Re. all the repeated griping about the meeting being held just outside the USA:
Virtually every other major academic professional organization has held its big conference outside the USA (often in Canada), and they hardly complained at all (at least in my experience with a couple of 'em -- sure, it's a small N, but > 0).
So why is it that so many people in political science complain while so few of those in other disciplines don't? Could it be that political scientists are more provincial and pampered, less international and adventerous, more whiney and obnoxious than other academics? Well, yes, it could be.
But if so, then why? Well, could it be that our field somehopw attracts lesser people? Yeah, maybe. Or maybe our field attracts folks just as good as any other, but it's the actualy practice of doing poli sci that dumbens so many of us? That possibility gets my vote. But then what exactly is it about doing poli sci that renders so many of us so stupid? Is it the fractured nature of our discipline, its silly subfield divisions, problems with its flagship journal, its infatuation with methods that were hot in other fields years ago, the declining hegemony of quants, all of the above?