It’s Cleveland!

No, not Cleveland, GA…Cleveland, OH. GAGOP State Committeewoman Linda Herren served on the site selection committee for the 2016 Republican National Convention and sent out the news in a newsletter to GAGOP members. Cleveland beat out Dallas, TX in the final bid for the selection process. The recommendation will go before the full RNC for approval. From her newsletter:

Being on the Site Selection Committee was a wonderful experience and Cleveland is a great choice for the RNC 2016 Presidential Convention. The new and improved city will surprise and delight conventioneers and guests alike. In addition to tremendous support from Gov. Kasich, Cincinnati, Columbus and Akron have pledged their resources to make this the best experience possible. If the cheering crowds greeting the Site Selection Committee were any indication we can all expect a warm welcome and very hospitable stay in Cleveland, Ohio in 2016.

Ohio has been seen as a big electoral prize, as of late, with its swing-state status and 18 electoral votes up for grabs in presidential contests. I’m sure that weighed heavily upon members of the committee on where Republicans will gather to officially nominate our nominee in 2016.

There has also been talk of moving the Republican National Convention up earlier in the summer when the presumptive nominee has the numbers locked in his or her favor. There are a few of reasons for that: preventing further Party base fracturing, capitalizing on a post-convention “bump” in the polls earlier in the election seasion, and also, to my understanding at least, the ability to begin using general election funds quicker against the Democratic nominee.

2016 convention selection business will be taken up at the RNC meeting in early August.


  1. SmyrnaModerate says:

    Holding a convention in a state where the republican governor did an end around the legislature to expand Medicaid and is in favor of same sex marriage, that will be fun

  2. If I had to guess the Dems will probably go for Phoenix (kind of but not really the corollary to the GOP picking Cleveland which I think is a good pick).

    But it would be interesting (and convenient) if the Dems picked Birmingham.

  3. northside101 says:

    An ironic choice in that Cleveland (Cuyahoga County) is reliably Democratic, much more so than the state’s two other major cities, Cincinnati and Columbus (Obama for instance only got a slight majority in Hamilton County, where Cincinnati is located). Obama won Cuyahoga County by over 250,000 votes last time (almost 70%), which easily accounted for his 166,000-vote margin statewide there. Cleveland has both a large black and Catholic population—pretty favorable demographics for a Democratic base up there.

    But Ohio certainly has been a pretty reliable bellwether in presidential elections—since the late 1940s, it has voted for the winner every time except 1960, when Nixon won there over Kennedy. In 1976, Carter won there by barely 10,000 votes, providing a critical 25 electoral votes in his 297-241 EC win over Gerald Ford. In today’s political world, there really isn’t a realistic scenario in which a Republican can get elected president without winning Ohio, given especially the overwhelming Democratic numbers in several of the large states like California (55 electoral votes), New York (29) and Illinois (20)—three states which have not backed a Republican for president since the 1980s. To some degree, though, Ohio is being eclipsed by Florida (29 electoral votes) as the classic large swing state, where Obama beat Romney by a mere 1% last time. Similarly, no Republican has been elected president in modern times without winning Florida (whether we speak of Nixon, Reagan or either of the Bushes—of course Ford was never elected president, taking over after the Nixon resignation, but he lost Florida to Carter in 1976).

    • Lawton Sack says:

      Thanks for the numbers. As for the final reasoning for Cleveland over Cincinnati and Columbus, Cleveland has an indoor arena that seats over 20,000 people for basketball games. Add in floor space, and it should accommodate the 4,500 delegates/alternates and the 13-15,000 media members just nicely.

      As a side note, Dallas is extremely, extremely hot in the summer. I was there a couple of years ago and it was the first time I had ever seen a thermometer go above 110.

      • If Republicans could get more votes (not win just get more votes) from places like Cleveland, it could put not just Ohio but Pennsylvania (Pitt/Philly), Wisconsin (Milwaukee) and Michigan (Detroit) on the map for them.

        It becomes very hard to look at the electoral map and think they can wring anything else out of voters from places like the rural/exurban South as they are already maxed out there and it’s likely Hillary (or really any candidate who isn’t Obama) will get a little bit of a rebound in some of those places.

