conventions

How have the conventions changed the Presidential race?  While Obama focused on reinforcing the campaign’s current dynamics, McCain made two strong plays to change the equation.  While he could have done a lot more with the opportunity, McCain was still marginally more successful than Obama.

Obama’s Democratic convention stuck to the playbook the campaign has been using all year.  Same speeches, same Obama, same shtick – larger TV audience.  Obama’s speech could have been given any time since his nomination and most of the surrogates stuck to the “McSame” attack they’ve been pushing since Hillary dropped out. 

This is the slow and steady approach and it makes sense for a candidate who would win if the race were held today.  Team Obama chose their plays months ago and they’re not pivoting now.  Their major failure was their inability to correct any of the mistakes in their playbook, specifically voters’ inability to relate to Obama’s life story, and ultimately their convention didn’t change the dynamics of the race.

The Republican convention on the other hand was a little more lively.  As the underdog, McCain can’t afford to play it safe and his team came in looking to shake up the race’s fundamentals rather than reinforce them. 

Every now and then I have a "Panasonic moment"---similar to their slogan that they were "slightly ahead of our time"

That feeling came again when I read PowerLine's Paul Mirengoff opine as follows: 

Bounce Wars

My column in the Sunday Examiner takes a look at the upcoming conventions. I've thought for some time that Barack Obama will receive a considerable bounce from the Democratic convention and that John McCain will receive a smaller one. Now I'm not so sure.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/08/021268.php

So, I copy verbatim (aside from some fixed typos) an e-mail I sent to various people on April 12, 2008  entitled "Bounces are so 20th Century"

Chuck Todd is a very bright guy who knows the past. So he is selling the idea of Obama getting a huge bounce from a Democratic convention.

 

I'm not seeing it. 

 

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/4/11/215744/027

 

Bounces were the result of independents and soft partisans finally tuning into the political process in late summer. As a result, the party holding a convention would get a sudden influx of support, much of which it was bound to pick up eventually anyway.

 

This year, however, the average voter has tuned into politics far earlier than in the past A July 2007 USA Today story pointed out that even 20 months out from the election, voters were starting to tune into the presidential race http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20070307/a_poll07.art.htm With the long march of the Democrats to the nomination there has not been a respite in political news, and the attributes of the candidates has been discussed continuously 

 

Even in 2004, while it appeared Bush got only a slight bounce out of the NYC convention, it quickly resolved itself to a narrow--but reliable-- Bush lead. In that year it was apparent that the electorate was polarized, and anti-war or pro-life voters unlikely to consider the alternatives.  While the field may be more "open" this year it is offset by the early start. 

 

http://pollingreport2.com/wh2004a.htm#2way (I still believe Bush could have managed the 8 point win he had in the 10/16 CNN poll if he had not botched debate #1, but)

 

There was a clear bounce for Gore in 2000 http://www.pollingreport.com/wh2genT.htm but let's ask why

a) he had been off the campaign trail for months

b) He had been in Clinton's shadow

 

I would say in that era of peace and prossperity there was less attention paid to politics, and the sense of "Clinton fatigue" certainly caused the low information voter to arrive late to the game.

 

Same for the previous elections (without the Clinton fatigue). There were long gaps in the election calendar and even Bob Dole was a relative unknown to much of the nation compared to the incumbent president. I would say Barack Obama right now is a better known person to the average voter than Dole was in 1996 even being Senate Majority Leader

 

So we have a more polarized electorate that in the past, and fewer low information voters late in the process. What else has changed--technology. The Internet, blogs, 24/7 cable TV and YouTube now make the stage managing of a national convention far less relevant that the massive unfiltered amount of raw information available to the consumer before and after the convention. It's like comparing the Sun to CO2 for the earth's temperature

 

Finally, there's is serious bad blood in Dem ranks and while I recall Carter getting some bounce out of overcoming Teddy Kennedy. many of Teddy's "industrial Democrat" supporters were quick to jump ship once Reagan appeared rational and reasonable   

 

My money is on Obama being no more than 6 points up on Mac leaving Denver. That will be the best day of his campaign.

 

Four months have passed and virtually every expectation I had then has come to pass. But  now it's starting to become conventional wisdom  

Patrick Ruffini's online strategy for how McCain should announce his vice presidential candidate, in response to Obama's Text Message of Great Tidings of Joy, has got me thinking about another potential strategy for the McCain campaign to play out more conventionally.

While Patrick's strategy contrasts wonderfully with the "first to know" along with everybody and their grandmother approach, I think there are some timing issues to be considered. Despite conventional wisdom, Obama almost has to announce sometime during the Olympics (they end Aug. 24, the Convention starts Aug. 25) to get a decent bounce heading into the stadium speech. Given the paltry three day window the DNC carved for themselves between Denver and St. Paul, McCain will almost certainly announce his selection during that time.

The danger for McCain in going online, as always, remains looking somehow inferior, or like an old man trying to use the new fangled technology to achieve the same end. Given the delay already since the Obama announcement, a McCain strategy with an online announcement might come off slightly copied or reactionary. Ideally, Patrick's strategy would become a sort of Wonka Golden Ticket on a very rapid time scale, but assuming that three day window, McCain needs some kind of sharp photo op that contrasts heavily with the stadium speech. Going online might also play a little too closely to the DNC strategy of "The Next Cheney."

Perhaps it's my Olympics-addled brain, but the McCain campaign should be trying to get in contact with the families of Shawn Johnson, Cullen Jones, or Jason Lezak -- Olympians with great stories, who have either won gold medals or will, who don't have quite the Michael Phelps or basketball team celebrity cache.

Ideally, the result would be, for instance, the Johnson family's Des Moines living room playing host to John and Cindy McCain (and, in a perfect world, one of the sons in the armed forces), the vice presidential candidate and his or her family, and perhaps some neighbors of the Johnson family. The message would be brief and to the point: "Americans can achieve a lot on the world stage, whether that be in athletics or dealing with big issues, but family and community are the foundation for that -- true leadership begins at home, not in a stadium. This is something that both myself and [vice presidential candidate] know and believe and will take with us to the White House." Sure, it's a common sentiment and it lacks the cash and email grab of Patrick's strategy, but it plays off the arrogant narrative that will surely be lingering following a speech in front of 75,000 people.

Katherine Miller blogs daily at Right-Wing Vitriol, from Vanderbilt University.

The credentialing process by the RNC-COA and the DNCC couldn't be a starker reminder of the differences between the right and left-blogospheres. While the Republicans are making a big deal about the blogosphere being on par with mainstream media, the Democrats are treating their bloggers like activists, seating many of them on the floor with their respective delegations.

In Minneapolis, the biggest hiccup is the eye-popping prices Qwest is charging for media/blogger hard wire access inside the hall (53 grand for gigabit ethernet anyone?). In Denver, it's handing out credentials as if they were patronage positions.

The stereotype is almost perfect. Conservative bloggers are content to act like pundits, while liberal bloggers are activists.

I think everyone should know where I come down on this debate. I am a (proud) partisan political operative first, and a blogger second. For someone with the day job that I have, it would be problematic to claim journalist status, so I steer clear of it.

But I also think that these distinctions are starting to become meaningless.