Democrats eye 15 cities for 2016 convention

President Barack Obama's hometown and Hillary Rodham Clinton's home base as a senator are among the 15 cities the Democratic National Committee is considering to host the party's presidential nominating convention in 2016, officials said Tuesday.
AP Wire
Apr 23, 2014

The DNC is inviting cities from Miami to Las Vegas to bid to host the party faithful for the made-for-TV festivities. Local officials have until June 6 to submit their proposals — or not, if a city declines — about how the city would partner with the DNC to stage the massive and costly event.

The cities under consideration are: Atlanta; Chicago; Cleveland; Columbus, Ohio; Detroit; Indianapolis; Las Vegas; Miami; Nashville; New York; Orlando; Philadelphia; Phoenix; Pittsburgh and Salt Lake City.

Democrats' decision is not expected until late this year or early in 2015. Most cities expect the convention to cost between $55 million and $60 million.

Various factors go into deciding where to plant the convention, most notably whether the city has the facilities to stage the pageantry and whether there are enough hotels to house the delegates and media who descend on the region, as well as the ease with which visitors can navigate the city.

In addition, weather has thwarted recent conventions. The Republican National Committee delayed the start of its 2012 convention in Tampa, Fla., because of Hurricane Isaac. Storms forced the Democrats that year to scrap and outdoor rally in Charlotte, N.C. The history would weigh on officials considering storm-vulnerable Atlanta, Miami and Orlando.

Some of the 2016 cities have obvious appeal for Democrats.

Obama calls Chicago home and he will be leaving the White House in early 2017. A Chicago convention could be a nod to his eight years in power and a boost for an Obama presidential library the city is aggressively courting.

At the same time, Clinton grew up the Chicago suburb of Park Ridge, Ill. The former first lady, senator and secretary of state is considered an early front-runner for the Democrats' nomination if she should run for president in 2016.

Similarly, Clinton represented New York in the Senate from 2001 until she became the nation's top diplomat in 2009. Her husband, former President Bill Clinton, accepted his party's presidential nomination during a 1992 convention in New York's Madison Square Garden.

And Vice President Joe Biden, who is leaving the door open to a 2016 campaign, represented Delaware for six terms in the Senate and grew up in Scranton, Pa. A convention in Philadelphia would be a nod to Biden.

Republicans, meanwhile, are also considering Las Vegas and Cleveland. Denver, Dallas, Kansas City, Mo., and Cincinnati also remain on the Republican National Committee's list of potential hosts.

The RNC eliminated Columbus, Ohio, and Phoenix from consideration and is expected to pick its venue this summer.

CNN first reported the Democrats' list of potential cities.



It's a No-Brainer. Detroit badly needs the revenue that the Democrat National Convention would bring, and what other venue represents such a showcase for years of liberal/progressive democrat oversight?


Chitcago my friend.

Mystic Michael

A completely predictable cheap shot against Detroit - as usual. Any remotely fair-minded, well-informed person knows that Detroit's problems transcend partisan politics, and are rooted chiefly in the huge, global macroeconomic changes that have siphoned off millions of manufacturing jobs from the United States, to ultra low-wage, low living standard countries, such as Vietnam and Indonesia that offer oodles of cheap labor. There isn't a single government in our entire country that did that. Outsourcing jobs from the US to the developing world is 100% the work of corporations.

Does Detroit have a history of corrupt, inept government? Sure it does. But given the actual source of Detroit's problems, it's very doubtful that a Republican city government would have done much, if any better. For a taste of Republican governance values at work, just consider the way that Governor Snyder and his cronies have been systematically looting the city's remaining resources, while giving almost nothing back.

Grand Haven Happy

Yes, why not DETROIT because it was the DEMOCRATS and their union puppets/conscripts who had and have ruined and bankrupted the city once awarded the "All American City" honor named Detroit which used to have about 2 million residents and now they've corrupted and decimated it so much that it has caused the population to drop to less than 700,000 and still dropping!

Maybe the Democrats would like to give the many many billions of dollars they've stolen from Detriot back and of course, plus all accrued interest! Detroit would be very heatlhy once again and come back to life and have a future but with totally different leaders and being run properly and honestly!

Real estate maven

Let's see. Rahm Emanuel is the Mayor of Chicago. BHO and Hillary both came from Chicago. My guess is the Windy City gets the convention. My understanding is the Mayor of Indy basically said they weren't going to even bid. Can't blame him as it looks like a stacked deck.


