
Howard Dean was supposed to have announced the site of the 2008 nominating convention, but has postponed the decision until January.
Denver would be the logical choice from a strategic perspective because the growing intermountain west is getting more cosmopolitan and less of a Republican lock. Colorado in particular has elected Democrats in droves.
Unfortunately, in almost every other respect, New York is a better choice. Denver doesn't have the infrastructure or logistics to compete with the Big Apple. In spite of that Denver is generally acknowledged to have the inside track if...if they can get around one local union that wants to leverage the convention to permanently install themselves at the Pepsi center (which is currently non-union).
If the convention is in Denver, I'm going to try like hell to get accredited. I'll just park the camper at the nearest Wal-mart and blog my brains out.
I think its quite possible that a lot of traditionally Republican western states are going to go Democratic--not inevitably, but possibly.
The driving force is the increasingly urban character of states like Arizona, Nevada, Utah and Colorado. All of them feature highly concentrated populations surrounded by vast expanses of wilderness.
The combination of city life and western landscapes is enormously attractive to many people, but creates infrastructure problems the traditional rural Republican power structure is not well-suited to deal with. Salt Lake City and Denver are both wrestling with traffic and surprisingly to some, light rail proposals are getting wide support. Urban environments are also attracting traditional Democrat voters from blue states like California. These trends are exacerbated by the one overriding resource concern of every western state--water. Western states can't imitate the suburban sprawl of eastern states. Water demands concentrate development. Both Colorado and Utah have their major populations strung along a north-south axis where a mountain range meets a plain. In the case of Colorado, the great central plain, and in Utah, the Great Basin. Living in such close proximity demands some classically urban sensibilities.
Obviously, the Democrats smell opportunity here, but the winner in this struggle is going to be the party that can successfully blend rural and urban interests. Rep Jim Matheson is an excellent example of a Democrat who is learning how to do this. Former Utah governor Mike Leavitt and current Utah governor Jon Huntsman Jr. are examples of Republicans who "get it". Leavitt and Huntsman have more in common with Arnold Schwarzeneggar than Ronald Reagan, but its still a recognizably Republican sensibility. Nevertheless, their moderate positions often get them into trouble with the far right, rural conservatives who pass city ordinances banning the UN.
Matheson and other blue-dog Democrats are at a much greater disadvantage with respect to the image of their national parties, and in fact strive mightily to run on local issues and not have Ted Kennedy come by for a visit.
Its a toss-up as to who ultimately wins out, but what clear to me is that the west is going to be competitive for both parties for some time to come.
















Comments (1)
Interesting take on the West possibly going to the Democrats. The last time I seriously voted for a Democrat was for Jim Matheson's father, when he was running for re-election as Utah Governer. (I voted for Jesse Jackson in the Ohio Democrat primary back in 1988 when George Bush had the Republican nomination sewn up - another reason for closed primaries).
It's ironic, but the Western states might be the salvation of the Democratic party. I don't think they'll survive if they latch lock stock and barrel with the looney left, but you get more blue dogs in there and they'll give the Republicans a run for their money.
Posted by Dave Calder | December 26, 2006 8:56 PM
Posted on December 26, 2006 20:56