Let's compare the RNC and the DNC

John Stewart on The Daily Show had the best take on that. Before showing an excerpt of the Bush speech:

“And Bush told the crowd what he would do if he were president.”

After the speech: “Vote for Bush, so he can finish the job he never started!”

Wrong on all counts. First, I believe that the polling numbers were currently talking about were completed prior to Kerry’s rebuttal speech. Secondly, very few people watched it, but most media were compelled to make note of it in discussing the prior evenings events, if not quote Kerry’s words. Third, it is a great populist message to appear before a cheering crowd in the heartland in a less glitz and glamor way.

Well, we’ll just have to see. We haven’t yet.

The biggest mistake the Democrats made at the DNC was that they failed to address Kerry’s record as a Senator…thus letting the Republicans define his record. Huge mistake. In addition, as Sam pointed out Kerry failed to define WHY he should be president. His speech was full of vague generalities and happy talk…no specifics. Sure, some of his specifics are on his web site, but he really needed to pound on them AT the DNC.

I came away from his final speech really knowing no more about why he should be president or what he would do than I did before. Again, huge mistake (IMHO). It was Kerry’s job as the clean up hitter to do this…the other speeches of of the convention should have focused less on happy talk and more on who is this Kerry guy, what has he done while he was a Senator (stuff like his Iran Contra investigation, etc etc).

BTW Sam, the Democrats were exceptionally restrained in talking about Bush over all…a very sharp contrast to the Republicans. Perhaps this also was a tactical mistake, but I don’t believe it. As I said, their big mistake was in not defining Kerry properly, in not showing his record off as a Senator and showing some concrete examples of WHY we should vote for the man.

Like Sam said, I came away from Bush’s speech disagreeing with much of his plans for the next 4 years…but I came away with an understand of pretty much what he plans to try and do in the next 4 years, especially on the domestic side. It was Kerry’s job, as the challenger, to define what HE will do if he is president…and he didn’t, at least as far as I am concerned. I said this in the DNC thread and I say it again…especially now that we see the sharp contrast between the two final speeches.

-XT

Of course, another difference between the DNC and the RNC is that when the Dems came to Boston, the streets were not filled with more than 100,000 anti-Dem protestors. (There were some protestors but the were dissident Dems, not anti-Dems.)

Thats true, but its a two edged sword. I think it was actually smart for the Republicans to go to New York…it worked for them. Over all, the demonstrators were a neutral…they were (IMO) no advantage/disadvantage to either party, though I’ll conceed it may have been a slight advantage to Kerry if you insist. Reguardless it wasn’t a major factor. The protestors were mostly calm and collected. Had there been major riots it would have been a major turn off to a lot of the moderates who are undecided…to Kerry’s detriment. By the same token the police didn’t run amok either…which would have been a major turn off to the same moderates, but against Bush this time.

-XT

Well, except that the flag waving and solemn visits to ground zero for photo ops of the president looking aggrieved were hastily abandoned after it started to blow back on them.

And the number of people who just left town altogether rather than deal with them.

And the speech/screed by Miller that everyone started backing away from once they saw what a clusterfuck it had been.

Yeah, worked really well.

It worked well for the very reasons you are complaining about. Sorry, but it DID work well (at least this seems to be the general concensus)…even the 9/11 stuff worked for them. No? Well, I guess its debatable as to why Bush got a double digit bounce (from some polls anyway) after the RNC…but you’d be a fool not to acknowledge that at least SOME of it was because of the 9/11 talk…and having it in New York was part of that.

In addition it was kind of bearding the lion in its den to have it there (i.e. having the convention in a solidly Democrat city instead of a solid Republican city…sort of like what the Democrats did by having it in Boston)…and again, this worked well for the Republicans. Finally Giuliani was definitely one of the stars of the convention, and part of that was because it was held in New York. Much of his speech centered around being in New York.

You can hate the Republicans and discount their message all you like…but its foolish not to look at reality, and the reality is that having the convention in New York helped the Republicans much more than it hurt them…so it was a net gain. Obviously YMMV.

-XT

But that had nothing to do with the convention’s location.

Bush got the bounce that I anticipated due to the end of the convention. And if the RNC had been held in Cheney’s undisclosed location they still would have hammered away at 9/11. After all, it’s not like they can run on anything else.

Hafta take your word for that. I didn’t see it. Of course, everytime I see him, I think, “What he did after 9/11/01 was truly wonderful in every possible way. Of course, if it hadn’t happened, he’d be remembered for the pissy little catfight he was having with his ex-wife up until that moment.” Too, he did himself no favors when he recommended that his term be extended. All in the name of good governance, natch. And these things will be brought up if he runs for anything in the future.

Golly! Really? Oh, wait. . .I don’t hate the Republicans. Damnation!

Short term, sure. But the election won’t be held until November.

And I apologize for overlooking your comment, BrainGlutton. You are right, the quick about face from Miller’s speech had nothing to do with the location. Nor did the speech itself.

Well, I agree, but this isn’t the point we were debating. I think, as I said, there were several factors…but having it in New York was one of them.

But it wouldn’t have been as effective. There were THERE…in New York. Giuliani’s speech wouldn’t have been as effective either.