DC is a close second for radical transition from glitzy, gleaming and well groomed to downtrodden and filthy conditions two blocks away. But I agree, showcase waves of smiling Union workers as though things are just peachy and life is good in Obama’s Detroit while a mile away our brothers are living in horrid conditions without enough of the proper food, care, security and hope and most of all love from their fellow man...have fun and don't eat too much Caviar or drink too much 100 year old scotch, if you get a tummy ache they will have to fly you to Chicago as there is no way you would ever set foot in hospitals that peasants (I mean reliable democratic voters) use.

Mystic Michael

Atlanta would be a strong strategic choice, considering gathering Democratic strength in the South - including Georgia. It would send the message that "we intend to contest the GOP lock on the South", thereby putting Republicans on the defensive - always a good place for Republicans to be.

Either Orlando or Miami would be a strong choice as well, indicating Democrats' commitment to capturing the crucial swing state of Florida. Of those two, Orlando would be the better choice, as it's smack dab in the middle of the critical central Florida swing sector that typically decides that state's statewide & federal elections.


Atlanta would be an excellent choice for the same reasons I nominated Detroit:

"Atlanta scandals, corruption, in danger of becoming the ‘Detroit of the South’"

"As has been reported in the Atlanta news over the past couple of years, several cities have moved away from the corrupt Democratic political machine in Atlanta to create their own independent havens without the influence of Atlanta and the corruption.

Those cities include, Milton, Sandy Springs, Brookhaven, Dunwoody, Chattahoochee Hills and Johns Creek."

Harry C. Alford, co-founder and President/CEO of the National Black Chamber of Commerce said, “Nowhere in this nation is a city so ravaged by blight, poverty, drugs, violence, crime and hopelessness than Detroit, Mich. It didn’t happen overnight but the disaster is just about complete.”

“Corruption became rampant. Even the Chief of Police William L. Hart was sentenced to 15 years in prison for stealing $1.3 million. His deputy, Kenneth Weiner, went in for five years. This epitomizes a deep problem in this city. It is a problem that still exists today. A former city councilwoman is in jail as you read this.”

"Bennett points out in his article, the latest problem, the failed local Dekalb County school system lost its accreditation and is on probation and resulted in the removal of six school board members."

Orlando would be good too, since it is the home of Disney World representing the democrats living in a mythical world where a decision that says States may reject discriminating on the basis of race is equated with racial discrimination, and the determination to treat all citizens equally is called a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.

Mystic Michael

Absolutely. Because as we all know deep down, all this nonsense about Jim Crow laws having sprung up in the Deep South during Reconstruction, and lasting for the next century, is just a bunch of the usual librul race-baiting, and never really happened.

And the Supreme Court's nullification of Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act was fully justified - because we all know that the states with a history of race-based voter suppression, currently covered under Section 5 of the VRA, would never actually stoop to those kinds of tactics now, in the 21st Century.

And it was nothing more than an incredible coincidence that the numerous new voting "reform" laws that popped up in several VRA-monitored states immediately after the SCOTUS decision was announced, constrain voting opportunities in a way that just happens to correlate very closely with well-known African-American voting customs and traditions.

Yeah, you're right. It's all just another librul conspiracy.


Ah, how typically "Progressive" distorting history and reality and believing everyone is too stupid to not see the lies.

Like attempting to have everyone believe that the Jim Crow laws were not the laws passed by democrats; that Bull Connor wasn't an elected official of the democrat party; democrat Senate Majority Leader Robert Byrd wasn't the Grand Kleagle of the Ku Klux Klan; that democrats including Al Gore's father didn't vote against the Civil Rights laws, which were only passed due to the votes of Republicans;

Like claiming that the Supreme Court "nullified" a provision of the Voting Rights Act when the Court actually looked at facts and determined that Coverage still turned on whether a jurisdiction had a voting test in the 1960s or 1970s, and had low voter registration or turnout at that time; and found that such tests were not used and that minority turn out had substantially increased (in fact, black voting participation had surpassed that of whites in a majority of the states impacted);

Translation of the last point: Requiring people to prove who they are by producing a voter ID, like unions require people who vote in their elections, like you need to buy an airline ticket, is RAAAACIST;

The lies and desperation tell you all you need to know about the agenda of Progressives like the Mystic one!

Mystic Michael

I never claimed that Jim Crow wasn't supported by racist Democrats of the late 19th Century, nor that the Voting Rights Act & Civil Rights Act weren't opposed by racist Democrats of the mid-20th Century. You're the one who dragged all that peripheral stuff in here in order to create a smoke screen, behind which to build a straw man. It didn't work, did it?

