Hoping for 'historic': How Philly fits in Democrats' calculus for 2016 race

For their 2016 convention, Democrats picked a city where they have a voter-registration edge of better than 6-1, the political fulcrum of a state that has reliably backed the party's presidential nominees for a generation.

Sure, Philadelphia resonates with the symbolism of the nation's founding, but as a purely strategic play, wouldn't it have made more sense to convene in Columbus, in the true swing state of Ohio?

Perhaps, some analysts suggested, the third finalist, Brooklyn, N.Y., was rejected because of tension between New York City police officers and liberal Mayor Bill de Blasio - or because the borough's hipsters with their artisanal cheeses wouldn't exactly scream "middle America" on TV.

"It's primarily a business decision for us," Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, said Thursday. Logistics carried the day, the Florida lawmaker said, brushing aside political questions.

The powerful icons of Independence Hall and the Liberty Bell aren't bad, either, Wasserman Schultz said.

Sen. Bob Casey (D., Pa.) said the city's setting was "entirely consistent with and really reinforcing of what I expect to be a historic nomination" - a reference to the early front-runner, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

"If she's the nominee, and I think she will be, she's going to be very strong in that region and throughout the state regardless, but this can only help," Casey said in an interview. "And I think it'll help all the way down the ballot."

Clinton has deep Pennsylvania ties. Her father's family hails from Scranton, and she won the state's presidential primary in 2008 after an epic six-week campaign. Former Gov. Ed Rendell and Mayor Nutter were among her staunch supporters in that battle; Casey endorsed her rival, Barack Obama.

"I always assumed, because Ohio is more in play, that Columbus had a better chance," said Neil Oxman, the Philadelphia-based Democratic media strategist, adding that he was thrilled for the city. "Maybe it really doesn't make a difference where it is, and that was part of the calculus."

As Tampa (Republicans) and Charlotte (Democrats) proved anew in 2012, holding a convention in a state hardly guarantees its electoral votes in the fall for a party's presidential ticket. Planners for both parties were hoping for a boost in those swing states, but Republican Mitt Romney lost Florida, and President Obama lost North Carolina.

Republican strategist Charles Gerow of Harrisburg said it was notable that both conventions would be in historically industrial "Rust Belt" cities, as boosting the middle class has been the early thematic focus of the 2016 presidential campaign for both parties. (The GOP is holding its convention in Cleveland.)

"The Democratic Party in some respects is going back to its urban, East Coast roots," said Villanova University political scientist Matthew Kerbel, noting that the last two of the party's conventions were held in the South and West - Charlotte and Denver.

Democrats have carried Pennsylvania every presidential election since 1988, when Republican George H.W. Bush won the state. But it's still a competitive two-party state with close elections, strategists and analysts said.

Democratic strategist Mark Nevins, of Philadelphia, said it would be a mistake to consider Pennsylvania in the bag for the party, despite the run of presidential successes here. Though the state elected a Democratic governor in November, Republicans increased their majorities in both chambers of the legislature, Nevins noted.

"Pennsylvania is an incredibly competitive, hard-fought state," he said. "Let's not forget this state elected Rick Santorum to the U.S. Senate. Voters have no problem embracing even a far-right Republican."

Nevins said the chance to fire up the Democratic base in an important state with 20 electoral votes, keeping its presidential streak alive, may have been "one of the factors that tipped the scales in Philadelphia's favor."

Of course, for Democrats and Republicans alike, conventions aren't what they used to be. The deliberative bodies that thrashed out nominations in multiple ballots or smoke-filled rooms have given way to four-day infomercials and fund-raising vehicles, with television audiences declining. But they are not useless.

They still represent two of the biggest chances for the parties to speak directly to voters, giving a nominee an average of 5 to 6 percentage points' "bump" in the polls since 1964, according to political scientists.

Research conducted since 1948 by the American National Election Studies, a project of the University of Michigan and Stanford University, makes clear that national party conventions, too, remain important inflection points in campaigns for many voters.

In 1988, for example, 29 percent of voters said they decided whom to support during the Democratic and GOP conventions - representing the movement of about 26.3 million people, according to the American National Election Studies, detailed polls that track when voters make up their minds. In 2004, 14 percent of the electorate solidified its choice during the conventions - in other words, 18.1 million voters.

The conventions, political scientists say, solidify support from a candidate's party base and bring in slices of the 5 to 7 percent of truly persuadable voters in each election cycle.

However, it's unlikely that strategic factors outweighed the strength of Philadelphia's bid in the DNC's thinking, said strategist T.J. Rooney, former Pennsylvania state Democratic Party chairman.

"I think a lot of the decisions are micro decisions, not macro, in the sense of picking a swing state and extrapolating out the implications for the electoral vote," Rooney said Thursday. "It's about the best package for the event more than the symbolism or any of the other things people try to read into it."