# Let's compare the RNC and the DNC **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 4, 2004, 4:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-compare-the-rnc-and-the-dnc/263086 "2004-09-04T04:57:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Bravo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_bravo/32/493_2.png) [@Johnny\_Bravo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Bravo)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2004, 4:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-compare-the-rnc-and-the-dnc/263086/1 "2004-09-04T04:57:12Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2004, 6:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-compare-the-rnc-and-the-dnc/263086/2 "2004-09-04T06:11:49Z")
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](http://www.pollingreport.com/) in the polls from the RNC. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2004, 8:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-compare-the-rnc-and-the-dnc/263086/3 "2004-09-04T08:15:57Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2004, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-compare-the-rnc-and-the-dnc/263086/4 "2004-09-04T15:18:01Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > 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? ---
**Author:** ![DirkGntly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/d9b06d/32.png) [@DirkGntly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DirkGntly)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2004, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-compare-the-rnc-and-the-dnc/263086/5 "2004-09-04T17:34:11Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > An extra million jobs lost, an extra million folks in poverty 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… ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2004, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-compare-the-rnc-and-the-dnc/263086/6 "2004-09-04T17:48:29Z")
> [@DirkGntly](#): > > 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](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment)): > [@](#): > > In economics, a person who is able and willing to work yet is unable to find a paying job is considered **unemployed.** The **unemployment rate** measures the number of unemployed workers as a proportion of the total civilian labor force, where the latter includes both the unemployed and those with jobs (all those willing and able to work for pay). In practice, measuring the number of unemployed workers really seeking work is notoriously difficult, each method having its own biases; this makes comparing unemployment statistics between countries difficult. > > \ > > **Measuring unemployment** > The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) provides some definitions which are similar to, but not the same as, those of other countries. > > **BLS definitions** > > The BLS counts employment and unemployment (of those over 16 years of age) using a sample survey of households.[7] ([http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps\_faq.htm](http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_faq.htm)) In BLS definitions, people are considered employed if they did any work at all for pay or profit during the survey week. This includes not only regular full-time year-round employment but also all part-time and temporary work. Workers are also counted as “employed” if they have a job at which they did not work during the survey week because they were: > > On vacation; > > Ill; > > Taking care of some other family or personal obligation (for example, due to child-care problems); > > On maternity or paternity leave; > > Involved in an industrial dispute (strike or lock-out); or > > Prevented from working by bad weather. > > Typically, employment and the labor force include only work done for economic gain. Hence, a homemaker is neither part of the labor force nor unemployed. Nor are full-time students nor prisoners considered to be part of the labor force or unemployment. The latter can be important. In 1999, economists Lawrence F. Katz and Alan B. Krueger estimated that increased incarceration lowered measured unemployment in the United States by 0.17 percentage points between 1985 and the late 1990s. > > On the other hand, individuals are classified as “unemployed” if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior four weeks, and are currently available for work. The unemployed includes all individuals who were not working for pay but were waiting to be called back to a job from which they had been temporarily laid off. > > Finally, it is possible to be neither employed nor unemployed by BLS definitions, i.e., to be outside of the “labor force.” These are people who have no job and are not looking for one. Many of these are going to school or are retired. Family responsibilities keep others out of the labor force. Still others have a physical or mental disability which prevents them from participating in labor force activities. > > Children, the elderly, and some individuals with disabilities are typically not counted as part of the labor force in and are correspondingly not included in the unemployment statistics. However, some elderly and many disabled individuals are active in the labor market. > > In the early stages of an economic boom, both employment and unemployment often rise. This is because people join the labor market (give up studying, start a job hunt, etc.) because of the improving job market, but until they have actually found a position they are counted as unemployed. Similarly, during a recession, the increase in the unemployment rate is moderated by people leaving the labor force. > > **The accuracy of unemployment statistics** > > The unemployment rate may be different from the impact of the economy on people. First, the unemployment figures indicate how many are not working for pay but seeking employment for pay. It is only indirectly connected with the number of people who are actually not working at all or working without pay. Second, in the United States those who work as little as one hour a week for payment are considered employed, even if they wish to work more. Therefore, critics believe that current methods of measuring unemployment are inaccurate in terms of the impact of unemployment on people as these methods do not take into account: > > Those who have lost their jobs and have become discouraged over time from actively looking for work. > > Those who are self-employed or wish to become self-employed, such as tradesmen or building contractors or IT consultants. > > Those who have retired before the official retirement age but would still like to work. > > Those on disability pensions