Republicans have chosen the Twin Cities of Minneapolis-St. Paul in the politically pivotal Midwest for the 2008 presidential convention, GOP officials said Wednesday.

 

The selection was expected to be announced later in the day, said the Republican officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity. The convention is slated for Sept. 1-4.

 

Losing out were New York City, Cleveland and a joint bid from Tampa and St. Petersburg, Fla., other cities that had sought the convention.

 

The four-day event will be held at the Xcel Energy Center in St. Paul, Minn., home of the National Hockey League's Minnesota Wild.

 

By choosing the Twin Cities for 2008, the GOP will ensure plenty of news converge in media markets in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Iowa _ all battleground states in the 2004 election and ones expected to be competitive in the next presidential race.

 

Minnesota had been seen by some as an unlikely host, with just 10 electoral votes and the nation's longest streak of voting for Democratic presidential candidates.

 

In 2004, Democrat John Kerry won the state 51 percent to 48 percent. The last Republican to win a presidential race in the state was Richard Nixon in 1972 and the last national convention happened in when the GOP backed President Benjamin Harrison in an unsuccessful re-election bid.

 

But Minnesota's national image as a traditional Democratic bastion has become outdated and the state was a hard-fought battleground in 2004 and 2000. Republicans hope to court voters in a region Republican and Democratic strategists alike say will play a critical role in winning the White House in 2008.

 

The Twin Cities, located along the Mississippi River, also are in the running for the 2008 Democratic convention. Democrats plan to hold their convention Aug. 25-28.

 

The Democrats, who last met in Boston, will announce a decision later this fall. A spokesman said 11 sites expressed interest in having the party's convention, but only four completed the proposals. New Orleans later withdrew its bid, leaving Denver, New York City and Minneapolis- St. Paul.

 

The GOP held its last convention in New York City, a Democratic stronghold where GOP delegates nominated President Bush for a second term.

 

In Minnesota, the effort to woo a national political convention has been a bipartisan affair, with the two big-city mayors, both Democrats, joining forces with top Republicans. They argued that Minnesota is a critical part of an Upper Midwest region that combined offers 27 electoral votes.

 

State officials have predicted a national political convention would boost the Twin Cities economy by about $150 million.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/09/27/D8KDC2780.html

 

Smart strategic move.

They should have chosen Richmond or Norfolk... this coming election will be the first time they have lost Virginia in awhile.

I'm glad you're predicting presidential electoral results 2 years prior to the actual election.

Where are the democrats holding their convention... New Orleans?

 

*zing!*

I'm glad you're predicting presidential electoral results 2 years prior to the actual election.

 

 

 

Whatever makes you happy :kiss

aren't national conventions not a big deal any more because the primaries are where candidates are chosen? but the VP if i am not mistaken is chosen at the nat convention....

I would like to see Democrats hold the convention somewhere in the South for once. I would be shocked if they couldn't take Louisiana from the GOP in 2008, considering the God-awful Katrina mess.

Where are the democrats holding their convention... New Orleans?

 

*zing!*

 

 

What does that even mean?

 

It seems a bit odd that they'd pick the Twin Cities, as most people probably don't think of Minneapolis as a polical hub.

Where are the democrats holding their convention... New Orleans?

 

*zing!*

 

hilarious :|

if i were a resident of one of the twin cities, id build a bomb shelter...republicans bomb everywhere they go!!!!

minn is a big swing state.

 

If I was the Dems I put their in virgina, florida, Ohio, or arizona.

Have convention locations ever ended up being good strategy choices? The dems picked Atlanta in 88 and Dukakis got killed. Republicans picked San Diego in 1996 and got killed.

In an election that will be as tight as this one will be, it may help in that area, better then putting it in somewhere safer.

 

I don't think Dukakis versus Reagan's VP or Dole versus the incumbent are good examples.

Those are the only ones in the modern era that I can think of the parties trying to be strategic-Dems in the south and Reps in a blue state trying to beat a popular president by getting moderates.

if i were a resident of one of the twin cities, id build a bomb shelter...republicans bomb everywhere they go!!!!

 

HAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

republicans invade without a stradegy to get out and poor execute it, democrats do bombing campaigns that make other cultures go into submission

 

 

democrats = better military

republicans invade without a stradegy to get out and poor execute it, democrats do bombing campaigns that make other cultures go into submission

 

 

democrats = better military

 

 

Say what??!

Where are the democrats holding their convention... New Orleans?

 

*zing!*

 

 

I'm still trying to figure out where the zing is here.

Where are the democrats holding their convention... New Orleans?

 

*zing!*

 

 

I'm still trying to figure out where the zing is here.

 

The zing is that the Republicans used 9/11 for their convention in 2004, remember?

republicans invade without a stradegy to get out and poor execute it, democrats do bombing campaigns that make other cultures go into submission

 

 

democrats = better military

 

i wouldnt say better military...but more effecient without a doubt...when a democrat is in office, its like the military takes a laxative and poops out the unwanted/unneeded :whistle

republicans invade without a stradegy to get out and poor execute it, democrats do bombing campaigns that make other cultures go into submission

 

 

democrats = better military

 

i wouldnt say better military...but more effecient without a doubt...when a democrat is in office, its like the military takes a laxative and poops out the unwanted/unneeded :whistle

Wrong.

 

Clinton crippled our military and we are still feeling the effects of it today. This is irrefutible and even democrats will acknowledge this. I will admit that Clinton did some good things for the country, but his handling of the military was NOT one of them, and was disgraceful to say the least.

 

"I've never seen morale in the U.S. military lower or a president so despised by those who wear our country's uniform."

-Colonel David Hackworth, 1999