|
Badger of Basra posted:Why do they even consider Las Vegas? It seems like an invitation for some really embarrassing shenanigans by party functionaries. That's pretty much a given regardless of where the convention happens.
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 18:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 17:38 |
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:Why do they even consider Las Vegas? It seems like an invitation for some really embarrassing shenanigans by party functionaries. Because the local resorts and casinos know that they'll make so much money from it that they're willing to pay the parties for the privilege of hosting the convention. So much that they've even put together a marketing campaign for that purpose.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 18:53
|
|
|
Pook Good Mook posted:It's going to be Atlanta, Indy, or Phoenix. Probably Atlanta. After the way they handled snow this past year, I'd expect Atlanta's public safety mobilization is pretty poorly funded. Indy and Phoenix have recently hosted Super Bowls, so I'd say they're prepared.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 18:54
|
|
|
Why isn't Detroit the obvious favorite there? Dems have been struggling to hold ground in nearby states, it highlights both the recovery the auto industry has made but also the wealth inequality and lack of action on jobs and economic security that republicans have shown. Also holy poo poo it's 2014 is there really nothing better for us to be talking about?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 18:58
|
|
|
AYC posted:Surprised not to see a Texas city on there. Guess they're waiting until 2020 to turn it blue. Houston and Austin weren't interested, I think. Didn't even submit bids, or something. San Antonio I dunno. Dallas, I recall reading, did, and would probably be a fine choice as they've got plenty of hotel and convention space and the money to foot the bill, but yeah, they're probably waiting for a time when Texas is more electorally relevant to have one here.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 18:59
|
|
|
For selfish reasons, I want it in NYC or Miami.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 19:02
|
|
|
I see that the Vegas 2016 site has been updated with this very special message to Republicans from the host of Pawn Stars. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xs2f1YEdziY Which is obviously hilarious. Anyway, even if neither of the parties are seriously considering Vegas they can still show that city's bid to the other contenders to get them to make better offers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 19:03
|
|
|
SavageBastard posted:Why isn't Detroit the obvious favorite there? Dems have been struggling to hold ground in nearby states, it highlights both the recovery the auto industry has made but also the wealth inequality and lack of action on jobs and economic security that republicans have shown. Also holy poo poo it's 2014 is there really nothing better for us to be talking about? "Detroit" is becoming shorthand for "failed Democratic governance" in GOP circles. The GOP candidates in our city council election (in VA mind you) are literally running on the slogan "Stop Us From Becoming Detroit: Vote Republican." I don't think they won't the centerpiece of the convention to be a bankrupt city.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 19:12
|
|
|
De Nomolos posted:"Detroit" is becoming shorthand for "failed Democratic governance" in GOP circles. The GOP candidates in our city council election (in VA mind you) are literally running on the slogan "Stop Us From Becoming Detroit: Vote Republican." At this point catchphrases that appeal to the Fox News demographic have no traction with much of America. I don't really see the problem there considering that's a population that Dems shouldn't even be pretending to appeal to.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 19:27
|
|
|
SavageBastard posted:At this point catchphrases that appeal to the Fox News demographic have no traction with much of America. I don't really see the problem there considering that's a population that Dems shouldn't even be pretending to appeal to. You don't think the average low-info voter would find it odd that a major political party wishing to tout improvement of the country would hold their big party in a bankrupt city? Do you just really want it in your home town or something? Because it's really a lovely thing to host. I lived in Tampa for 2 Super Bowls and my Tampa friends said the RNC was worse for traffic and crowd control by far.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 19:34
|
|
|
I think the Dems have more to gain holding it in Detroit and making it about how laissez faire corporate policy let all our homegrown industry cut and run from the Midwest and the Democrats are the only ones funding education for high-tech jobs to replace them blah blah blah. Throwing a bone to the rust belt is never a losing strategy electorally. Especially if it's Hillary. Blue-collar democrats love the Clintons (God only knows why, the man signed NAFTA).
