DNC/RNC host city watch: LATEST: DNC shortlist: Houston, Miami, Milwaukee

[America Needs R'hllor]

If the Dems hold their convention in San Francisco or Atlanta, that would be the equivalent of the GOP holding it in Moscow.

Why do people despise coastal Democrats now?

Bad rep. SF and California are already safely D, so it wouldn't win them any points holding it there.

Ok, SF is indeed a bad choice, but Atlanta? Calling it "the equivalent of Moscow" is pure Midwestern fetishism and irrational hate for everything that has minorities in it.

Ok but you people realize that the Midwest has minorities in it too, right? Who are on average doing worse than those living in coastal cities. 'Equivalent of Moscow' is an exaggeration, but the point is SF would betray a complete lack of self-awareness about the state of the country - Clinton herself said it; she won the places that are 'moving forwards', developing and such, while the whole center of the country is being left behind. The wealthy coasts have their problems, but theirs are problems of policy, not resources, and they will vote overwhelmingly D no matter what. What you call 'midwestern fetishism' is good politics and reaching out to people who are doing really poorly and have felt ignored by the political establishment.

I'm not necessarily against the DNC being in the Midwest- in fact, I support it. And I'm aware that there are minorities there. And I'm against a DNC in SF, that would be dumb. I'm just kinda tired of this divide people are making about "muh identity politics sunbelt" and "muh brave working class rustbelt". Both are areas that need to be targeted, and holding a convention in Atlanta is really not that bad of an idea. I feel like this divide people like hofoid are making is clearly coming from the fact that Atlanta is associated with minorities while the midwest is not.

[Blair]

I hope I'm not the first person to mention this, but surely the location of the convention has absolutely no effect on the outcome of the Presidential race in 2020?

if you're so sh**tscared of having a conference in one of America's largest cities because your opponents will attack you for it, there's really no point being in politics is there?

[OneJ]

I hope I'm not the first person to mention this, but surely the location of the convention has absolutely no effect on the outcome of the Presidential race in 2020?

if you're so sh**tscared of having a conference in one of America's largest cities because your opponents will attack you for it, there's really no point being in politics is there?

Agreed.

[AndyHogan14]

If they hold it in SF they better be ready to nominate Bernie Sanders or else his horde of jfern-esque followers in the city will burn it to the ground.

San Francisco and the Bay Area as a whole voted for HRC in the 2016 primary...

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

San Francisco would be an optically bad pick, but I think Atlanta is a good choice. especially if the Democratic nominee is going to focus on the sun belt in 2020. I might be biased though, because Atlanta is my dream residence.

[The Mikado]

Atlanta will be hot as (insert colorful metaphor here) in July, which is a disadvantage, but otherwise it's a fine choice.

At the end of the day, though, I really don't wish tens of thousands of tourists all coming at once on any city.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

If they hold it in SF they better be ready to nominate Bernie Sanders or else his horde of jfern-esque followers in the city will burn it to the ground.

San Francisco and the Bay Area as a whole voted for HRC in the 2016 primary...

San Francisco sure has some awful politicians between Pelosi, Harris, Newsom, and Feinstein. It is way overrated for being progressive. 

[James Monroe]

Atlanta would be better battlefield in targeting the upper Southern states that are hospital to our party platform(Virginia, North Carolina, Florida).


San Francisco will be useless as it's 100% going to be voting for the Democratic candidate. If Kamala Harris gets the nomination it will be a sweet spot for the hometown nominee speaking in front of thousands party backers.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

Atlanta would be better battlefield in targeting the upper Southern states that are hospital to our party platform(Virginia, North Carolina, Florida).


San Francisco will be useless as it's 100% going to be voting for the Democratic candidate. If Kamala Harris gets the nomination it will be a sweet spot for the hometown nominee speaking in front of thousands party backers.

Party convention location has no impact on that state's results.

[KingSweden]

Either Milwaukee or Atlanta is a fine choice. Columbus OH might not be a bad idea either.

[Darthpi – Anti-Florida Activist]

They should hold it somewhere that it can be used for promoting voter registration initiatives and the like. Not much point of that in San Francisco. Better to go with something like Atlanta, Orlando, Milwaukee, Cincinnati, San Antonio, idk, almost literally anywhere other than a 90% Democratic city in a safe Democratic state.

[Adam Griffin]

I hope I'm not the first person to mention this, but surely the location of the convention has absolutely no effect on the outcome of the Presidential race in 2020?

if you're so sh**tscared of having a conference in one of America's largest cities because your opponents will attack you for it, there's really no point being in politics is there?

Just another friendly reminder to everybody:

If you arbitrarily measure from 1964 onward, both parties have won the states their conventions were in 50% of the time and lost 50% of the time.

