I'm a long-time lurker who has the perspective of being born in SF, raised in the Bay Area, and having lived in that area long enough to understand the politics and lay of the land (in fact, just visited over the holidays) that has been discussed here at length. But I've also lived in Chicago the last 8 years and adopted it as my home, so I understand the politics here in this currently frigid place just as well. Given my background, I couldn't resist chiming in here. I can relate to the ambivalence in many of the comments above.
While a part of me wishes that the USOC fails here in their 2024 Summer Olympic quest so that Chicago (or perhaps New York) can bid sometime in the far-off future, I think it's understood here that it's a huge pipe dream, especially for Chicago, which flatly said no a long time ago and frankly has other priorities right now. I'd certainly prefer Chicago or NYC (especially Chicago) for the next USA Summer Olympics, whenever that may be--or even a Winter Olympics first, in the right US city--over any of the four US cities the USOC currently has to choose from for 2024. However, one obviously has to deal with the reality of the decision to bid for 2024 and the bids that are on the table now, as opposed to some pie-in-the-sky hopes that won't even have a chance to materialize until the distant future, if ever.
That being said, to me, I'd have to say SF and LA are the two most ideal choices out of the four cities from which the USOC is deciding for 2024. SF obviously has its worldwide cachet, as vouched for by the many international posters on this forum who are intrigued by its allure, as the American city with arguably the most "European" and "Asian" flavor. The Bay Area overall certainly has its great cultural melting pot, climate, and a deep reservoir of corporate support to potentially tap, with decent-enough transport infrastructure. And as many have stated, right now the Bay Area also has enough established venues and plans in the works. While the venues would be spread out, and the political obstacles for which SF is notorious persist and are significant, I could see an SF bid as a solid contender against European cities like Berlin or even Paris. If the USOC chooses SF as its nominee, and it loses out in the end, SF probably wouldn't take it quite as hard as Chicago did--but it would be hurt and likely not be as willing to give it another go as LA would. Of course a lot would depend on how the particulars of the race would shake out. And if in 2017, the IOC does choose SF for 2024--well at least I'd have lots of friends and family to potentially stay with!
I think LA's proposal will likely be seen as more solid overall than SF's, but as stated before, it'll certainly have to work to shake the "been-there, done-that" feeling. It'll be interesting to see how the USOC proceeds.