Does Obama Boost Chicago's OG Hopes?

[Marlow]

I read with interest the home-page-linked article that looks at this.

If Obama stands for 'Hope' then I'm hopin' that he can seal the deal. Would he even get involved in the bid? Have past presidents?

[Conor Dary]

Re: Does Obama Boost Chicago's OG Hopes?

I read with interest the home-page-linked article that looks at this.

If Obama stands for 'Hope' then I'm hopin' that he can seal the deal. Would he even get involved in the bid? Have past presidents?

Blair sure did. I think Chicago was the favorite before the election. Rio has the 2014 World Cup and I can't see the IOC awarding them the Olympics only two years later. Too big an ego is involved, to run second fiddle. Madrid won't get it since London has it. And the same for Japan. Ergo, Chicago, and with Obama in it should be a shoo in. Now Cook County just has to figure on how to pay for it. Fortunately, I live about a half mile from the county line, so we will be safe.

[gh]

Perhaps more than Obama sealing the deal, conventional wisdom is that it at least keeps the hope alive, whereas a McCain victory would have been the death knell.

Not that your vote for president should have anything to do with whether or not a city gets the Olympics.

[Marlow]

Not that your vote for president should have anything to do with whether or not a city gets the Olympics.

Blasphemy! That was my #1 reason!

[Pego]

Kuha will admonish me for saying this, but never in my life did I want anything as badly as this.

GO, CHICAGO!!!!!!

[bambam]

Perhaps more than Obama sealing the deal, conventional wisdom is that it at least keeps the hope alive, whereas a McCain victory would have been the death knell.

That was the skinny that McCain would put the kibosh on Chicago but I was not as certain. I thought, and continue to think Chicago is the front runner. Even the European-based IOC realizes eventually that they better grease the palms of the USOC and US television network and hold the Games here every 20 years or so. Despite The Olympic Partners (TOP - formerly The Olympic Programme), television still contributes about 60% of revenues to the Olympic Movement and about 1/2 of that is from the US Television networks. Further of the 12 companies affiliated with TOP, most of them are US-based companies, so well over 50% of the revenues to the Olympic Movement stem from US-based corporations.

With Obama in, especially as that is his hometown, I think Chicago is a shoe-in.

[eldrick]

so well over 50% of the revenues to the Olympic Movement stem from US-based corporations

then they shoud be pulling for no worse than 1 in 2 held in america, perhaps even 3 out of 5

[eldrick]

Re: Does Obama Boost Chicago's OG Hopes?

Rio has the 2014 World Cup and I can't see the IOC awarding them the Olympics only two years later

'68 '70

'72 '74

'94 '96

[gh]

I have no idea what the numbers were before, but if you Goggle "Obama" and "Olympics" today you get 12.5 million hits and a list of 228 current news items. I'd say the subject is pretty much in play!

[bambam]

so well over 50% of the revenues to the Olympic Movement stem from US-based corporations

then they shoud be pulling for no worse than 1 in 2 held in america, perhaps even 3 out of 5

You're right. They probably should but the IOC is so Europeo-centric that they would never do that.

[Conor Dary]

Re: Does Obama Boost Chicago's OG Hopes?

Rio has the 2014 World Cup and I can't see the IOC awarding them the Olympics only two years later

'68 '70

'72 '74

'94 '96

I had forgotten about those. But I think the first two are irrelevant. Money, ie tv, has changed both the WC and the Olympics exponentially since then. As for the third instance 94 was the whole US, at least in most people's minds, while 96 was only one city. 2014 and 2016 is Rio. So again I really think Chicago is the shoe-in, with Obama now the new president.