Paul V McNutt said:
In 1968, Nixon had the nomination all wrapped up.
David Tenner at SHWI has a thread about the thwarted plan of the Reagan and Rockefeller camps to collude on the first ballot, therefore forcing a second ballot.
He concludes that Nixon was still pretty dominant, and would likely have won if forced to multiple ballots, but his overall argument is that Nixon most definitely
didn't have the first ballot 'all wrapped up' before time. (In fact DT has an extract from a writer who says the only reason a second ballot was avoided, was because a strategist in the New Jersey delegation was influenced by a holidaying businessman in Miami merely because of his travel schedule. Hint hint PoD.)
This matters when it comes to picking a running mate, emphasising issues for the campaign, uniting a fractured party. The party disunity thing is the big one there, IMO. It was avoided IOTL.
Hell, IOTL you have John Lindsay coming out of Miami saying he won't do anything to hurt Tricky's chances in the general!
Having this convention in someplace like Dallas could make a difference to how Nixon runs in the general; and it was a close election.
The 1976 the nomination was decided by uncommitted delegates who had been schmoozed at the White House. Once again a more conservative city than Kansas City would not helped.
You aware of the claim that the internal dynamics of the Mississippi delegation alone changed the outcome of that ballot, right? That's what the National Review guys on the ground in that convention came away believing.
I won't change my thesis, just because the wiki article on the 1976 RNC doesn't mention that particular historical narrative.
Having this convention in a real 'confederate' town could very well mean Ford isn't even
in the general.
Funny you should bring this up. The networks actually wanted the 1968 DNC to be held in Miami, because that's where the RNC was that year. They wanted to save money transporting their operations from one city to the other. The only thing stopping them was the motivation of Richard Daley, who basically ensured the DNC was in Chicago. If it was in Miami you'd certainly see protesters, but maybe the Mayor isn't quite so committed to stopping them.
I guess the '68 DNC at Miami thus becomes the '72 RNC at Miami, protestor wise. It should still look bad. (I wonder if this location was pivotal to bringing out the ex-servicemen anti-war protestors, ala 'Born on the Fourth of July'?)
(Although I don't know about the mayor, the Governor of Florida at the time was a Republican desperately looking to get selected by Nixon at the GOP convention two weeks after the DNC, so heh, national guardsmen running wild, slapping hippies everywhere?

)