Republicans Pick...Cleveland!?

[Ben Kenobi]

Then I got to see what she really was.

Oh? And 'what was she'?

[Sava]

Republicans’ Choice to Hold 2016 Convention in Cleveland Probably Won’t Help Them in Ohio

The Republican National Committee on Tuesday picked Cleveland to host the 2016 GOP convention. Some might be thinking that this is a suave move for the Republican Party. Ohio is one of the most important swing states, and no Republican has ever won the presidency without it. By holding their convention in Ohio, Republicans may be trying to tip the state in their direction.

Here’s the problem: There is no proof that a convention site has much effect on a state’s voting patterns.

Let’s take a look at the data over the past 50 years. There have been 26 conventions, 23 of which were not repeats (i.e. a party holding a convention in the same state twice in a row) or held in the same city as the other party. If there were a large convention effect, we’d expect to see a party’s candidate improve relative to his national performance as compared with the same party’s candidate four years ago. For example, the GOP convention in 2012 was held in Tampa, so Mitt Romney should have done better in Florida than John McCain did in 2008, once we control for the fact that he did better nationwide.

[cont...]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/republicans-choice-to-hold-2016-convention-in-cleveland-probably-wont-help-them-in-ohio/

and a followup:

Following up on the Unimportance of the GOP’s 2016 Convention Choice

3:11 PMJul 9 By Harry Enten

On Tuesday, the Republican Party chose Cleveland as the site of its 2016 national convention. My initial response, in an effort to determine the electoral effect of the decision, was to look to see whether presidential candidates exceed expectations in the state where their convention is held. But parties (especially the GOP) haven’t seen much of a bump for their candidate in such states.

My analysis did not control for other factors that could affect the vote in a state, such as the home state of the presidential and vice presidential nominees. But someone else did, and even after controlling for these other factors, there was no evidence that candidates benefit when their party holds its convention in a particular state. In 2004, Richard Powell, a professor at the University of Maine, ran an analysis that examined the effects of the home state and region of the presidential and vice presidential candidates; the party of the governor; and where the national convention was held.

From 1932 to 2000, a candidate actually lost a statistically insignificant 0.1 percentage points on his vote share in the state where his party’s convention was held. In the more recent 1972-2000 period, he gained a statistically insignificant 0.4 percentage points on his share. That is consistent with the 0.2 points I found for the 1964-2012 period.

Moreover, Powell determined that the Republican Party did worse in the 1972-2000 period in states where it held conventions. Republicans lost a statistically insignificant 0.3 percentage points on their vote share, which, again, is similar to the 0.35 points I showed for the 1964-2012 period.

Powell concluded that “generally, parties do not derive significant electoral benefits in states selected to host the national convention.”

When we combine this detailed study with my simpler, updated look, it’s fairly clear that Republicans shouldn’t expect to do better in Ohio just because they are holding their convention in Cleveland.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/following-up-on-the-unimportance-of-the-gops-2016-convention-choice/

[The Mad Monk]

If anything, that suggests that we should hold conventions in stronghold states, where damage will be minimized.

[Sava]

I'd prefer the moon.

[The Mad Monk]

You're already there.

[Sava]

there's a lot more traffic noise than I would have thought

[The Mad Monk]

The cheese industry is really hauling.

[Sava]

I'm actually pretty feta up at how gouda they are doing

[Sava]

even the goddamn moon has better internet than me!

http://www.wired.com/2013/10/nasa-internet-laser/

[The Mad Monk]

That's the inverse law of high-tech infrastructure.

The more remote and "primitive" the locale, the greater the likelihood any extant infrastructure will be state of the art.

[Sava]

[The Mad Monk]

It isn't foil worthy. Hi tech is almost always cheaper then low tech to buy, install, and maintain, so it is always the first choice where the infrastructure hasn't been installed before. Meanwhile, it's usually cheaper to maintain already existing and adequately functional infrastructure than to replace it.

[Sava]

I'd like to install her infrastruture

[DinoDoc]

If anything, that suggests that we should hold conventions in stronghold states, where damage will be minimized.

Hey the GOP is also bringing back Lebron.

[Ben Kenobi]

Maybe Lebron will be the next republican nominee.