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 19:50
|
|
|
That's my point as well. I agree the optics of holding it in a bankrupt city could be bad but why not turn that into "Republicans and the politics of inequality bankrupted this city?" Grow some balls already, Dems.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 19:59
|
|
|
It should be Detroit. Rick Snyder turned us into a right to work state. They've been union busting like no tomorrow. People here are pissed. If they want an extremely pumped up and receptive crowd it should go to Detroit. The optics from inside the venue would be amazing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 20:33
|
|
|
Joementum posted:I see that the Vegas 2016 site has been updated with this very special message to Republicans from the host of Pawn Stars. This is why it should be Las Vegas. Either the Democrats will steal the Republicans' presumed favorite location, or there will be a hilarious two conventions in one city, where hopefully the Democrats will one up the Republicans.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 20:55
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Here's the list of cities that the DNC is considering for the convention: Atlanta, Chicago, Las Vegas, and Philadelphia seem to make the most sense to me. New York is always an option if there's no obvious choice. Orlando is a dark horse, but I don't think anyone even wants to try inland Florida during hurricane season. Arizona was the target for boycotts just a couple of years ago over SB 1070; I doubt the DNC wants to go there anytime soon since there's still plenty of time for their legislature to enact something else hateful. De Nomolos posted:There's absolutely nothing to gain from holding it in SLC or Nashville. New York is almost always a disaster for events like that. A Chicago convention when you may possibly have a primary fight between Hillary and some number of left wing grassroots candidates could be an interesting juxtaposition (but odds are that won't come to pass, Dems will get in line). I guess the proper theory would be that a convention in a swing state with an important Senate race would matter most. So...Indianapolis? Any Florida city (is Rubio vulnerable?)? Phoenix (is McCain vulnerable?)? Any Pennsylvania city? Pretty much all of these cities have the facilities and logistic support to host. If the city/county government in Philadelphia can convince the DNC that they can cover security costs without an internal squabble, they'll get the convention and the mayor, commissioners, state officials running in that area, etc will all get a boost in the fall. On the DNC side, they have to consider if their support will have more leverage in competitive suburban Philadelphia or Salt Lake City.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 22:42
|
|
|
Pook Good Mook posted:I think the Dems have more to gain holding it in Detroit and making it about how laissez faire corporate policy let all our homegrown industry cut and run from the Midwest and the Democrats are the only ones funding education for high-tech jobs to replace them blah blah blah. You're right, blaming Republicans for the failure of Detroit sounds like a winning strategy. It wasn't the politicians in control of Detroit's finances who bankrupted it, it was the "politics of inequality."
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 23:27
|
|
|
Phoenix wouldnt be super weird as itd be in downtown Phoenix which is the center of a sea of blue for Arizona and our mayor is ostensibly a liberal Dem, but it'd probably be bad press to see all the dead drunk party delegates collapsed on the sidewalk because it will be 130 degrees out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 23:31
|
|
|
StarMagician posted:You're right, blaming Republicans for the failure of Detroit sounds like a winning strategy. It wasn't the politicians in control of Detroit's finances who bankrupted it, it was the "politics of inequality." ...That's not what I said....? The reason Detroit died is because jobs left. Jobs left because politicians beholden to corporations instead of workers jiggered the tax code and regulations to allow businesses to leave if it meant the workers didn't have collective bargaining. The reason why the industrial Midwest did so well for a century was because you could work your rear end off every day with the knowledge that at the end of it you'd be able to feed your family and buy a house on your blue-collar salary and your kids would be going to some of the best public colleges in the country when they were old enough so they wouldn't have to follow you if they didn't want to. When we as a society decided the moving imaginary money around in electronic accounts was more laudable and something to aspire to we stopped protecting our industrial advantage. I'm not arguing that Detroit's leaders are blameless but I'd like to see you govern a city with infrastructure and services originally designed for 3 million people being used by half that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 23:37
|
|
|
StarMagician posted:You're right, blaming Republicans for the failure of Detroit sounds like a winning strategy. It wasn't the politicians in control of Detroit's finances who bankrupted it, it was the "politics of inequality." Well, what's good for the goose is good for the gander? Republicans have successfully argued time and again that the things they screw up are the Dems fault and thereby turned their crippling disadvantages into powerful rhetorical victories, it's about time the Democrats grow some balls and figure out how to do the same. Detroit is a great opportunity, because it can easily be blamed on the Republicans, and stick, without a whole lot of effort, and it would simultaneously hurt the Repubs and cast a Democratic sore spot as a strength instead.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 23:43