who, while not possessing full health, still wish to work in occupations suitable for their medical conditions. > > Those who work for payment for as little as one hour per week but would like to work full-time. These people are “involuntary part-time” workers. > > Those who are underemployed, e.g., a computer programmer who is working in a retail store until he can find a permanent job. > > On the other hand, the measures of unemployment may be “too high.” In some countries, the availability of unemployment benefits can inflate statistics since they give an incentive to register as unemployed. Homemakers and other people who do not really seek work may choose to declare themselves unemployed so as to get benefits; people with undeclared paid occupations may try to get unemployment benefits in addition to the money they earn from their work. Conversely, the absence of any tangible benefit for registering as unemployed discourages people from registering. > > However, in the United States and several other countries this is not a problem, since unemployment is measured using a sample survey (akin to a Gallup poll). This method is also used by many countries besides the U.S., including Canada, Mexico, Australia, Japan, and all of the countries in the European Economic Community. According to the BLS, a number of Eastern European nations have instituted labor force surveys as well. > > The sample survey has its own problems, because the total number of workers in the economy is based on guesses rather than a census. So many economists look to the survey of employers ([http://www.bls.gov/ces](http://www.bls.gov/ces)) to get a better estimate of the number of jobs created or destroyed. > > Due to these deficiencies, many labor market economists prefer to look at a range of economic statistics such as: > > Labour market participation rate (the percentage of people aged between 15 and 64 who are currently employed or searching for employment) > > The total number of full-time jobs in an economy > > The number of people seeking work as a raw number and not a percentage > > The total number of person-hours worked in a month compared to the total number of person-hours people would like to work > > **Situation in the United States** > > There are two permanent government projects conducted by the United States Census Bureau and or the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the United States Department of Labor that gather employment statistics monthly. One is the Current Population Survey (CPS) [8] ([http://www.bls.gov/cps](http://www.bls.gov/cps)) which surveys 60,000 households: it is used in calculating the unemployment rate. The other is the Current Employment Statistics (CES) [9] ([http://www.bls.gov/ces](http://www.bls.gov/ces)) which surveys 300,000 employers. > > These two sources have different classification criteria, and usually produce differing results. As noted, most economists these days see the CES as a more accurate estimate of the state of the job market. > > Though many people care about the number of unemployed (8.2 million in the U.S. in April 2004), economists typically focus on the unemployment rate (5.6 percent). This corrects for the normal increase in the number of people working for pay or seeking work due to population increases and increases in the paid labor force relative to the population — and thus the normal increase in the number of unemployed workers. > > It’s important to note that these statistics are averages for the entire U.S. economy, hiding variations among groups. For April 2004 in the U.S., the unemployment rates for the major worker groups were as follows: > > adult men: 5.0 percent; > > adult women: 5.0 percent; > > whites: 4.9 percent; > > Asians: 4.4 percent. > > Hispanics or Latinos: 7.2 percent; > > blacks: 9.7 percent; > > teenagers: 16.9 percent; > > These percentages represent the usual rough ranking of these different groups’ unemployment rates, though the absolute numbers normally change over time, with the business cycle. They come from the Bureau of Labor Statistics ([http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf](http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf)). (Clicking on this link will give up-to-date numbers.) ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2004, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-compare-the-rnc-and-the-dnc/263086/7 "2004-09-04T17:59:57Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2004, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-compare-the-rnc-and-the-dnc/263086/8 "2004-09-04T19:06:31Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > 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. 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. > [@](#): > > 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. 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. > [@](#): > > 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. The thing is, I can quote you negative things that the speakers at the Republican convention said about Kerry. Can you do the same? ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2004, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-compare-the-rnc-and-the-dnc/263086/9 "2004-09-04T19:30:47Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2004, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-compare-the-rnc-and-the-dnc/263086/10 "2004-09-04T19:42:15Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2004, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-compare-the-rnc-and-the-dnc/263086/11 "2004-09-04T19:43:02Z")
Oh, and just to make everyone’s day, here’s [another poll](http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04gen.htm) 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. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2004, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-compare-the-rnc-and-the-dnc/263086/12 "2004-09-04T20:02:03Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![LilShieste](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9f8e36/32.png) [@LilShieste](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LilShieste)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2004, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-compare-the-rnc-and-the-dnc/263086/13 "2004-09-04T20:04:02Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > 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. > … > 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. I guess you didn’t actually listen to/read Kerry’s speech at the DNC, then. Here are some excerpts: > [@](#): > > **John Kerry** at the DNC: > \*I know what we have to do in Iraq. We need a President who has the credibility to bring our allies to our side and share the burden, reduce the cost to American taxpayers, and reduce the risk to American soldiers. That’s the right way to get the job done and bring our troops home. > > … > > And we need to rebuild our alliances, so we can get the terrorists before they get us. > > … > > As President, I will not privatize Social Security. I will not cut benefits. And together, we will make sure that senior citizens never have to cut their pills in half because they can’t afford life-saving medicine. > > … > > So here is our economic plan to build a stronger America: > > First, new incentives to revitalize manufacturing. > > Second, investment in technology and innovation that will create the good- paying jobs of the future. > > Third, close the tax loopholes that reward companies for shipping our jobs overseas. Instead, we will reward companies that create and keep good paying jobs where they belong - in the good old U.S.A. > > We value an America that exports products, not jobs - and we believe American workers should never have to subsidize the loss of their own job. > > Next, we will trade and compete in the world. But our plan calls for a fair playing field - because if you give the American worker a fair playing field, there’s nobody in the world the American worker can’t compete against. > > … > > Our education plan for a stronger America sets high standards and demands accountability from parents, teachers, and schools. It provides for smaller class sizes and treats teachers like the professionals they are. And it gives a tax credit to families for each and every year of college.\* 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 ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2004, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-compare-the-rnc-and-the-dnc/263086/14 "2004-09-04T20:06:37Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > Oh, and just to make everyone’s day, here’s [another poll](http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04gen.htm) 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!” I’ve been monitoring the state-by-state poll results on [ur][http://www.electoral-vote.com](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.) ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2004, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-compare-the-rnc-and-the-dnc/263086/15 "2004-09-04T20:09:57Z")
Sorry, that’s [http://www.electoral-vote.com](http://www.electoral-vote.com). ---
**Author:** ![Monocracy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monocracy/32/4493_2.png) [@Monocracy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monocracy)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2004, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-compare-the-rnc-and-the-dnc/263086/16 "2004-09-04T20:25:31Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > 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. 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](http://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. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2004, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-compare-the-rnc-and-the-dnc/263086/17 "2004-09-04T20:36:27Z")
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: > [@](#): > > We will offer a tax credit to encourage small businesses and their employees to set up health savings accounts, and provide direct help for low-income Americans to purchase them. These accounts give workers the security of insurance against major illness, the opportunity to save tax-free for routine health expenses, and the freedom of knowing you can take your account with you whenever you change jobs. > … > In a new term, I will lead a bipartisan effort to reform and simplify the federal tax code. > … > We will double the number of people served by our principal job training program and increase funding for community colleges. > … > we will create American opportunity zones. In these areas, we’ll provide tax relief and other incentives to attract new business, and improve housing and job training to bring hope and work throughout all of America. > … > In a new term, we must allow small firms to join together to purchase insurance at the discounts available to big companies. We will offer a tax credit to encourage small businesses and their employees to set up health savings accounts, and provide direct help for low-income Americans to purchase them. > … > In a new term, I will ensure every poor county in America has a community or rural health center. > … > To make health care more affordable and accessible, we must pass medical liability reform now. > … > In a new term, we will change outdated labor laws to offer comp-time and flex-time. > … > Tonight we set a new goal: seven million more affordable homes in the next 10 years so more American families will be able to open the door and say welcome to my home. > … > In our high schools, we will fund early intervention programs to help students at risk. We will place a new focus on math and science. As we make progress, we will require a rigorous exam before graduation. By raising performance in our high schools, and expanding Pell grants for low and middle income families, we will help more Americans start their career with a college diploma. > … > Anyone who wants more details on my agenda can find them online. The web address is not very imaginative, but it’s easy to remember: [GeorgeWBush.com](http://GeorgeWBush.com). 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. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2004, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-compare-the-rnc-and-the-dnc/263086/18 "2004-09-04T20:43:05Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2004, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-compare-the-rnc-and-the-dnc/263086/19 "2004-09-04T20:47:11Z")
> [@](#): > > 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. 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). ---
**Author:** ![LilShieste](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9f8e36/32.png) [@LilShieste](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LilShieste)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2004, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-compare-the-rnc-and-the-dnc/263086/20 "2004-09-04T21:00:36Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > 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. The excerpts you posted from Bush’s speech help me make my point, **Sam**. My main contention was with your statement: > [@](#): > > 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. 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 [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-compare-the-rnc-and-the-dnc/263086.md?page=2)