So, Hugh notes that each party has narrowed its list of candidate cities for their 2008 conventions to four each. For the Republicans, the list is:

• Cleveland
• Minneapolis-St. Paul
• Tampa-St. Pete’s
• New York City

For the Democrats:

• New Orleans
• Minneapolis-St. Paul
• Denver
• New York City

As somebody who plans on being at both, I have to say I’m a bit underwhelmed.

A convention city has to meet the distinct criteria of logistics and symbolism. I can see a lot of folks complaining about New York City getting the convention two cycles in a row, but the 2004 convention came off masterfully in both logistics (particularly security) and post-9/11 symbolism. New York knows how to do it.

Hugh wants Cleveland; I’m “eh” on it. I know the city has come a long way from the “mistake on the lake” days, but I’m not sure about the symbolism (”Hooray for Ohio putting Bush over the top in 2004″? “We’re the party of the blue-collar working class”?) and again, hosting a convention is a major, major undertaking. Hugh wonders if Minneapolis-St. Paul has enough hotel space. (In Boston, the National Review crew ended up staying at a hotel easily a half-hour outside of Boston. You would think the Democrats didn’t like us or something.)

I went to Tampa/St. Pete’s for a week in 2001 to watch the Yankees in Spring Training; the city’s public transportation system struck me as insufficient and hard to figure out, and its skyscraper-laden downtown area seems to have surprisingly little commerce. The Cuban neighborhood was fun, though.

New Orleans has to be the far and away emotional favorite for the Democrats - if the city’s hotels, transportation, and other issues can handle an influx of tens of thousands of press, delegates, protesters, etc. by summer 2008. I’m surprised, and a little disappointed, that the city didn’t make the GOP’s list. Yes, they just reelected Ray Nagin, the state’s governor is stunningly incompetent, and the city has a long reputation for political corruption. But selecting NOLA as a convention city would say, “the country hasn’t forgotten about you, or given up on you.”

As for the other Democratic choices, picking New York City would seem about four years too late, although it would follow the hometown coronation of John Kerry with the hometown coronation of Hillary Clinton. Denver’s an interesting choice. There are a slew of red-state Democratic governors out there, and the convention could aim to showcase the party as not just coastal elites.

(By the way, dissaude yourselves of any notions that hosting a convention helps a party win the state that hosts it. The Republicans had their conventions in San Diego in 1996, Philadelphia in 2000, and New York City in 2004, and carried none of those states; if memory serves, not many of them were all that close.)

Still, I’m surprised at which cities have already been eliminated - Chicago? Any of the California cities? Tampa, but not Miami? Atlanta? All of these cities have successfully hosted major events in recent memory.

Cam: If New Orleans can handle the influx of crowds, it would be a great choice for… Republicans. Seriously, do Democrats really want to risk the chance of a gaggle of drunken Kennedys running loose through the French Quarter? I don’t think so. Plus, we know Kos has a nasty habit of Peeping Tom-ism, and that’s (presumably) when he’s sober. Lord only knows what trouble he’d get into in the Big Sleazy. So now that I think about it… go to New Orleans, Democrats!

For the Republicans, Cleveland makes sense if Ken Blackwell wins the governor’s race this year. If Ted Strickland wins, something tells me the land of Cleve misses out on the convention. I’m not thrilled about New York (are they thinking Guiliani here? Why go back two conventions in a row?). The twin cities wouldn’t be my first choice either (Minneapolis is such a blue town they’ve outlawed gun stores within the city limits). I guess I’ve gotta go with Tampa-St. Pete by default here.

Marshall: It seems to me that selecting a convention city ought to get the party something. Other than New Orleans, I don’t see how any of these cities really do that. Minneapolis is an interesting choice for the GOP because Minnesota has become increasingly competitive in recent cycles. Not so interesting for the Dems. Cleveland? Cam’s right. Only if Blackwell wins the Governor’s race. Tampa? Blah. New York? It’s always a great choice, but the GOP just did that. Are the Dems going to go hang out in a city with a Republican mayor? Probably not. And I’m sorry — New Orleans is a non-starter. There’s no way it’s going to be ready in time. So the Dems are going to Denver? Ugh.

Bottom line: Both lists are thoroughly underwhelming. Both parties can do better.

Cam: All right, so what your choices for both parties?

For the Democrats, I say it’s a trip to LaLa Land. A star-studded tribute to Hillary Clinton seems like a natural choice.

As for the Republicans… I say Miami. Sun, sand, and butterfly ballots. Who could ask for anything more?

Cam again: In the comments, Sharon makes some very compelling arguments for the Twin Cities. In addition to walleye-on-a-stick and deep fried Snickers (hopefully not at the same time), I could rub elbows with both Hindrocket and Cap’n Ed. Count me in.

Actually if the convention is held in Minneapolis-St. Paul I could finally go see a Saint Paul Saints game.

Jim: If I were the dictator of both parties, I would put the Democrats in Seattle. Spectacular views of Mount Ranier and lots of environmental types as Al Gore gives the keynote address about saving the planet, the technology industry demonstrating all kinds of innovations that will generate economic growth. The message would be, “we’re hip, we’re forward-looking, we’re a party that’s ready to tackle the challenges of tomorrow.” It would fit with a Hillary campaign theme of “Change vs. More of the Same.” They would have to downplay the Dino Rossi issue, though.

For the Republicans, I like Cam’s choice of Miami a lot. But let me throw out some crazy ideas — if Ehrlich keeps the governorship and Michael Steele wins the senatorial race, what about Baltimore, Maryland? It would send a signal that the blue states aren’t so blue, and that the GOP is expanding its reach into “exurban” communities. The message could be in the vein of, “after years of failed Democratic leadership, more and more of America is turning to Republicans for solutions.” Of course, I’m sure the hotel capacity is probably way too low.

Memphis, Tennessee. Hold the convention in the Pyramid. Country music, heartland values, good food, and a convenient trip for Instapundit. It’s red state, sort of southern, sort of midwestern.

If the Republican candidate is running on a national security theme, Charlotte, North Carolina might be a good choice, with the nominee attending a wreath-laying ceremonies at Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base on the way into the city. The outskirts of the city epitomize the GOP-leaning exurbia, the southern food is great, and the contrast with any hoity-toity elitish city the Democrats pick… (like, er, Seattle) would be great.

BTW, Cam, I just remembered - the Democrats were in Los Angeles in 2000. Yes, the city fits them (including the fundraiser at the Playboy Mansion that was cancelled at the last second) but I doubt they would go back there two times in three cycles.

Marshall: I like Miami. I like Charlotte. And based on the idea of fish on a stick, I now endorse Minneapolis.

Marshall again: Commenter Dave suggests Kansas City. To me, that’s actually the perfect answer for the GOP. It’s red, but swing. It’s a great town. And the cultural cornerstones are things like barbecue and ribs. How can you go wrong?

Marshall again: Kos is polling the netroots on where they think the Dem convention should be held. Right now, Denver and New Orleans are running neck and neck with Minneapolis and New York far behind. New Orleans is obvious. Denver?! I don’t get it. Maybe the netroots like prairie dogs. I know I do.