“It’s a very stark choice,” said Mark P. Jones, a political science professor at Rice University in Texas. “One is unabashed and uncompromising and other is much more consensus – and sometimes apologetic – conservative.”
In narrowing it down to Cleveland and Dallas, the Republican Party has – intentionally or not - presented the Republican National Committee a choice very much symbolic of the fractures the GOP currently faces.
On one end are Tea Party candidates like Cruz, who are vehement in their belief that moving to the center is political suicide.
On the other are those who argue for conservative principles, but are more inclined to compromise on issues such as immigration. They are more inclined to argue that the key to GOP success is winning new voters.
That’s not to say there aren’t movement conservatives in Ohio, nor is it to say there aren’t moderates in Texas. But, “if your goal is a more moderate and reflective and pragmatic image, Texas may not provide that for you,” said Jones.
Texas Republicans argue by picking them, they’ll pick a rock-ribbed hotbed of conservatism, a place that would offer Americans a clear and stark choice between Democrats and Republicans.
Ohio Republicans, meanwhile, say if the GOP picks Ohio, it will pick a place where the Republican policies – namely those of Kasich – have spurred an economic revitalization. They are proof, they say, that the GOP model creates results.
“If you were the Republican National Committee, it would be a choice between playing to the base or talking purple,” said Larry Sabato, a political scientist at the University of Virginia. “You have to win some purple states – maybe even some light blue states – if you’re a Republican in order to win the presidency. Ohio’s purple. Texas is deeply red.”
It also comes down to this: Who do the Republicans hope to advertise to more in 2016 – independents, or conservatives who might feel adrift from the GOP establishment?
“The parties have to both mobilize the base and reach out to others,” said John Green, director of the Ray C. Bliss Institute of Applied Politics at the University of Akron. “That’s not an easy thing to do.”
Historically, reaching out to the base at the expense of the larger population has had mixed results, though that’s had more to do with convention speakers than convention sites. GOP delegates in 1992 were thrilled when Pat Buchanan railed about the culture wars during George H.W. Bush’s second nominating convention, but his speech is widely believed to have alienated the national audience.
Same with 1964, when GOP candidate Nelson Rockefeller was booed in the convention hall for encouraging moderation while conservative Barry Goldwater, the eventual nominee, electrified the delegates with his passionate embrace of extremism.
Those watching at home that year, said Julian E. Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University, were put off by Goldwater and more sympathetic to Rockefeller. Ultimately, Lyndon Baines Johnson, the Democrat, defeated Goldwater in a landslide.
And though RNC officials have demurred on the issue of whether site selection is political, their past picks have been loaded with political undertones: In 2012, the selection of Tampa was argued to be appealing to Hispanic voters that the GOP hoped to woo; New York City in 2004 was the GOP’s way of saluting a city that had survived a devastating terrorist attack three years earlier and emphasizing the Republican response to those attacks.
Conventions, Zelizer said, “are the biggest advertisement the party is going to run.”
“A bad advertisement at this level of the campaign can have a really negative effect or dull the beginning of a campaign,” he said.
Proponents of a Cleveland convention say there’s an extra perk if the GOP picks them. By picking Ohio — which has not hosted a convention since 1936 — the GOP may end up wooing swing voters in a quintessential battleground state. No Republican has ever won the White House without winning Ohio.
“Cleveland is an opportunity to showcase Republicans for the people of Northeast Ohio,” said former Ohio Republican Party Chair Robert T. Bennett. “We are always a competitive state in a presidential election and I think this is our opportunity to show people what we can do. Maybe some of those independents won’t be so scared of Republicans.”
Those who have been involved in the site selection process say that while messaging is a factor, it’s hardly the most important one. A community’s ability to raise money is typically the top priority – communities bidding for the 2016 Republican National Convention were asked to raise at least $50 million – and logistics are key. It’s become even more important since Congress eliminated public funding for political conventions earlier this year.
Former Ohio House Speaker Jo Ann Davidson, an RNC member, said the choice ultimately boils down to being “a business decision” based upon what the communities offer, and what the delegate experience would be.
Under that premise, it’s a mixed bag.
Dallas appears to have an edge in fundraising. Way back in March, Dallas organizers said they already had $40 million in the bank for a convention.
But they also have potential logistical difficulties. For one thing, Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban has been reluctant to give up the rights to the American Airlines Center – the Dallas convention site — in early June should the Mavericks make the NBA playoffs. That could compress the traditional RNC timeframe for setting up the convention there. Cleveland officials, meanwhile, have made arrangements that could accommodate setup of the convention even if the arena is occupied.
“The selection of the convention city is mainly a decision based on financing and facilities,” said Sabato. “It’s about getting the best political deal.”
About the Author