Let's compare the RNC and the DNC

I caught every night of PBS coverage of the DNC, and not nearly as much coverage of the RNC as I would’ve liked. But now that they’re both behind us, let’s talk about each of them in the context of the other.

What struck me most of all was how much more negative the Republican convention was than the Democratic one. And I’m not talking about the protestors and the police and the arrests. I mean on the floor itself. The audience at the RNC just seemed angry.

A lot of time was spent talking about Kerry, and the crowds responded bitterly. At times it was downright scary. They even ate up Zell Miller’s diatribe.

There was a lot more chanting, too.

Any thoughts, Dopers? Especially from those of you who watched all four nights of the RNC.

When it comes down to it, it’s really all about results. Kerry’s poll numbers remained pretty flat thoughout the DNC and immediately afterwards. Bush got a nice little bounce in the polls from the RNC.

Of course the RNC was going to get ugly.

  1. Negative attack politics work, and the GOP has shown no qualms about using them.

  2. What positive things could they talk about? Bush’s record, in any objective light, is a travesty and an embarrassment. An extra million jobs lost, an extra million folks in poverty, Americans’ incomes on the decline, the Return of the Monster Deficit™, now there’s material for four nights’ worth of speeches.

1 + 2 = 3, as Opal can plainly see. Since talking about Bush’s accomplishments was out, trash-talking about Kerry was the only viable option remaining. Fortunately, the GOP benefits from a cooperative right-wing media, so they knew from the get-go they could shovel shit and get away with it.

Just how much of the media (print, TV, radio, internet) is cooperatively right-wing, and how have you come to this conclusion?

That’s another thing I’m really, really tired of hearing about…
Up until the Clinton presidency, job growth etc. was reported as a percentage of unemployment. This is a good, effective measure because number of jobs created/lost is IRRELEVANT, or at the least, misleading. The relevant factor is, are more people, as a percentage of population, WORKING, or NOT WORKING…

But the “percentage of unemployment” figures have their own problems. From the Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment):

What is this about the Republicans being so mean? Zell Miller gave the only really hard speech against Kerry. Most of the speeches I watched were pretty mild. Of course they criticized Kerry - that’s what they were SUPPOSED to do.

The Democratic convention, on the other hand, went after Bush every bit as much as the Pubs went after Kerry. They put Michael Moore in a position of Honor in President Carter’s box. This is the guy who called Bush a deserter, and who tried to imply in his film that he was in bed with Bin Laden and went to war to profit his buddies.

I think this is obviously going to come down to perception. If you think your guy is a saint, event he mildest attacks would seem harsh. If you think the other guy is a monster, even tough attacks will seem mild. So I fully expect all the dems here to say, “The Republicans were WAY more mean and vicious than the Democrats”, and the Republicans will say the exact opposite.

Speeches are SUPPOSED to go negative? Jesus. Now negative is the GOP m.o. Okay, not now, as in it hasn’t been before, but now as in they have no shame about acknowledging thus.

Asinine. Did Moore say these things as part of the convention? Aren’t we discussing the conventions? Have these statements been part of Kerry’s campaign? But first and foremost, do you have any cites, any quotes, any evidence apart from your personal judgment to support your argument that the “Democrats went after Bush every bit as much?” I really don’t think any rational observer could conclude as much.

The thing is, I can quote you negative things that the speakers at the Republican convention said about Kerry. Can you do the same?

Geez, I would have to go back and read all those speeches. I’d rather have needles stuck in my eyes.

I will concede, for the sake of argument, that the Democrats didn’t go after Bush by name as much as the Republicans did. The challengers never do, because they have to be careful not to be seen as attacking the office of President. So instead they talk in a backhanded fashion like this: “John Kerry will take us out of the era of fear that has gripped us. His policies will be honest, not deceptive. He will not be beholden to corporations. You can be assured that he will never take us to war to enrichen friends in high places…” That sort of stuff. Wrap it in ‘positive’ language.

Republican Convention - A bunch of country club jerkoffs and religeous zeolots.

Democratic Convention - A bunch of whiny liberals and opinionated celebrities.

I can’t decide which “America” I hate more.

