What are the odds that Birmingham will host the 2016 DNC?

[JRP1994]

Vote!

[Joe Biden 2020]

Under 10% for sure.  If Democrats don't think Oklahoma City could support a convention (and rightly so), then there's no way Birmingham could.  OKC is much bigger than Birmingham.  Plus, there's no chance either state would even be considered purple.

[cbannon5]

Definitely <10%.     

[Pandaguineapig]

If a knock against Phoenix is that it will be too hot in the summer, how is Birmingham a better option?

[Never]

Definitely <10%.     

[beaver2.0]

I dont even know how you would come to an answer to this.  Nevertheless, I clicked 31-40% percent because I think its possible, but not likely.

[SWE]

It'd make more sense than having the RNC in Cleveland

[Mr. Illini]

I don't know why it is treated like such a joke. The GOP has (and is in 2016) hosted in some of the most solid Democrat cities in the country.

[dmmidmi]

I don't know why it is treated like such a joke. The GOP has (and is in 2016) hosted in some of the most solid Democrat cities in the country.

Because it would look like a strategic move to appeal to Southern Democrats, but their efforts would be for naught.

The GOP has held recent conventions in San Diego, Philly, and New York City (all Democratic strongholds) because each city has the capacity to host these conventions.

Honestly, it doesn't even matter where the convention is held, because the location of the convention has nothing to do with how that state votes. The could hold it in Fairbanks or Honolulu, and it wouldn't make a bit of difference.

[7,052,770]

Does Birmingham have a big enough convention center/arena to host it? It is prepared to handle the increased traffic, etc.?

[Podgy the Bear]

Does Birmingham have a big enough convention center/arena to host it? It is prepared to handle the increased traffic, etc.?

There is a reasonable convention center in the downtown area, and there are decent hotels--but Birmingham is not nearly at the level of the sites of the last conventions of 2008 and 2012.

With nominating conventions not being the event that they used to be, there is considerably less interest and coverage at the general level.  Also,  I would presume less resources and personnel from the networks, news sources, etc.  So perhaps Birmingham could handle it.

[NickCT]

I don't know why it is treated like such a joke. The GOP has (and is in 2016) hosted in some of the most solid Democrat cities in the country.

Because it would look like a strategic move to appeal to Southern Democrats, but their efforts would be for naught.

The GOP has held recent conventions in San Diego, Philly, and New York City (all Democratic strongholds) because each city has the capacity to host these conventions.

Honestly, it doesn't even matter where the convention is held, because the location of the convention has nothing to do with how that state votes. The could hold it in Fairbanks or Honolulu, and it wouldn't make a bit of difference.

Well, I think Philly was a play for PA, and NY was done for the symbolism post-9/11

[Fuzzy Bear]

San Francisco has never been a good place for a convention, not since 1964.  It gets linked to social radicalism for Democrats.  It did not help Bush 41 that the RNC that advocated a "culture war" was held in the South in Houston, TX (although that would be less dicey for the Democrats).

A party needs to hold its convention in a city that (A) does not breed deep negative passions, (B) will not invite an excessive number of protesters, and (C) will not give its pols opportunities to get in trouble after hours.  This is why Las Vegas and Miami aren't great places for conventions.

Birmingham would be a good place if it has enough of an arena and hotels.  Columbus, OH would be great.  Detroit, St. Louis, Kansas City, Charlotte; all these places are good.  NYC, LA; these are where the glitterati are. 

[NewYorkExpress]

Exactly 0%... The Democrats will hold a convention in Tienanmen Square before they hold one in Birmingham.