Cleveland, Cincinnati, and Columbus vying for 2016 Political Conventions (Akron, Dayton: medical, money)

[WheresTheBeef]

I take it back. I was at Cleveland's convention center about 20 years ago. It's nothing special (is any convention center?), but it will do the job.

[Cleverfield]

They hosted the RNC in dark blue Minneapolis a few years ago, I could definitely see them hosting it in Cleveland. If you manage to sway even a few votes in Cuyahoga County it could mean the election. Not that that's the outcome I want to see, I'm just thinking from a strategist's perspective.

Cleveland's brand new convention center is something special IMO. It has beautiful lakefront views, is underground with a mall (not the GAP and Anne's kind, the National Mall in DC kind) on top for public events, and is connected to historic Public Hall, and the world's only Medical Mart.

And republicans don't gamble? Ha! They sure gamble on Wall Street, and home loans. Not to mention most rednecks that you see at casinos are republican. I'm pretty sure you'll find just as many republicans at casinos as democrats, and probably more.

[bjimmy24]

Originally Posted by WheresTheBeef

I take it back. I was at Cleveland's convention center about 20 years ago. It's nothing special (is any convention center?), but it will do the job.

umm there's a brand new one.

[WheresTheBeef]

Originally Posted by Cleverfield

They hosted the RNC in dark blue Minneapolis a few years ago, I could definitely see them hosting it in Cleveland. If you manage to sway even a few votes in Cuyahoga County it could mean the election. Not that that's the outcome I want to see, I'm just thinking from a strategist's perspective.

Cleveland's brand new convention center is something special IMO. It has beautiful lakefront views, is underground with a mall (not the GAP and Anne's kind, the National Mall in DC kind) on top for public events, and is connected to historic Public Hall, and the world's only Medical Mart.

And republicans don't gamble? Ha! They sure gamble on Wall Street, and home loans. Not to mention most rednecks that you see at casinos are republican. I'm pretty sure you'll find just as many republicans at casinos as democrats, and probably more.

Columbus is more easily swayed and as the PD article said, in 2012 the presidential candidates made more stops to Columbus than any other place in the United States. In 2004, Bush made an unprecedented stop to Columbus on election day. (I was there.)

That's how big of a toss-up Metro Columbus is and how important it is to getting elected, whether you realize it or not.

For that reason alone, I say Columbus is the favorite.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by bjimmy24

How does Columbus's convention center compare to Cleveland's? I haven't been to Cleveland's yet and was just wondering how well they did it.

But hey, don't forget, Cleveland has the Q, Progressive Field, Wolstein, Cleveland Browns Stadium too.

I don't know Cleveland's either. I do know that Columbus' is actually much larger than the ones in Charlotte or Tampa, and it's been regularly updated/remodeled over the years, so it's in good shape. I'm sure Cleveland's is good too, but I think this will come down to more than convention space. Huntington Park is not that big, but the Shoe can fit over 100,000, so outdoor is not a problem either. I really think it will come down to basic politics and backroom deals more than anything else. That's why I'm not particularly confident in any Ohio city winning these.

[WheresTheBeef]

Originally Posted by Cleverfield

And republicans don't gamble? Ha! They sure gamble on Wall Street, and home loans. Not to mention most rednecks that you see at casinos are republican. I'm pretty sure you'll find just as many republicans at casinos as democrats, and probably more.

Not to get off topic, but that is simply untrue. While Republicans rode the coattails to the government's housing policies, Democrats were the drivers of those policies. Think about it: Are Republicans ever for giving out free houses to people who can't afford them?

I know I'm wasting my time trying to educate you, but don't listen to me. Listen to the Village Voice and the New York Times.

=========

1. Andrew Cuomo and Fannie and Freddie - How the youngest Housing and Urban Development secretary in history gave birth to the mortgage crisis

By Wayne Barrett Tuesday, Aug 5 2008

There are as many starting points for the mortgage meltdown as there are fears about how far it has yet to go, but one decisive point of departure is the final years of the Clinton administration, when a kid from Queens without any real banking or real-estate experience was the only man in Washington with the power to regulate the giants of home finance, the Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC), better known as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Andrew Cuomo, the youngest Housing and Urban Development secretary in history, made a series of decisions between 1997 and 2001 that gave birth to the country's current crisis. He took actions that—in combination with many other factors—helped plunge Fannie and Freddie into the subprime markets without putting in place the means to monitor their increasingly risky investments. He turned the Federal Housing Administration mortgage program into a sweetheart lender with sky-high loan ceilings and no money down, and he legalized what a federal judge has branded "kickbacks" to brokers that have fueled the sale of overpriced and unsupportable loans. Three to four million families are now facing foreclosure, and Cuomo is one of the reasons why.