Oh, and just to make everyone’s day, here’s another poll that shows Bush opening up a double-digit lead. And if you take only the results of polling after Bush’s acceptance speech, he led Kerry 54 to 38!. Now THAT is a convention bounce! It won’t last, of course, but it’s interesting that when Kerry didn’t get a bounce out of his convention, the mainstream media’s immediate spin was, “There are no bounces to be had. Minds are already made up. This wasn’t a knock against Kerry!”

Now we know that wasn’t true. The only conclusion you can draw after seeing Kerry get no bounce from his convention and Bush getting an 11 point bounce is that the Republican convention was much more effective.

And the causes are, to me, pretty obvious. The Democrats blew it. The one thing a presidential challenger MUST do at his convention is show WHY he is a better alternative to the incumbent. He needs to lay down a vision, offer policy, and in general get people feeling like he’s a viable alternative. Kerry did none of these things. He rode his Vietnam coattails and talked in platitudes. Did anyone finish watching that convention with a better idea of exactly what Kerry planned to do if he became president? I learned that he would have gone to war with Iraq as well, only he would have done it ‘better’. I learned that he can salute and ‘report for duty’. I learned that he, just like Bush, takes terrorism seriously. But he didn’t say exactly what he was prepared to do about it. He barely mentioned his 20 year record as a senator. He offered up no examples of great leadership in the Senate.

Bush, on the other hand, talked at great length about his concept of an ‘ownership society’, and how he wanted to reform government to make it more flexible. He talked about old pension plans not being up to the flexible work forces of the 21st century, and wanted to reform pensions and health care so that they move with the employee and are not tied to the job. He talked about new initiatives to provide lifelong educational opportunities to workers so they can adapt to rapidly changing job environments. He talked about simplifying the tax code.

After Bush’s speech, I had a pretty good idea of what he planned to do in the next four years. After Kerry’s, I had no idea what he would do.

That’s why Kerry didn’t get a bounce, and Bush did. The electorate is insecure - they’re worried about the future. Bush gave them a plan - Kerry gave them a, “trust me - I’m a war hero”. No surprise they found that unsatisfying.

No, the exact opposite is true. Kerry spoke about health care, revitalization of industry, the environment. He discussed how we need to change course in Iraq.

Bush promised what he would do if he were president. That is, he said the same fucking things he said four years ago. Hell, he even talked in positive terms about Clinton programs, like increased funding for Americorps and reforming welfare.

Republicans lied. They gave us fear and smear. Very few commentators challenged them. People apparently ate it up.

I guess you didn’t actually listen to/read Kerry’s speech at the DNC, then. Here are some excerpts:

I highly recommend that you obtain a copy of the transcript and refresh your memory of Kerry’s speech, before you start claiming that Kerry didn’t provide us with any insight into what a Kerry presidency would entail.

As for the big bounce that Bush seemingly received from the RNC, I would say that it is due mainly to the many baseless, unfounded attacks on Kerry’s record (by Zell Miller et al.).

The moral of the story-- negative campaigning works, kids!

LilShieste

I’ve been monitoring the state-by-state poll results on [ur]http://www.electoral-vote.com – and it seemed to me Kerry did get a big post-convention bounce, in terms of the estimated electoral vote tally. Right now it’s at Kerry 252, Bush 270, but right after the Dem convention Kerry had an overwhelming lead and was even briefly leading in Florida. (By the latest poll, by Strategic Vision, August 28, Florida is 44% for Kerry, 48% for Bush, 2% for Nader.)

Sorry, that’s http://www.electoral-vote.com.

That’s bull. Bush gained and Kerry lost because of the Swiftboat Smear campaign that’s been hurting Kerry for weeks, plus the RNC negative attacks, plus the 9-11 anniversary. I expect Bush to gain even more up until the 1000th U.S. death in Iraq. It will depend on the debates, and Swiftboat Smear part II, if Kerry can gain back enough ground to win the election.

And BrainGlutton, most of those state polls on electoral-vote.com are relatively old. When the new numbers come in, Bush will probably have a pretty big lead. It seemed that Kerry’s numbers showed a gradual increase over time rather than a bounce at the convention. It’s all a matter if Kerry can continue his small gains in the face of Bush’s campaign’s attack machine.

Well, I guess it’s all about how you measure it. But big changes in the electoral college map don’t necessarily translate into a big ‘bounce’, because so many of those states are dead heats and the results are within the margin of error. A two-point ‘bounce’ could temporarily translate into 30 electoral votes, but that doesn’t mean much.

