Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Cleveland was able to accommodate the event one month before Dallas. Alot of the money raised for the election cannot be spent until the nomination. This was a big factor in 2012 when Romney had it sewn up in May, but couldn't spend the funds until the convention, which was in August.
I agree that TX Republicans are a special shade of "nuts", but I think they chose Cleveland because they need to win Ohio to win the race. Similar to why the DNC chose Denver, needing to win Colorado, a swing state.
Exactly, Texas has a special kind of crazy, but Cleveland is a Democratic city in a swing state. They picked it for that reason.
Now that I think about it, Cleveland is punishment for losing in 2012. They may have a warning that if you lose in 2016, it's Detroit in 2020.
It doesn't seem like having a convention in a particular state affects that state's voting. I see that Cuyahoga Co. has been voting about 70% Demoncrat for the last several cycles, it would be interesting to see if that changes any.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 27 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,573 posts, read 16,560,540 times
Reputation: 6044
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnUnidentifiedMale
And they both lost each of those states they were in.
Is there any proof at all that a voter is more likely to vote for a party if the party holds their convention in their state? I don't think so.
North Carolina and Florida were the 2 closest states (statistically) last election.
Having your state convention in a contested state means that you have DNC are RNC delegates in place for weeks even months in advance doing ground work without the added cost of the campaigns paying for it.
So no there is no proof that people are more likely to vote for a party simply because their convention is there, No one ever claimed it would. But it makes the party presence more noticeable in that area and allows for both ground work and a test case for other states like it.
Now that I think about it, Cleveland is punishment for losing in 2012. They may have a warning that if you lose in 2016, it's Detroit in 2020.
It doesn't seem like having a convention in a particular state affects that state's voting. I see that Cuyahoga Co. has been voting about 70% Demoncrat for the last several cycles, it would be interesting to see if that changes any.
Outer ring suburbs in Cuyahoga County and a lot of suburbs outside of the county tend to trend toward Republicans.
The most interesting thing about this is that the Democratic city list is
Philadelphia
Phoenix
Birmingham
New York City
Cleveland
Columbus.
I doubt Philadelphia, Birmingham or NYC are in the running, so that leaves Phoenix and Columbus since Cleveland has now been eliminated.
im betting on Columbus.
I hope they choose Columbus. That would certainly make things interesting. It would neutralize the argument that having a convention in a state gives a party an advantage on Election Day.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