Anyway, we could go round and round this. I think that most people felt the Republicans having it in New York was a mistake…BEFORE the RNC. Now the most you can say would be that it was neutral…and again, I think most folks think it was a net gain for Bush. A tactical success IMHO. Again though I conceed YMMV.

-XT

As for Kerry’s rebuttal after the convention - the strategic problems with it were twofold. First, it made him look petty, and second, it made him look small.

These are both matters of ‘theater’, and not substance. Kerry needs to look presidential. All challengers do. It’s their biggest disadvantage - the incumbent has the gravitas of the Presidency behind him. The challenger doesn’t. It’s important that voters be able to picture the person as president and feel comfortable with that picture. That’s why challengers traditionally get a BIG bounce out of their convention - it’s the first time they get to stand up on a national stage and show their presidential bona fides.

But look at the contrast Kerry’s midnight speech created: “Look at all the balloons, and the cheering throngs, and the lights, and the families surrounding Bush and Cheney! What a spectacle. And now, for the rebuttal we go to the parking lot outside of Wal-Mart, where the challenger is standing on a wooden platform under a streetlight…”

That’s the way it came across. Terrible theater. And then Kerry let Edwards go on WAY too long while he stood there in the background, looking small. That was another bad move. Edwards should have been limited to saying, “Ladies and Gentlemen, the next President of the United States”, and moved out of the way.

Plus, Kerry broke a long-standing unwritten rule of politics that you let the other side have their convention. Sure he stayed strictly within the unwritten rule by waiting until midnight so it would technically be ‘the next day’, but in fact the rebuttal came pretty much right after Bush’s speech. Bush didn’t do it to him. In fact, Bush sidestepped several opportunities to attack Kerry during the Democratic convention week. I seem to recall him at one point actually saying, “This is their week, and I’m not going to get into it. There will be time for that later.” That made Bush look magnanimous. Kerry’s chippy little response with the dig at Cheney made him look small.

Then there was the other tactical error they made that night - What in hell was Kerry doing going after the VICE president? That’s Edwards’ job. In fact, the presidential candidate shouldn’t be naming names at all. His job is to stand stall and project an aura of strength and leadership. It’s traditionally the VPs job to be the hatchet man - notice that Cheney took the shots at Kerry, and Bush barely mentioned him by name (other than the 87 billion line, but I believe he only referred to him as “my opponent”).

Sure, the rebuttal got Kerry into the news the next day and gave the media something to spin other than how good the Republicans did, but I think it came at a pretty big price. Overall, it was a bad move. In my opinion, of course.

And yet, is IS possible that the viewing public liked what they saw. In a lot of instances, the public can be pretty dim, but they haven’t forgotten what GWB was doing the 8 months before 9/11 - nor what he has done since then. Though many of the people on these boards see everything GWB has done as being reprehensible, it is possible that a majority of people do NOT feel this way.

Let’s not forget that Reagan was elected three times - two times by huge majorities, and Bush 41 won “by proxy” in the electorate’s hopes they would get another 4 years of “Ron Reagan II.” The fact that Bush 41 couldn’t deliver another 4 years of Reaganism is, I believe, largely responsible for the Clinton win in '92.

What I’m saying is, the “bump” may not be quite the aberration some would like to believe that it is - time will tell. (Of course, I’m also hearing that a popular landslide for the 'pubs will be viewed by many as a Diebold conspiracy, since those saying such things simply can’t conceive of any other possible reason for it…sorta spooky.)

You mean, working on his golf swing, and watching his dog chase armadillos?

I saw it as more of a combination attack. The Swifties threw some hard jabs, then the RNC came in with a powerful right hook. And Kerry’s going to take a few more punches in the next few weeks.

54/38? The numbers i heard were 52/41 from Time magazine. I see Bush’s numbers peaking in mid September and it will be up to Kerry’s pathetic campaign team to bring the numbers in by November.

The result you posted was the average of polling done over the last day of the convention and the day after. It was on the second day only results that Bush scored that high. I suspect they didn’t use just that day because they needed both dates to get a sample size big enough for the result to be statistically meaningful.

Oh? Is that why you tried to compare and contrast by comparing speeches to the attendance of a specific person and thus prove that both were equally negative? (who, by the way, attended both conventions). I mean, geez, how desperate is that. Democrats, when they criticized Bush at all, implied that his policies were bad. Bush’s pals were constant and vicious assaults on Kerry’s character, using not assaults on policies, but nasty rhetorical flourishes and just plain outright lying. Miller was just one of the only ones who didit with a grimace. Almost everyone but McCain basically came out and said the rhetorical equivalent that God was appointing Bush President because Kerry just wants to let Frenchmen sneak into our children’s bedrooms and murder them while they sleep.

I view polls as a general trend rather than a fixed figure, and Bush has been rising quickly in the last few weeks. But i see Bush getting up to about 55% before he starts to fall again. Unless Kerry’s team is totally inept, this will be a damn close electon.

How much of the media is owned by Clear Channel, Rupert Murdoch, General Electric/NBC, Richard Melon-Scaife, the Christian Broadcasting Network, and Reverend Moon?

Well, you stated that Bush could pretty much say anything he wanted since the media is cooperatively right wing. For this to be true, you’ll have to demonstrate that some large percentage of “the media” is controlled by “the right wing”. If that’s your proof, I think we can readily dismiss your claim.