I’ll bet Bush’s bounce in electoral votes will be MUCH bigger, and statistically significant.

LilShieste: I listened to the speech, and I’ve read the transcript. The quote you posted is very vague. How does, “And we need to rebuild our alliances, so we can get the terrorists before they get us.” Translate into policy? Don’t you think Bush would like the rebuild alliances? It’s a feel-good statement. The quotes you posted could have been uttered by Bush. He wants to revitalize manufacturing and trade and compete in the world as well. What Kerry’s speech didn’t do was say how he would do that. Bush’s speech was much more direct. He wants to create medical savings accounts and retirement savings accounts. He wants to make the tax cuts permanent. He will create a commission to study ways to simplify the tax code. He will push for medical tort reform. These are specific policy proposals.

What Kerry needed to say is not, "Second, investment in technology and innovation that will create the good- paying jobs of the future. " What he needed to say was, “I will create a department of research and technology, which will be given budget authority to identify areas that need additional help from the government and offer financial incentives and grants to see that we remain competitive”

For example, here are some passages from Bush’s speech:

I don’t mean this to be partisan. I disagree vehemently with many of the proposals above. I’m talking pure strategy here. The speech above is the type of speech a challenger is supposed to make. He’s supposed to say that the administration has failed and is drifting and has no plan. Here’s MY plan. Examine it in detail. We’ve thought it out - Here are the numbers. Etc. Kerry didn’t do that. He talked in platitudes. Fairer trade? Every politician since Smoot and Hawley have been promising fairer trade. Wow, you’re going to protect workers? What a surprise.

This is actually a pro-Kerry argument in a way. I’m blaming his lack of a bounce on poor tactics, not on a rejection of him or his policies by the electorate. His campaign team is letting him down. One rule of politics is that you NEVER allow your opponent to define you. You do that by staking out strong positions. Kerry hasn’t done that. He’s twisted in the wind and refused to engage. He hasn’t given an interview for over a month. He’s allowed everyone from George Bush to the Swiftboat guys to define him, and he is plunging in the polls.

Another example of Kerry’s campaign team letting him down: That DISASTROUS ‘rebuttal’ to Bush after the convention. Who’s idiotic idea was that? After the pageantry of a convention, do you REALLY want to appear immediately thereafter on a badly lit stage with a small crowd of supporters in front of you? It drew a really start contrast. It made Kerry look small and petty. And he should NEVER have let John Edwards talk for so long while he stood behind him. It made Edwards look bigger than Kerry. Then he steps up to the microphone and gives a petty little speech about Dick Cheney’s draft deferments. After a soaring speech by Bush, that made him look awful.

Bad tactics. Kerry’s point about Cheney’s deferments is a valid one. No reason why he shouldn’t go after it. But to do it the way he did, breaking tradition by ‘rebutting’ a convention acceptance speech, was poor form and poor strategy.

Nonsense. Go look at the tracking numbers in that poll I posted. The swiftboat guys were silent most of the week. Look at the diffence on the single day of Bush’s speech. In polling before the speech, Bush led 49/43. On the day after the speech, he led 54/38. He went from a six-point lead to a whopping 16 point lead! A ten-point jump in one day. That’s an amazing result, and it had nothing to do with swiftboats (although I agree that in general they have hurt Kerry) or Zell Miller (who also hurt Kerry, but who’s effect was in the Sept. 2 polling before the acceptance speech).

The excerpts you posted from Bush’s speech help me make my point, Sam. My main contention was with your statement:

As you were looking for more “specific” information from Kerry’s speech, I do not see any of these “specifics” in Bush’s. I don’t see any policy detailed in his speech.

So what I’m getting at is: If you think Kerry’s speech lacked policy specifics, but think Bush’s contained policy specifics, you need to re-compare the two.

As for Kerry’s midnight speech-- I didn’t watch it. I was sound asleep by that time. I don’t see any reason why it should be viewed as “disastrous”, however. From what I understand of his (and Edwards’) speech(es), they could have been better… but to label them as disastrous seems really extreme (and… well… partisan). By the same factor, I didn’t think Bush’s speech was a “soaring” one. Nothing new, IMHO.

LilShieste