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

32. I don't think that's such a bad idea.

Texas is purpling, and that faster we can push it blue, the better. When they finally go blue, Republicans are basically locked out of the White House unless they reinvent the party to abandon a LOT of their regressive social issue stances.

[kwolf68]

48. How is Texas purpling?

Obama was soundly trounced there in 2012 and the congressional delegation is over overwhelmingly Republican. Texas will not be a major Democratic player for a long time. Sure, a centrist Dem may win against a loser of a Rep candidate, but that's not a state I hold any claim to gaining those electoral votes. I'd like to reaffirm our Dem potential in Florida, Wisconsin, Virginia, Pennsylvania, etc...states ostensibly closer to a Dem stronghold than Texas, as well as far more winnable and would make Texas irrelevant in winning national elections. Texas is a loser right now and don't expect Latinos (or even blacks) to vote in such strong numbers for the Democrats forever as both groups of people are far less liberal on social issues than the standard progressive. We need to take the working class back...that will buffer likely losses in the other demographics once the Republicans get their head out their ass and nominate someone reasonable, although that could be 100 years from now.

[davidpdx]

57. The thing to keep in mind is the minority population is rising in Texas

and they sure as hell (most of them) won't vote for a Republican. I'm not saying ignore any of those states you are mentioning, I'm saying that the change in demographics is eventually going to screw the Republicans so we might as well embrace it and try to start getting some more progressive people elected. This year we have a chance to take back both the governor's and lt governor's seat in one swipe. I wouldn't write that off as being a loser. Far from it.

[alarimer]

45. San Antonio may be better.

Yes, Dallas has the money. All the major cities in Texas are fairly blue. Houston and San Antonio, especially. There are a lot of issues in Texas that the Democrats can focus on: immigration, poverty, income inequality. The current Mayor of San Antonio is Julian Castro, who has been touted a a potential HUD secretary. He is 36 years old and has the potential, I think, to go even higher. Certainly he would be in contrast to young Republican Hispanics like Marco Rubio.

[KamaAina]

65. Or Houston

which is bluer.

[theHandpuppet]

33. Any state that does not recognize full human rights for its LGBTI citizens...

...shouldn't be considered for the Democratic National Convention. Period.

[dsc]

37. that would be a brand new standard

given that we held it in NC in 12. I am not saying it shouldn't be the standard but it would be brand new and would limit us to states we already run up the score in. That said, a state as bad on gay rights as Utah or for that matter NC should at least have that held against them in the decision.

[theHandpuppet]

39. Good. It should be the new standard.

Segregation, apartheid, legalized bigotry, whatever you want to call it, should not be rewarded. Neither should human rights be sacrificed to supposedly garner a few votes. So some states with equal rights for its citizens are securely in the blue camp? Terrific. I would prefer to show support for those states and reward them with our dollars, if nothing else but to show that being inclusive is good for business. That's the message to send.

Finally, has anyone considered the fact that when gay folks travel to states where they have no rights they face very real problems, legal and otherwise?

[dsc]

46. I think it should be more by city than by state

Cities such as Houston, Detroit, Philadelphia, New Orleans, Miami, and Atlanta among others shouldn't be disqualified due to being in crappy states. Charlotte on the other hand should have been disqualified.

[theHandpuppet]

49. The states' anti-gay laws don't apply to their cities?

The reason Arizona Governor Jan Brewer recently vetoed anti-gay legislation wasn't out of the goodness of her rotten heart, it was because she realized just how bad bigotry can be for business. A message needs to sent and I'm sorry, filling the coffers of states that won't recognize the basic human rights of all its citizens isn't the way to go about it. That's my line in the sand.

[dsc]

50. but then the message you are sending to the likes of Houston

is don't bother passing pro gay laws because you still won't get business. I have no clue of Phoenix or Tucson have pro gay laws or not but the law Brewer didn't sign would have nullified them if they did exist.

[theHandpuppet]

58. If that's the way they wish to take it

I prefer to send a national message. Equality is good for business.

Spend money in Houston, a good deal of money will still end up in state coffers. There are plenty of cities in states that support LGBT rights (and reproduction rights for women) that could use that money. Most of the suggestions I've read on this thread as possible sites for the DNC are among the most repressive places in the nation for the rights of women and gays. You know what that tells me -- and I'm speaking only for myself -- that when it comes right down to it, rights for women and LGBTs don't count for much if it gets in the way of a good party. I thought the convention was about selecting the next nominee for President, not the preferred places to get wasted.

[dsc]

59. I have never been to any of the above city

except a very small visit to Philly, and a few visits to New Orleans. I certainly am not picking on the basis of getting wasted. I do think, the placement of the convention should be used to do several things, one of which is to reward locales for being exemplars of good Democratic values. I think Houston, to pick one, has been that in a place that it is fairly hard to do that. I certainly think they should get a convention well before say San Diego which under your scheme would be the preferred placement. I also they the convention should be used to try to help swing a state our way which in the near future could go our way, again Texas and for that matter both Michigan and PA are such states. I do have problems with Salt Lake City in that I don't see any value for the second part of this but I think places like Detroit, Atlanta, Houston, San Antonio, Phoenix, Tucson, and Norfolk all would be great places at least under the second criteria and if they have good local laws then under the first as well.

[theHandpuppet]

38. Not that anyone, apparently, gives a damn.

[Fumesucker]

40. For the same reason it was in Bank of America Stadium in Charlotte the last time

Look what happened to North Carolina, the least unionized state in the Union, after the last Dem convention.

[AlinPA]

41. Maybe it should be in PA. Except for President Obama carrying PA twice, it is a "red" state.

GOP has 13/18 US House seats, one teabagger US Senator, a teabagger governor, and they control the PA Senate and PA House.

[Recursion]

42. Mostly because the convention location never really matters

And to the extent that it does, it matters 12-16 years down the road because it gets some funding to the state party that it can then use to build infrastructure. Mostly, though, the city selection is based on the same criteria other large conventions use: hotels, meeting spaces, local attractions, etc.

[MineralMan]

44. I doubt very much that SLC will get the nod.

When someone mentions the "flyover," SLC isn't even on the list. Most Americans couldn't even locate Utah on an unlabeled map of the US. It could easily accommodate the convention, with hotel and convention space aplenty, but nobody wants to go to SLC for any damned thing.

I even stopped flying on cheap airline flights that stop over in SLC. The terminal downright sucks.

The DNC isn't going to select that city, I'm sure. It doesn't help politically. Nobody wants to go to SLC. Most people will say, "Where?"

It ain't happening.

[CK_John]

47. SLC would be perfect. You can fly in get your luggage, check in a hotel, and be skiing within an

hour and a half.

Also convention goers could check out their ancestors while waiting for a table.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

66. Is skiing popular in Utah during the summer?

Honest question.