Sunday, June 4, 2006 | 7:33 a.m.
Las Vegas was among 11 cities the Democratic National Committee was considering to host its party's national convention in 2008, but Mayor Oscar Goodman didn't bid on the prestigious political event.
According to a recent story in the Las Vegas Sun, Goodman told Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean that the city's ample convention space was already booked.
It is understandable that Las Vegas would not seek to be a host for the convention - and not because of concerns over whether the Democrats would have embraced introducing their 2008 presidential candidate from Sin City's pulpit. When it comes right down to it, it is really about economics.
Hosting the Democratic convention would have meant clearing the August calendar of Las Vegas convention staples, such as the Men's Apparel Guild International of California (MAGIC). The show runs four days during August and attracts 100,000 people. Las Vegas can't afford to lose that kind of business to host a one-time event. It must maintain solid, long-term working relationships with its regular clients.
It isn't as if Las Vegas wouldn't like to host either the Democratic or Republican national conventions. And while landing a national party's convention is something that most cities would fight over, lending some prestige to the host city, the reality is that Las Vegas already is an internationally recognized city with a well-earned reputation for upscale entertainment and dining. And, politically, Nevada is a swing state. It will gain the attention of presidential candidates no matter where the conventions are held.
People from all over the world already come to Las Vegas, and we need them to continue to do so regularly. Turning away tens of millions of dollars that these visitors bring so that we can host a one-time convention - no matter how prestigious - doesn't fit.
archive