|
|
|
Most Americans don't see things the way you and Bernie Sanders do, whether it's right or not. They'll see a Democratic convention in a decaying dump that they're saying is the fault of the other guys...at a convention occurring after 8 years of a Democratic president. Most voters who make the difference in Presidential years know gently caress all about Rick Snyder or unions or even why Reagan was bad. Those people who know and talk like you always vote Dem or are petulant 3rd party voters. Why cater to those groups when it's those low info Obama voters you need? You'd be trying to use a convention selling 4 more years to not only sell 4 more years but to also explain away the conventional wisdom. You won't do that at a convention that's really just a big glitzy TV ad. Or you can have it in Miami and talk about how we have a bright shiny diverse new party and future. Good luck with that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 23:47
|
|
|
De Nomolos posted:Or you can have it in Miami and talk about how we have a bright shiny diverse new party and future. Err.... these are not things that anyone I knows, Liberal or Conservative, associates with Miami.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 23:49
|
|
|
Youth rally for the party of diversity and the future at the Miami convention.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 23:53
|
|
|
Salt Lake City wouldn't be too bad of an idea in regards to convention space (we've actually been upgrading our convention buildings after not being quite big enough for the Olympics), but the juxtaposition of how liberal SLC is with Utah's weird alcohol laws would be interesting. Also the local Dems would be horrified to be associated with the national Dems because that means we'd be deader than dead as a party, since Utah hates the national Democrats.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 00:01
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Youth rally for the party of diversity and the future at the Miami convention. Sock it to me?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 00:35
|
|
|
Why not Seattle? Oh yeah I know why, because we'll gently caress your poo poo up 
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 00:46
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Why not Seattle? Oh yeah I know why, because we'll gently caress your poo poo up Yea you'll teach those random store windows who's boss.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 01:06
|
|
|
Jeb Bush was out talking about amnesty in public again today. That guy is definitely going to run. Awesome. Can you imagine the shitshow 2016 is going to be.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 01:32
|
|
|
Cigar Aficionado posted:Jeb Bush was out talking about amnesty in public again today. I'm at the point where I think pro-immigrant/pro-Latino GOP presidential candidates are more likely to result in alienating Latino voters, because everyone down ballot seems to flip their poo poo and make unforced errors in response.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 03:52
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:I'm at the point where I think pro-immigrant/pro-Latino GOP presidential candidates are more likely to result in alienating Latino voters, because everyone down ballot seems to flip their poo poo and make unforced errors in response. I would like to believe that the average Latino voter is going to see right through his transparent pandering and look at the stuff that regularly comes out of the party he willingly associates with but not being a minority I have no idea how tokenism and obvious pandering actually plays (I'm hoping about as well as Herman Cain).
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 07:35
|
|
|
The Washington Free Beacon polled Iowa and found out that Charles Koch would beat Harry Reid in a Presidential contest there 42-30, at least when you ask the question like this.quote:Charles Koch [coke] is a successful businessman who has created tens of thousands of jobs and donated hundreds of millions of dollars to charity in his lifetime. He has dedicated his life to preserving the principles of economic freedom in this country. So, that's good to know, I suppose.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 13:12
|
|
|
comes along bort posted:Prepare to be as disappointed as most people are with his presidency then, because he's not gonna piss away his future speaking career actually saying what he thinks. Right response but wrong reason: to ascend into 'elder statesman' role, you need to maintain the same allegiances and formalities and 'seriousness.'
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 13:31
|
|
|
Petey posted:Right response but wrong reason: to ascend into 'elder statesman' role, you need to maintain the same allegiances and formalities and 'seriousness.' Though right now he's publicly frustrated with the Republicans and you are allowed to bring up old grudges (e.g., Bush Sr getting mad at Gingrich for being an opportunistic poo poo in the 90s and refusing to endorse him).
