Houston remains in the running, but who knows how this will go.
Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez is choosing among Houston, Miami and Milwaukee. In recent weeks, some Democrats have privately suggested Milwaukee would get the nod, and a sense of finality set in once the DNC in December paid what were billed as the last visits to each city before a decision was made.
[…]
Houston, the nation’s fourth-largest city, has few logistical concerns given its big-event capability put on display as recently as the Super Bowl in 2017.
But Houston must prove it can collect the private financing to put on the convention, according to multiple Democrats with knowledge of the negotiations who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the talks candidly. The primary reason for the potential shortfall: Democratic officials asked the bid committee to come up with the money without tapping the oil and gas industry, which has long fueled the city’s economy but has become anathema to the Democratic base as climate change becomes a high-profile issue.
That’s a source of frustration for some Texans.
“Milwaukee’s being funded by Wall Street,” said an exasperated Texas Democratic Chairman Gilberto Hinojosa, a reference to the corporate money that is always a part of both major parties’ conventions.
Houston also has a lingering labor and wage dispute between Mayor Sylvester Turner and the city’s firefighters. A top Democratic official said the party is loath to risk negative media coverage that could harm a presidential nominee who will be heavily dependent on public- and private-sector organized labor — particularly in key Midwest battleground states that delivered President Donald Trump’s victory in 2016.
See here for the most recent update. Obviously, I think Houston is the best choice, but the article makes it sound like Milwaukee is the frontrunner. I’ll grant that people from cooler climes will be less likely to melt on the sidewalk there than here, but come on. Just stay inside and use the tunnels, it’ll be fine. Anyway, I’m sure we’ll know soon enough.
Milwaukee is the better choice. No tropical storm/flood threat and in the region that proved to be the undoing of the Clinton campaign. Being close to Chicago doesn’t hurt, either.
I’d like to see the convention here. First, why SHOULDN’T Houston get the business? Second, it’s a lot less likely that there will be 1968 style violence if the convention is in Houston.
Hurricanes and flooding are always a possiblity during hurricane season, but that doesn’t stop the Gulf Coast from doing conventions. If that was a prohibiting factor, there would be no tourism in Florida.
Bring on the convention!
I’m sure a lot of yellow shirt FF’s would appreciate the national attention as well as o’rourke would. With a presidential election poised to be won, I wouldn’t allow the risk of a hurricane, or a flood. Napoleon and The Nazis were not defeated by the Russian armies, but by the Russian winter. Weather has determined many a war and the Democrats’ war cannot afford such a risk.
Yes, Milwaukee is great location, with a state of art new arena/convention center, all near the beautiful Lake Michigan, and it is full of friendly people and good energy. Best choice!