So the RNC went with the Twin Cities for their '08 convo.
For the Democrats, it's down to NYC or Denver. NYC? With Bloomberg as Mayor and possibly an independent candidacy-- that takes about 2 seconds to reject.
Denver is the first, right, and best choice. The only thing blocking it from happening appears to be good old single-issue politics-- Denver apparently doesn't have enough labor hotels, blah. Deal.
Anyway, for the GOP, MN seems a great choice on the surface (but they thought reforming social security was a great choice too). They've had growth in this part of the midwest, IA, MN, WI at the Presidential level. It contrasts with the Democrats going for the SW part of the nation (NM, AZ, NV, CO). But Democrats have been surging in Minnesota since 2004. They could pick off a House seat, they'll likely win an open Senate seat, and it'd be great to have Hatch defeat Pawlenty for the Gov race in MN. Of course, it depends on who the nominee is for Republicans.
The last Twin Cities convention happened in 1892, with the GOP's President Benjamin Harrison unsuccessful re-election bid. The last Denver convention happened in 1908, when Democratic nominated the ticket of William Jennings Bryan and John Kern.Update [2006-9-28 11:41:44 by Jerome Armstrong]:
Someone asks, "Did you know that the single best indicator for voting preference among white males is union membership?"
Yes, I do. It's very important (it's in Crashing the Gate), but not the only thing that matters. A group within the Democratic Party that is exerting it's influence to the detriment of the wider progressive movement is how the DNC has operated in the past.
Having our convo in NYC would be a big mistake. Everyone agrees with that (OK, so a super-majority do), and given the binary choice that we have, it's time for labor and unions to think about the wider movement beyond their own interests.
Update [2006-9-28 13:12:12 by Jerome Armstrong]: A reader points out that it's Denver's mis-doings, so I'm wrong to peg labor with responsibility for the blooming turd. That could well be the case, and anyhow, it didn't warrant the flipness. I was going off of what Balz had wrote in the WaPost today, which may be the case, or may be mis-informed conventional wisdom.
One thing that's clear is that the DNC should not have allowed themselves to get boxed in by the RNC and the Twin Cities. I mean, we have a situation where one of the final three choices for the '08 has been revoked by the city itself, leaving only two choices. How did that happen?