From 1932 onward, Dems maintain the 50/50 (11/11) and GOP lost 55% of the time (12/10).

From 1856 onward (first election where both parties existed), Dems essentially break even by losing 51% (21/20); GOP wins 63% of the time (26/15), thanks in no small part to them consistently holding conventions in northern states throughout the 19th century.

Observations:

10% of the time, both parties have lost
22% of the time, both parties have won
68% of the time, one party won and one party lost

• 27% of the time, Dems won/GOP lost
• 41% of the time, GOP won/Dems lost

Only 4 out of the 26 elections in the past century have had conventions where either both parties won or lost their respective convention states. In the remaining 22, one party won while one party lost. Prior to that, both parties winning their conventions' states occurred about half the time.

With that being said, hold it in Atlanta! Obviously the state that gets it (assuming it isn't a safe one) gets plenty of campaign resources put into it as well, and GA is ready to flip in 2020.

[James Monroe]

Atlanta would be better battlefield in targeting the upper Southern states that are hospital to our party platform(Virginia, North Carolina, Florida).


San Francisco will be useless as it's 100% going to be voting for the Democratic candidate. If Kamala Harris gets the nomination it will be a sweet spot for the hometown nominee speaking in front of thousands party backers.

Party convention location has no impact on that state's results.

Party conventions help put resources into the presidential nominee. San Francisco is a waste of funds that could be given to background territory that will help grow the party beyond the coasts.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

There's like zero correlation between convention location and the party winning that state.

[P. Clodius Pulcher did nothing wrong]

The convention could be used to register thousands of new voters, which (i'm biased but) I believe that would be best implemented in Florida, in a place like Orlando or Tampa, since thousands of Puerto Ricans have moved to Florida. They're citizens!! Wisconsin would also be a good place to do this.

[MAINEiac4434]

There's like zero correlation between convention location and the party winning that state.

See: DNC 2016, DNC 2012, RNC 2012, RNC 2008, RNC 2004, RNC 2000...

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

There's like zero correlation between convention location and the party winning that state.

See: DNC 2016, DNC 2012, RNC 2012, RNC 2008, RNC 2004, RNC 2000...

There might even be negative correlation. Probably the RNC should be in DC and the DNC in Wyoming just to be safe.

[Karpatsky]

Conventions are one of the biggest chances a party has to define itself on the whole before a general election. The location is part of the image they project. The territory of live TV is more important in this regard than a particular state.

[RJ]

What about Detroit? I know it's not a very nice place but it might help to rebuild Democratic support there and in the upper midwest. Might make a statement too about reaching out to economically depressed areas

[Wisconsin SC Race 2019]

What about Detroit? I know it's not a very nice place but it might help to rebuild Democratic support there and in the upper midwest. Might make a statement too about reaching out to economically depressed areas

Knowing the Dems, the convention will be held in the OC or Fairfield County, CT, since that is their desired demographic now. 

[Mr. Morden]

Charlotte has officially submitted its bid to host the RNC:

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article207862939.html

Still no word on any other cities being interested in hosting.  Which again, makes me wonder if there'll be a dearth of cities showing interest this time, because of the perception now that the Trump-ified GOP is not just wrong on the issues, but racist, in a way that it wasn't perceived as in past years.

[MAINEiac4434]

There's like zero correlation between convention location and the party winning that state.

See: DNC 2016, DNC 2012, RNC 2012, RNC 2008, RNC 2004, RNC 2000...

There might even be negative correlation. Probably the RNC should be in DC and the DNC in Wyoming just to be safe.

The 2004 RNC was in NYC specifically to attract anti-Iraq War protesters, broadcast those images, and further the divide between "Real America" and everywhere else. They knew they weren't winning New York.

[Suburbia]

There's like zero correlation between convention location and the party winning that state.

See: DNC 2016, DNC 2012, RNC 2012, RNC 2008, RNC 2004, RNC 2000...

There might even be negative correlation. Probably the RNC should be in DC and the DNC in Wyoming just to be safe.

The 2004 RNC was in NYC specifically to attract anti-Iraq War protesters, broadcast those images, and further the divide between "Real America" and everywhere else. They knew they weren't winning New York.

True. Bush could have won New York if he did more campaigning in the area, but NY is a deep-blue state.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

There's like zero correlation between convention location and the party winning that state.

See: DNC 2016, DNC 2012, RNC 2012, RNC 2008, RNC 2004, RNC 2000...

You might as well add RNC 2016 to the list. It's not like putting the RNC there made Trump win Ohio. He would have won it regardless.

[LabourJersey]

Charlotte's going to get the RNC by default.

I think at this point, the Trumpian GOP is pretty much an anti-urban party, and I don't see why city governments would be interested in working with the national party in this way