Go to HHH home page.
Smart Politics
 


Will 2008 Republican National Convention Have An Impact On MN Presidential Vote?

Bookmark and Share

When the Republican National Committee announced in September 2006 that its Site Selection Committee had voted to recommend the Twin Cities to host the 2008 Republican National Convention, it continued an interesting trend in GOP party politics. For the fourth consecutive convention, the Republicans will convene on a state which voted Democratic in the previous presidential election cycle.

The 2008 convention, to be held in St. Paul at the Xcel Energy Center September 1-4, is based on an RNC committee decision that takes into account a variety of factors such as the "number and proximity of hotels, size of the arena and its capacity to hold the convention, transportation, security, media work space, convention office space, and ability to finance the operation." (RNC press release, September 27, 2006)

No doubt all of this is true. However, everything being equal, are Republicans purposefully planting their flag on 'enemy territory' in order to make inroads in that state?

The trend began in 1996, when the GOP convention was held in San Diego. In the presidential election that year, Republican Bob Dole performed about as well in California as compared to incumbent President George H.W. Bush's performance in 1992 (each losing by 13 points). In 2000, the national convention was held in Philadelphia, and the GOP gained 5.0 points in Pennsylvania from 1996. In 2004, the GOP convention was held in New York City, and President George W. Bush gained 6.7 points in New York State from his campaign there in 2000.

This selection trend is in contrast to where national Republican conventions were held in the previous few generations. From 1960 to 1992, 8 of the 9 presidential conventions were held in states that were carried by Republican presidential nominees in the previous election.

The Democratic Party, however, has taken a divergent path in recent years. Its last 4 national conventions have been held in states that have gone Democratic in the previous presidential election cycle (Boston, 2004; Los Angeles, 2000; Chicago, 1996; New York City, 1992). The 2008 Democratic Convention finalists appear to be Denver (which, if selected, would buck this trend) and New York City (which would continue it).

In the future, if the Democrats are serious about making inroads in the South as their Chairman Howard Dean proclaims, perhaps they should adopt the GOP strategy and consider descending on a city like Atlanta or Charlotte. It is true that many of the country's major metropolitan areas happen to be in blue states, but there are still several large cities in red states to consider—should they ever put in bids (Houston, #4; Phoenix #6, San Antonio #7; Dallas #9; Indianapolis, #12; Jacksonville, #13; Columbus, #15).

As for 2008, will the GOP's presence in St. Paul have a positive impact on the presidential vote in Minnesota overall for the Party as it did in Pennsylvania and New York in 2000 and 2004?

Previous post: Smart Politics Meets Twin Cities Public Television
Next post: Collegiality in 110th Congress Enhanced by Rosie-Donald Junk News Feud

1 Comment


  • I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. And i think you have great job to writing article. Keep writing and sharing about anything. Very..very nice blog.

  • Leave a comment


    Remains of the Data

    Is There a Presidential Drag On Gubernatorial Elections?

    Only five of the 20 presidents to serve since 1900 have seen their party win a majority of gubernatorial elections during their administrations, and only one since JFK.

    Political Crumbs

    Strike Three for Miller-Meeks

    Iowa Republicans had a banner day on November 4th, picking up both a U.S. Senate seat and one U.S. House seat, but Mariannette Miller-Meeks' defeat in her third attempt to oust Democrat Dave Loebsack in the 2nd CD means the GOP will not have a monopoly on the state's congressional delegation in the 114th Congress. The loss by Miller-Meeks (following up her defeats in 2008 and 2010) means major party nominees who lost their first two Iowa U.S. House races are now 0 for 10 the third time around in Iowa history. Miller-Meeks joins Democrat William Leffingwell (1858, 1868, 1870), Democrat Anthony Van Wagenen (1894, 1912 (special), 1912), Democrat James Murtagh (1906, 1914, 1916), Democrat Clair Williams (1944, 1946, 1952), Democrat Steven Carter (1948, 1950, 1956), Republican Don Mahon (1966, 1968, 1970), Republican Tom Riley (1968, 1974, 1976), Democrat Eric Tabor (1986, 1988, 1990), and Democrat Bill Gluba (1982, 1988, 2004) on the Hawkeye State's Three Strikes list.


    Larry Pressler Wins the Silver

    Larry Pressler may have fallen short in his long-shot, underfunded, and understaffed bid to return to the nation's upper legislative chamber, but he did end up notching the best showing for a non-major party South Dakota U.S. Senate candidate in more than 90 years. Pressler won 17.1 percent of the vote which is the best showing for an independent or third party U.S. Senate candidate in the state since 1920 when non-partisan candidate Tom Ayres won 24.1 percent in a race won by Republican Peter Norbeck. Overall, Pressler's 17.1 percent is good for the second best mark for a non-major party candidate across the 35 U.S. Senate contests in South Dakota history. Independent and third party candidates have appeared on the South Dakota U.S. Senate ballot just 25 times over the last century and only three have reached double digits: Pressler in 2014 and Ayres in 1920 and 1924 (12.1 percent). Pressler's defeat means he won't become the oldest candidate elected to the chamber in South Dakota history nor notch the record for the longest gap in service in the direct election era.


    more POLITICAL CRUMBS

    Humphrey School Sites
    CSPG
    Humphrey New Media Hub

    Issues />

<div id=
    Abortion
    Afghanistan
    Budget and taxes
    Campaign finances
    Crime and punishment
    Economy and jobs
    Education
    Energy
    Environment
    Foreign affairs
    Gender
    Health
    Housing
    Ideology
    Immigration
    Iraq
    Media
    Military
    Partisanship
    Race and ethnicity
    Reapportionment
    Redistricting
    Religion
    Sexuality
    Sports
    Terrorism
    Third parties
    Transportation
    Voting