        Almost every one of my culturally liberal friends have some conservative economic tendencies (but think more “Obamacare could be run better” not “Obamacare is destroying our country”) and yet pretty much none of them will vote for a Republican because of the outlandish rhetoric
        on non-cultural issues paired with the extremely out of touch positions on social issues. A future Republican winning coalition will (eventually) include people like this. Cleveland could be a good start for them, and even as a Democrat I acknowledge it would be good for the country to have a sane and competitive Republican party again.

      • Three Jack says:

        Joke Lawton, chill out. But there is obviously an ‘establishment’ and a TEA Party that are at odds within your beloved GOP.

        • Lawton Sack says:

          I’m chill. There is some disagreement within the Republican Party, but there is no establishment. The only establishment that I have ever been able to find is the term used by people when they disagree with someone else in the GOP. Much like RINO. When Rand Paul is considered by some to be a RINO, a TEA Party member, and/or part of the establishment, then these terms become irrelevant.

      • TheEiger says:

        I was pulling for Vegas mainly because I have a thing for the craps table, but it’s hard for me to see how picking Cleveland is trying to punish the Tea Party. I think it’s punishment for anyone that likes fun.

        • The Last Democrat in Georgia says:

          For many years Cleveland was considered to be punishment for anyone that likes life, hence the city’s nickname of “The Mistake by the Lake”.

    • The Last Democrat in Georgia says:

      Three Jack, July 9, 2014 at 1:25 pm-

      Every GOP establishment action these days is in some way a punishment against the Tea Party and the Liberty Republicans.

  4. MattMD says:

    I lived in a southern suburb of Cuyahoga Co. and it’s actually a nice place to live. I would have zero issues of raising my children there. We actually knew our neighbors then. Cleveland also has some great museums and honestly, it makes most of Atlanta look like a cultural backwater.

  5. northside101 says:

    Christ H:

    With regard to your analysis of Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan, I agree with you on Ohio and Wisconsin. Though Wisconsin has gone Democratic in every presidential election since 1988 (one of only 10 states, for instance, to back Dukakis over Bush One), it has been close in several elections—Gore and Kerry each won it in 2000 and 2004 respectively by the slimmest of margins. As for Michigan, Obama won it pretty handily both times, and probably a lot of Republicans have left the state over the decades because of high taxes. I don’t agree with you about Pennsylvania flipping to GOP. When Pennsylvania votes Republican for president—and it hasn’t done so since 1988—at least since the days of Ike, it has only done so in years when the GOP has won a landslide, like Nixon 1972 and Reagan 1984. In the close elections (say where less than 5 points separate the D and the R), the state at least in the last 50 or so years has gone Democratic—JFK in 1960, Humphrey in 1968, Carter in 1976, Gore in 2000, Kerry in 2004. The state is disproportionately elderly, and is anchored by very heavily Democratic Philadelphia, while the culturally conservative Pittsburgh area is declining.

    One of Romney’s campaign mistakes in 2012 was spending a lot of capital in that state, when it looked like Ohio (even if narrowly) was going to stick with Obama. The mistake there is that seldom has been an election where Ohio has voted Democratic for president and Pennsylvania at the same time voted Republican. As Larry Sabato pointed out at his Center for Politics website after that election: “For the 16th election in a row, Ohio gave a smaller percentage of its votes to the Democratic candidate than Pennsylvania. That’s something to keep in mind if a future Republican presidential candidate decides to make a late play for the Keystone state, because if the Buckeye State is voting Democratic, Pennsylvania very probably is going Democratic too.”

    Ohio by the way (according to the Center for Politics) has sided with the winning presidential candidate 28 of the last 30 times. Georgia’s record is a lot more hit and miss—in the last 60+ years, voting for losing presidential candidates in 1952 and 1956 (Adlai Stevenson) 1964 (Goldwater), 1968 (George Wallace), 1980 (Carter), 1996 (Dole), 2008 (McCain) and 2012 (Romney)

Comments are closed.