What he did is important—not just because of what it tells us about how we got in this hole, but because of what it says about New York's attorney general, who has been trying for months to don a white hat in the subprime scandal, pursuing cases against banks, appraisers, brokers, rating agencies, and multitrillion-dollar, quasi-public Fannie and Freddie.

Andrew Cuomo and Fannie and Freddie - Page 1 - News - New York - Village Voice

2. Nation Goes on Its Merry Way to Ruin
By PAM LUECKE
Published: June 27, 2011

...The authors are forthright in their intentions. They are angry about the “outsized ambition, greed, and corruption” that led to “economic Armageddon,” as the book’s subtitle puts it. They view the actions that prompted the meltdown as reprehensible and regret that few of the perpetrators have been held accountable.

... Drawing on their deep expertise, the authors ably trace the legal and regulatory changes that stoked the unsustainable housing boom. With a few exceptions, the book focuses more on policy and power than on personalities, and it illuminates several small decisions that later had huge, unintended consequences. For example, a modification in the handling of bundled loans, approved by the international Basel Committee on Banking Supervision in 2001, more than any other factor, “opened wide the floodgates for the mortgage securities mania,” the authors write.

... But the institution to which the authors devote the most ink is Fannie Mae, the government-supported enterprise created in 1938 to make home loans more accessible. And the person they hold most accountable is someone whose role in the “mortgage maelstrom” has until now “escaped scrutiny”: James A. Johnson, Fannie Mae’s chief executive from 1991 to 1998. Mr. Johnson was the “anonymous architect of the public-private homeownership drive that almost destroyed the economy in 2008,” the authors assert. “He was especially adept at manipulating lawmakers, eviscerating regulators and leaving taxpayers with the bill.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/28/bo...view.html?_r=0

[Cleverfield]

Originally Posted by WheresTheBeef

Not to get off topic, but that is simply untrue. While Republicans rode the coattails to the government's housing policies, Democrats were the drivers of those policies. Think about it: Are Republicans ever for giving out free houses to people who can't afford them?

Yes, if they can make money off of it. Clinton may have prompted social programs to help get mortgages to the poor, but Bush decreased government oversight over the banks, and further loosened lending restrictions.

[WheresTheBeef]

[quote=Cleverfield;33833910]

Originally Posted by WheresTheBeef

Not to get off topic, but that is simply untrue. While Republicans rode the coattails to the government's housing policies, Democrats were the drivers of those policies. Think about it: Are Republicans ever for giving out free houses to people who can't afford them?

Yes, if they can make money off of it. Clinton may have prompted social programs to help get mortgages to the poor, but Bush decreased government oversight over the banks, and further loosened lending restrictions.

Click on the links I provided above. They are from leftist sources and they give you the correct answer.

Even Barney Frank at one point wishes he hadn't been so dismissive of Republican efforts to rein the system in.

Both sides were at fault and both sides made huge money, but there is no mistaking that Democrats were the drivers of these policies and not a single Democrat spoke up to rein in lending practices whereas Bush is on record on numerous occasions seeking to regulate lending practices.

[costello_musicman]

Originally Posted by WheresTheBeef

I take it back. I was at Cleveland's convention center about 20 years ago. It's nothing special (is any convention center?), but it will do the job.

Cleveland finished a 1 million sq ft convention center in 2013 as mentioned:

Cleveland Convention Center

Also in the pipeline is a 30-story Hilton convention center hotel to be ready by the 2016 convention:

The latest renderings for the new Cleveland convention hotel win praise at a public forum - along with suggestions for improvement | cleveland.com

Downtown Cleveland will have added a few more hotels by 2016 as well.

[WheresTheBeef]

Originally Posted by costello_musicman

Cleveland finished a 1 million sq ft convention center in 2013 as mentioned:

Cleveland Convention Center

Also in the pipeline is a 30-story Hilton convention center hotel to be ready by the 2016 convention:

The latest renderings for the new Cleveland convention hotel win praise at a public forum - along with suggestions for improvement | cleveland.com

Downtown Cleveland will have added a few more hotels by 2016 as well.

Meh. It looks a lot like the Columbus Convention Center on the inside. Exposed beams all over the place, similar looking ugly carpet. I like the Atrium effect, though.

On the outside, it reminds me of the new Franklin County Common Pleas Courthouse. It's that neo-mid century design all over again.

The new Columbus Hilton is okay, but it reminds me of an Embassy Suites hotel. It has a similar atrium thing going on as Embassy Suites with restaurants on the ground floor.

I still prefer the Easton Hilton, with its more classic design. It is far more inviting and you truly feel like you're in a top notch hotel.