Post User Polls

The 2016 Olympic Bid

By Jodi Westrick  |  September 30, 2009; 11:22 AM ET  | Category:  National Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati  
Previous: Metro Installing Surveillance Cameras | Next: It's Flu Season


Please email us to report offensive comments.

madrid easy access from all over the world...
tokyo is too expensive...
chicago you will get mugged...
rio de janiero has too many poor to host...

Posted by: DwightCollins | October 1, 2009 7:43 AM

Rio has too many geographic bottlenecks to make transportation of crowds easy or comfortable.

Posted by: wckriz | October 1, 2009 10:04 AM

I don't care as long as it's not the city I fund with my tax dollars.

Posted by: whocares666 | October 1, 2009 10:09 AM

Athens 2004; London 2012 - Madrid is out (they have already committed to support Rio in 2nd round);

Beijing in 2008 - Tokyo is too soon;

Atlanta in 1996 - Chicago has a chance. But,

Mexico in 1968 - It is time for S. America.

Posted by: AMviennaVA | October 1, 2009 10:19 AM

The Olympics are no longer about sport they are just another pro sport wrapped up as amatuer. If Chicago wins then it means the US taxpayer is on the hook for billions that mostly go into the pockets of corrupt politicians and their buddies. Maybe Chicago and Detroit could compete in the murder-extortion event?

Posted by: KBlit | October 1, 2009 10:21 AM

A city with very good border control in the Country, makes for a safe and fun Olympic venue to attend. Tokyo.

Posted by: dottydo | October 1, 2009 10:34 AM

U! S! A!
U! S! A!

Posted by: DROSE1 | October 1, 2009 11:23 AM

Madrid: No. Too soon. Spain hosted the Games in 1992, and the French and Germans would be jealous.

Tokyo: Bad time zone for broadcasters and advertisers. Championship finals in the afternoon would be live at the wee hours in the US or very late night in Europe.

Rio de Janeiro: August and September are "inverno" in the S. hemisphere. Rio can get heavy rains. São Paulo will insist on some of the events, venues, and graft. Bickering with Rio will prevent the construction from timely completion. Only the soccer stadiums will be ready.

Chicago: Cubs fans will be annoyed by the distraction and obtain a TV blackout of "minor sporing events" while their season continues. Graft will devour construction funds, and Obama will have to cancel national health insurance to spare funds to bail out the "Chigago Games" deficit, wrecking Michelle's 2016 bid for the White House.

Posted by: jkoch2 | October 1, 2009 12:44 PM

Rio...a city in an economically emerging nation, and they need to be recognized for their successful efforts at green energy conversion. It's time for South America to host the games...and the time zones work for live television viewing here.

Madrid...wrong time zone for US television, and the nation is often hostile to and non-participatory with most EU and Western efforts around the world.

Japan...really wrong time zone, way too expensive for even the Japanese, way too crowded already, and the weather is undependable.

Chicago...rewarding a nation currently engaged in two wars, and itching for a third??? Now there's an Olympic effort worthy of the gold. Our nation eagerly led the world in boycotting the 1980 Games in Moscow after the USSR invaded...wait for it...Afghanistan. In Chicago, who knows, roving gangs of teen-aged toughs might crush athletes' and fans' skull with a stolen two by four. We could add that activity as a timed team event in the experimental bracket.

Posted by: LouisianaVirginian | October 1, 2009 12:45 PM

Anywhere but Chicago!! If the Obama's are involved we don't need it.

Posted by: Theo7 | October 1, 2009 1:01 PM

I bet the Olympics committee staff is probably considering totaly different reasoning factors than what has been listed here. As well, you have to consider the bribery factor that is part of this type of process. As an American, I hope Chicago wins. My close Second would be Rio.

Posted by: bestowens | October 1, 2009 2:00 PM

It is Rio baby as Southern Hemisphere has never hosted Olympic Games.

Posted by: mascmen7 | October 1, 2009 5:49 PM

"It is Rio baby as Southern Hemisphere has never hosted Olympic Games."

Apart from Sydney and Melbourne that is. Not too often, but be careful and never say never.

Posted by: TonyMostyn | October 1, 2009 6:12 PM

Rio de Janeiro would be a great location for the Summer Olympics. The climate, atmosphere, and beaches go with summer and is a good place for the events that are on the beach and in the ocean. And many of the Summer Olympic sports and events are popular in Brazil and Brazil has strong basketball, soccer, volleyball, and other teams. Plus, the Summer Olympics are not in South America often, so it's their turn.

Rio de Janeiro has more personality than the other nominated cities. The area is more exotic, exciting, and near the tropics. The South American and Brazilian cultures would be part of the opening and closing ceremonies, making them interesting and entertaining.

Chicago is boring, known for its winter weather. Having the Olympics in Chicago would be cruel to the locals as well as others in the rest of the country because there are so few tickets compared to the number who want to attend events and who can afford the tickets and the travel.

If the Summer Olympics are going to be in the U.S., Miami, Los Angeles, possibly San Francisco are suitable host cities, but not Chicago.

Posted by: SuzanneVesely | October 1, 2009 6:54 PM

Has South America ever hosted the Games? Let them have a chance.

The Obama's will have to find some other way of funnelling kickbacks to the special interest groups based in dirty violent chicagoland.

Posted by: falconflight | October 1, 2009 7:03 PM

Rio just makes the most sense out of spreading the wealth and bringing the games to the rest of the world.

But... can they foot the bill financially? that's what the IOC has to weigh. Rio also has a lot of crime. A LOT!

So, if Rio is not the object of desire, then Chicago will assuredly be the winner.

Madrid and Tokyo are both in regions that have recently and frequently hosted Olympic games. So I don't think they'll get the nod.

Posted by: trambusto | October 2, 2009 7:41 AM

Cgicago Baby!, go Chcago, Rio can host on 2020. For now i want it here in Chcago. With the OBAMA, INVOLVED, I THINK , CHICAGO CAN WIN IT. Wooooooooo!

Posted by: nditebeck | October 2, 2009 10:03 AM

The Obama's have lots of real estate friends in Chicago who've seen declining property values...what better way for them to get great returns on their investments by offering up properties for the Olympics?!?!?

Posted by: boosterprez | October 2, 2009 10:19 AM

Regardless of which city gets the games, I have a very strong request of whichever U.S. network televises the games......PLEASE, I IMPLORE YOU.....Provide equal coverage to the Para-Olympic games that immediately follow the Olympic games. This is standard practice in many other countries. We, in the U.S., however, hardly even know the Para-Olympics exist! Have you ever seen those events? They are just as exciting, thrilling, and athletic as the regular Olympics. PLEASE COVER THEM TOO!

Posted by: aerdmann | October 2, 2009 10:38 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company