The Republicans are still officially considering six cities to host their 2016 convention: Kansas City, Denver, Columbus, Cincinnati, Dallas, and Las Vegas. However, it appears that the latter two have emerged as the front-runners. I know that there are odd factors that influence these decisions. The GOP has to pay for the damn thing, after all, and so they need access to a lot of top donors. They probably don’t want a repeat of 2008 and 2012, when natural disasters curtailed the festivities. They want a city with sufficient hotel space and a compact layout so that things aren’t too spread out.

I get all that. But it seems to me that the overriding motivator should be twofold. First, what does the selection say about the party. Second, does the selection boost the party’s chances of winning the state in which the convention is to be held?

The Democrats held their 2008 convention in Denver and went on to win Colorado in the fall, which was no slam-dunk. After narrowly winning North Carolina that year, they chose Charlotte for the 2012 convention. They narrowly lost that state in the fall. Say what you want, but those selections made sense.

It seems to me that Dallas would be a particularly inept choice based on these two criteria. The message it would send is that the party is still in the thrall of Texans. I don’t think people are quite over the last Texan president, who also happens to reside in Dallas. It would also do nothing to improve their candidate’s chances of carrying Texas. In any case, if Texas is a swing state in 2016, the GOP’s problems won’t be solved by their convention.

Las Vegas seems more promising. Despite having a Republican governor, Nevada isn’t great turf for the Republicans in a presidential election. But one big reason for that is that their state party is in shambles. They could really use a big infusion of cash and organization and enthusiasm. Probably nothing short of that is likely to turn Nevada red in 2016.

On the other hand, choosing Las Vegas would send a message inconsistent with the party’s family values brand. This is less because Las Vegas isn’t family friendly (it certainly is) than because Las Vegas has a lingering reputation as a den of sin and adultery. I think, however, that this would be more of a problem for individual delegates than for the party’s national image. Picking Las Vegas would make some sense.

The biggest objection to it that I have is that Nevada simply isn’t that delegate-rich. Its six delegates aren’t enough to swing an election is most plausible scenarios.

Kansas City would do almost nothing for the GOP and I don’t understand why it is even under discussion. Columbus and Cincinnati, I think, make the most sense from a strictly political point of view. Ohio is a state that the Republicans simply have to figure out how to win.