Holding the Republican National Convention in Cleveland probably won’t help Donald Trump win Ohio in the presidential election.
That’s according to research by Christopher Mann and Joseph Uscinski, both assistant professors of political science at Skidmore College and the University of Miami, respectively.
Instead, if Republicans wanted their convention location to help them win Ohio in the general election, they should have had it in Cincinnati or Columbus.
“The [Cleveland] media market is largely composed of Democratic counties, where we would expect a backlash to a typical Republican convention, and only a few moderate Republican counties where the convention might help the party,” Mann and Uscinski write in the Washington Post. “If the RNC’s goal was to influence the results in Ohio, the choice of Cleveland provides more risk and less reward than Columbus or Cincinnati.”
In contrast, the professors say the Democratic selection of Philadelphia should help Hillary Clinton win Pennsylvania. “The Philadelphia media market is the kind of place our analysis suggests the Democrats should pick: heavily Democratic counties in 2008 and 2012 where the convention can mobilize and narrowly Republican counties where the convention may help persuade voters.” The Philadelphia convention could also boost Democratic turnout in Delaware, Maryland and New Jersey, but those states are most likely going for Clinton anyway.
Essentially, their research shows that the impact of conventions isn’t always positive. It drives turnout in the local area, but rallies voters regardless of their party. Some swing voters, however, might be persuaded by a convention being held in their backyard.
So, would different convention sites have made any difference in election history? Elections are rarely so close for a local convention bump to make a difference. But Mann and Uscinski’s analysis says that if either the Democrats or Republicans had their conventions in Miami or Tampa in 2000, Al Gore would have won Florida and the election. Instead, the Democrats had their convention in Los Angeles, while the Republicans had theirs in Philadelphia.
History aside, Mann and Uscisnki caution against extrapolating their past findings to the 2016 election. “We are reluctant to make confident predictions given the unusual features of 2016 — the potential for protests at both conventions, Trump’s unusual candidacy, and the historic unpopularity of the nominees.”
Jason Russell is a commentary writer for the Washington Examiner.
