💡 Get Philly smart 💡
with BP’s free daily newsletter
Read the news of the day in less than 10 minutes — not that we’re counting.
It’s almost time to unveil the host city for the 2016 Democratic National Convention. It’s down to three finalists: Brooklyn; Columbus, Ohio; and Philadelphia. So Billy Penn reached out to some of the hardworking professionals who’ll have to travel to whichever location gets the nod: Namely, political journalists. Read on to see where they’d rather travel to watch the Dems nominate a candidate for President, and why.
Ben Smith, Buzzfeed:
Brooklyn! It’s where I live…
Kevin Cirilli, The Hill:
Columbus: A Buckeye state convention would clearly show Ohio’s electoral college clout.
Brooklyn: The buzz in Washington is that a Clinton Democratic convention so close to Wall Street could present political optic challenges, given Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and liberals’ criticisms of Clinton’s ties to Wall Street. Political watchers always talk about the Tea Party and centrist GOP division, but the anti-Wall Street Warren-wing versus centrist Democrats is the emerging political rift to watch.
Philly: As a Delco native, I’m biased for the hometown city. Pennsylvania hasn’t voted for a GOP president since 1988 — before some millennials were born. But Dems could see an advantage in a Philly convention to pick up Congressional seats. Joe Sestak would no doubt love to see a Philly convention. We’d also finally get a chance to reshape our city’s outdated, two-party cheesesteak political system by adding Tony Luke’s to the Pat’s and Geno’s saga.
Ed O’Keefe, The Washington Post
I’m genuinely torn, actually. I have no say in the decision and have no care or feel for the potbetika political pluses and minuses. But I can tell you that ease of travel around a host city is key for delegates and reporters.
Part of me wants it to be in New York because I’ve got family there and it’s a great city with plenty of lodging. But it’ll be in Brooklyn, which will cause logistical headaches, especially for the broadcasters and those of us staying in Manhattan hotels.
Philly also would be great because I’ve got family there and it’s a fun town with great eating and plenty of hotels. But will we have to truck out to the Stadiums and arenas on the edge of town? Previous experiences in other convention cities ensure that kind of arrangement would be a pain. (See Denver 2008, especially.)
And Columbus is actually a really nice town — it was the surprise of the 2012 cycle for me. Great bars and restaurants, a quaint, centrally located downtown with the arena right there. But again, I fear many of us would be staying far outside of town due to the lack of hotel space.
So that’s a long answer but gives you a sense of the potential pluses and minuses.
Chris Cilizza, The Washington Post
I say NYC. I am in it for the food.
Dan Froomkin, The Intercept
Definitely Philly! Convenient to *both* DC and NYC. Smaller concentration of one-percenters. Real neighborhoods. Italian Market. Can talk on and on about how great Jayson Werth is.
Ryan Teague Beckwith, Time Magazine
As a writer, I’d go for either Philadelphia or Columbus, because they’d give you so many easy ways into the story.
In Philadelphia, you have lots of history to relate to the events and in Pennsylvania and Ohio you’d have a general election swing state.
But New York is too specific. Can’t draw many conclusions about the race from what hipsters in DUMBO are saying, you know?
