The two cities were Beijing and one in Kazakhstan. Beijing had the money and willingness to spend. Kazakhstan has mountains and snow. They seemed willing the spend, but it probably would have gone to ruin shortly there after.
@Pilot beat me to it, but neither Beijing nor Almaty was supposed to get this one. Oslo was basically teed up but after the IOC's ridiculous demands were leaked in the Norwegian media (such as control over all advertising signage in the city, a cocktail reception with the king of Norway on the government dime, and seasonal fruit baskets in Norway in February, the Norwegian public basically told them to go pound sand, even more than most Western democracies have done to the IOC in the last 20 years.
I personally would have rather they went to Kazakhstan for two weeks of Borat jokes, but in terms of raw facilities, China doesn't have to build an Olympic stadium and they'll probably be able to sell tickets. They're doing curling at the Water Cube (casa de Michael Phelps), which should be fun. And China has never hosted the Winter Games, though this one should probably have been in a city like Harbin. I mean, it could be predicted, but it's also not like the IOC incited the Communist Party to be on its worst behavior. Hu Jintao, who was the premier when Beijing had the Summer Games in 2008, was big into 'harmony' and of the opinion that China fared best when when everyone was quietly moving forward, but Xi Jinping has pursued a more interventionist course. Also he doesn't seem to want to leave.
I'm always surprised by cities that should know better going back for another bite of the Olympic apple. Paris? Los Angeles? C'mon man. Why bother?
That said, I will post again my quadrennial recommendation to site the summer Olympics permanently in Athens. Winter in Lake Placid or Nagano.
Or find a ski resort in the Southern Hemisphere - Chile or New Zealand, etc. - and fix the location there.
It would do away with all the bidding and construction graft.
Which is why it will never happen.
Without determining whether or not they've actually seriously considered this idea, there are two big problems with a "Permanent Olympic Host" concept. One, any location that signs up for this commits themselves to a quadrennial outlay of billions of dollars in security alone. Even putting the whole shebang in the least controversial location available, so like Canada, doesn't bring the cost of security down one cent. Second, they'd have to agree on the where, and that's probably where something like TV comes in. NBC is already getting hosed pretty hardcore by the fact that this will be the third consecutive Olympic Games held on the wrong side of the Pacific where prime time there is 10 or more hours ahead of prime time here. Any potential permanent location is going to be unacceptable to enough people, either geographically or politically, as to sink the concept before we even get into the process of 'how.'
I don't have a problem with countries being awarded Olympics. But I think the concept of all the activities being centralized is an anachronism in an era of air travel. Award them to an entire country. So if Canada wins Montreal can host gymnastics, Toronto boxing and Winnipeg wresting, etc. The host country provides a stadium somewhere that can host the opening and closing ceremonies. In 1896 when he modern games started transportation within a country was difficult but in this era of jet travel there is no need for a central location. And if all the athletes don't show up for the opening and closing ceremonies so what?
I think this generally goes against the IOC's concept that the Olympics are intended to be a miniaturization of the global community. I think geography dictates that a more dispersed concept works for the Winter Games, but for the Summer, bids that are too dispersed generally get strikes against them.