As for the wave of new voter suppression laws now being implemented, please explain how eliminating early voting, or weekend voting, or extended voting hours during the evening relates to verifying the identification of the voter. Are you suggesting that those states have some kind of hard, statistical evidence showing that people who vote via the newer methods or who avail themselves of extended voting days/hours are significantly more inclined to commit ID fraud? Particularly when the existing evidence, based on decades of cumulative national voting data, is that voter ID fraud consistently remains statistically non-existent; comprising no more than about one-tenth of one percent of all voters? Pray tell, how does it all fit together?

You and I both know that you've painted yourself into a rhetorical corner once again - and that you will never actually admit it. No amount of spin and distraction can disguise that.

HINT: One of your little tricks I've noticed is that when you think you have a strong position, you're more willing to let the facts - or what you think are facts - speak for themselves; while when you know you have a weak position, that's when you resort to the over-heated rhetoric, i.e. pre-emptively accusing me of using the very tactics that you yourself have just initiated, thinking that it somehow inoculates you from getting called out - since you mentioned it first. The fact that you've gratuitously slandered my remarks as "lies and desperation" tells me everything I need to know.

Did you really think your little games were fooling anyone?

Sleep tight...


"I never claimed that Jim Crow wasn't supported by racist Democrats of the late 19th Century, nor that the Voting Rights Act & Civil Rights Act weren't opposed by racist Democrats of the mid-20th Century. You're the one who dragged all that peripheral stuff in here"

Your earlier comment to which I replied: "Because as we all know deep down, all this nonsense about Jim Crow laws having sprung up in the Deep South during Reconstruction, and lasting for the next century, is just a bunch of the usual librul race-baiting, and never really happened"

Should people believe MM or their own lying eyes?

Producing ID is an everyday event in today's world, except when liberals want to enable fraud in the most important element of our Constitutional Republic - in that case it is racist. I guess the Federal government is suppressing travel and discriminating against minorities when it requires picture ID to board an airline.

All of the rest of your comment is simply typical MM shoveling of smoke.

Mystic Michael

So then in your lexicon, "shoveling of smoke" apparently means "putting Vlad on the spot to defend positions he has taken that he clearly does not want to defend - or cannot defend".

You still haven't explained how the racist behavior of Democrats of the past is in any way related to the present-day need for the Voting Rights Act - or not. Remember: You were the one who brought it up. So what's the answer? Please enlighten us.

As for the sudden rush of new voter suppression laws passed in Republican-majority states (i.e. Texas, Ohio, North Carolina, etc.) in the immediate aftermath of the SCOTUS ruling on the VRA, you still haven't explained how it is that their dramatically cutting back on access to the voting booth (i.e. eliminating early voting, evening voting & weekend voting; relocating polling places to remote and obscure locations; arbitrarily striking certain classes of people from the voter registration lists, etc.) is in any way related to policing the alleged "problem" of voter identification fraud. Nor have you offered any evidence whatsoever that any such problem even exists, to even a remotely significant extent.

Are these Republican governors & Republican state legislators claiming that people who vote after 6:00 pm, after they finish work for the day, are frequently out to cheat the system? Or that people who vote on Saturday or Sunday, when they have a day off work, are often doing so in disguise, so they can deceive the poll workers into accepting an illegitimate vote? Or that people who get to vote at polling places that are conveniently located in their own neighborhoods close to home, are gaming the elections system more than those who are forced to find a new polling place located at some little bingo parlor out in the boondocks, 20 miles outside the city? If so, then where is the evidence for such fraud? And why have these Republican elected officials not publicly released the data to show it? If this is all about guarding against voter ID fraud, and nothing more, then how does this all fit together? Can you please explain it?

So who's really "shoveling smoke" here after all? And have you not just illustrated my point about how you try to protect yourself from getting called out on your disingenuous rhetorical tactics, by pre-emptively landing the first "punch"?


What exactly do you have against Atlanta? You seem to reference Atlanta and Georgia at every opportunity, and I am just curious why?

Atlanta Unemployment rating for February 2014 is 6.9%,
Grand Haven Unemployment rating for February 2014: 6.2%
Detroit unemployment rating for February 2014: 15.9%

It seems Atlanta is more aligned with Grand Haven than Detroit economically.

Post a Comment

Log in to your account to post comments here and on other stories, galleries and polls. Share your thoughts and reply to comments posted by others. Don't have an account on Create a new account today to get started.