Hailed in: Eastern Parkway
Hails from: India
Things like that are good for business, so I think I would be okay with it. I bet a lot of people would stay in Manhattan and need cabs over the bridge, so it would probably be good money for me and other drivers. (What about issues like crowds or security?) Well New York is always crowded. I’m not sure we’d notice anything, especially compared to tourist seasons. Same for security, there’s always a lot of security everywhere.
Hailed in: Lower East Side
Hails from: Vancouver
I don’t see the point of having it here–bunch of politicians wanting to seem cool. I hated it when the other [the 2004 GOP] convention was here, but a lot of that was because it was Bush, and he was exploiting 9/11 to parade around here. I wasn’t driving then, but I remember how annoying that week was–all those protests, cops everywhere. It took forever to get anywhere and no one was happy. Brooklyn might be better than Manhattan, and people would be excited to have Hillary here, but it seems like more trouble than it’s worth.
Hailed in: Chelsea
Hails from: North Carolina
No. New York doesn’t need to do stuff like that. I was glad when we didn’t get the Olympics–we already have enough going on, enough people here, that to add some major thing like that is just too much. Let some small town do it, like, I dunno… Raleigh. (Do you follow politics, and would you follow the convention if it was here?) No, and hell no. I vote, but that shit’s boring.
Hailed in: Manhattan
Hails from: Upstate New York
No, and I’d be surprised if they did that. I’m a politics nerd, and there’s no point to having it here. One, it’d be expensive, a lot more expensive than pretty much anywhere else. Two, everyone here is already a Democrat, so there’s no benefit to staging it here as far as getting converts. If you do it in a swing stage, that might help you out there. (Where do you predict it will be?) I think that depends on who they expect the Republican to be, but I think Philly is more likely.