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 13:40
|
|
|
Joementum posted:The Washington Free Beacon polled Iowa and found out that Charles Koch would beat Harry Reid in a Presidential contest there 42-30, at least when you ask the question like this. God drat I would love to catch someone using that statistic in a partisan smug match. Why would you even waste money polling a question like that?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 14:23
|
|
|
Dr.Zeppelin posted:I would like to believe that the average Latino voter is going to see right through his transparent pandering and look at the stuff that regularly comes out of the party he willingly associates with but not being a minority I have no idea how tokenism and obvious pandering actually plays (I'm hoping about as well as Herman Cain). I am not sure it is pandering as the Bushes are all legitimately pro-immigration, to the extent that G.W.'s immigration reform push really broke his cult of personality with the base. How much this is a personal conviction or just business minded policy who knows.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 15:14
|
|
|
SavageBastard posted:God drat I would love to catch someone using that statistic in a partisan smug match. Why would you even waste money polling a question like that? Because your polling firm gets paid based on producing the predictions that your client wants, not accuracy or predictive power? So it doesn't matter if you were totally wrong because you'll still get hired next cycle.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 15:27
|
|
|
SavageBastard posted:God drat I would love to catch someone using that statistic in a partisan smug match. Why would you even waste money polling a question like that? "In a poll conducted by the Washington Free Beacon, Charles Koch would beat Harry Reid in a Presidential contest 42-30" is a pretty good line to toss out there. Push polls like this are about getting answers that sound good, not in getting useful information.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 15:27
|
|
|
Joementum posted:The Washington Free Beacon polled Iowa and found out that Charles Koch would beat Harry Reid in a Presidential contest there 42-30, at least when you ask the question like this. "Charles Coke" is a pretty good parody of high level executives.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 16:16
|
|
|
De Nomolos posted:How much does it depend on who you back for president? I didn't do any of this in 2008. I knew a lot of Dean backers in 2004 and none of them went. I dunno. The local caucuses to pick delegates to the CD and State conventions would be early April so in theory if you've mended fences enough you could persuade those guys to get you a DNC delegate slot at your CD convention by working together to stack your locality's CD/state delegation with guys who'll vote for you. But the reality is that most of those folks who are still energized and organized and participating when the caucuses/conventions roll around are the folks who have been working together on the winning campaign for the last 6-12 months, and if they're going to work to send anyone to the DNC Convention, it'd be their campaign buddies. Staff on the winning campaign might also have a hand in it (pushing their volunteers to do the CD convention, or whipping potential CD convention-goers in favor of their choices). So I'd say it's probably marginally doable to back the losing guy and still go to the DNC Convention, but it's a heck of a long-shot. The state-level at-large delegates are basically campaign-picked: The winning campaign will file a slate and the guys at the State Convention will rubber-stamp it. So unless someone in the winning campaign REALLY loves you, you're SOL there. skaboomizzy posted:Atlanta, Chicago, Las Vegas, and Philadelphia seem to make the most sense to me. New York is always an option if there's no obvious choice. Orlando is a dark horse, but I don't think anyone even wants to try inland Florida during hurricane season. Arizona was the target for boycotts just a couple of years ago over SB 1070; I doubt the DNC wants to go there anytime soon since there's still plenty of time for their legislature to enact something else hateful. Is right-to-work an issue here? I know the unions were kinda pissed in 2012 about non-union labor at the convention. Also, they were in Charlotte for 2012 - does that cut against Atlanta/Florida as being SouthEast or against Philly for being MidAtlantic or does it really not matter?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 16:26
|
|
|
Piell posted:"In a poll conducted by the Washington Free Beacon, Charles Koch would beat Harry Reid in a Presidential contest 42-30" is a pretty good line to toss out there. Push polls like this are about getting answers that sound good, not in getting useful information. Pretty much this. Push polls are for hyper partisan headline making. Because the second anyone looks at the wording of a push poll they'll disregard everything entirely. Its clickbait for low info voters who just skim headlines. I never did push polls but my old firm would occasionally do them. When a firm is doing them they won't often bother with a representative sample or good methodology because they're writing the question to the results already so why bother with window dressing? The second kind of push poll is what's called a message test. In that you actually do use good methodology, ask "are you planning to reelect X candidate" then ask "would you reelect X candidate if I told you he supports Y position?" Then you get into the more spurious stuff, "Would you vote for X candidate if I told you he's planning to assasinate the Secretary of the Treasury and declare himself King of Louisiana?" None of them have to be true. Because what you're doing is twofold. You want to go back to the candidate and say "when people think your opponent is literally Aaron Burr they support you 2 to 1!" so now they start an ad campaign "Just asking questions" and the byproduct is you start a rumor that your opponent is actually Aaron Burr reincarnate. That poll is just the clickbait variety.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 17:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 17:38 |
|
|
The Warszawa posted:For selfish reasons, I want it in NYC or Miami. Bonus points that everyone would be sweating their asses off.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 18:03
|
|
