Change in convention location as a POD

Could a change in the location of a political parties convention have changed the outcome of an election. IF the 2000 DNC was held in Miami could Gore have won Florida?
 
It pumps a lot of money into a local economy, but I'm not sure how much it impacts the state over the long term. Plus, Jeb could have taken credit for bringing the DNC there, oddly enough, if he ws governor whent he site was chosen.

The first one I thought of was 1968. Would a different site have meant fewer protesters and a better public image of the DNC than the violence which took place outside it OTL? Or wasn't it that bad int he general public's eyes?
 
I too see moving the Democratic convention of 1968 as the only one that could change the election. If there is no police riot, Humphrey has a much easier time. I don't see that hosting a convention would ever sway many votes.
 
I think one of the real questions if it not Chicago, then where?

And then, do they go back to Chicago sooner?
 
Could a change in the location of a political parties convention have changed the outcome of an election.

Well, it could easily change the outcome of the convention.

1860 has two strong possibilities.

The Democrat convention was in Charleston, the heart of extreme pro-slavery and secessionist sentiment. In any other city, there might have been a chance to avert the southern bolt from and have Douglas nominated without a huge garboil.

The Republican convention was in Chicago. That was a big advantage to Lincoln. Had the convention been elsewhere, Seward would almost certainly have been the nominee.
 
Had the 1940 GOP convention been held in the midwest--most likely Chicago--it's doubtful that Willkie would have been the nominee. In that era, the midwest was pretty solid isolationist/America First territory, and I doubt the amateurs (as they were called) could have mounted the surge they did to get Willkie nominated. Guessing Taft would have carried it off, which opens a large can of worms for the '40 presidential election.

Now, suppose the 1912 GOP convention had been held on the eastern seaboard--say, in the arch-Republican city (at the time) of Philadelphia. Then, it might just have been possible for the TR forces to have stampeded the convention. I say that because PA was one of the few states to go for TR in the 1912 election; that suggests that possibly there would have been enough sentiment to sway a key number of delegates...
 
Another thing about the 1968 convention, is that Daley had his standover men policing the convention floor, hindering the efforts of the anti-administration delegates to insert a peace plank into the platform.

Maybe, if the location is less oppressive, Humphrey relents and lets the anti-war contingent influence the process, which should royally piss off LBJ... But the president might then roll with the pressure, and bring the bombing halt forward that Fall.

Also, I think holding either the 1968 or 1976 RNCs in more conservative cities (has to be in Texas, surely) could help Reagan.
 
Also, I think holding either the 1968 or 1976 RNCs in more conservative cities (has to be in Texas, surely) could help Reagan.[/QUOTE]

While he might have more supporters in the gallery, I doubt see how Reagan could be helped by the convention site during his first two runs.
 
In 1968, Nixon had the nomination all wrapped up. That does not change moving the convention. 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.
 
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.
 
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?:()
 
Last edited:
Top