Post 1 for 2012! Due Fri, 9/14
For the past 2 weeks people in this country have either been paying attention to the RNC and the DNC or pretending like they aren't happening. You get to be in the 1st category. ;)
Which 2012 political party convention do you think was the most successful and how are you defining success?
I recommend going to the webpages of each party and looking at the news coverage of the 2 conventions. Your goal should be to use a minimum of 4 sources. Your sources can include youtube videos from the convention and polling data.
Your post is due by class on Friday, September 14th.
Your post should fully answer the question above, refer to news articles or websites you read, and should be proofread. Your post should use complete paragraphs, be spell checked and should have citations to show where your information is from. The class will read your post and someone will respond to your argument by the end of the next week.
Labels: campaign, elections, parties, presidential campaign
posted by Ms. Aby @ 1:32 PM
43 Comments:
Do conventions matter that much? The ticket has already been decided, talking points have been established (points with lacking details might I add), and the arena is only filled with party faithfuls that cheer for anything whispered or shouted. So what’s the point? The point is establishing the rhetoric of your party and making it resound and echo more than the opposition’s, hopefully seeing positive media reactions and lasting poll bumps. Under these conditions, the Democratic National Convention was more successful than the Republican National Convention. Let’s start with the nominees. Mitt Romney of the Republicans was greeted by “lukewarm reactions” after his speech (1). His speech garnered similarly small praise as both of George W. Bush’s convention speeches (1). He has also faced criticism for omitting the War in Afghanistan, the first GOP nominee to omit the military in such a speech since 1952 (2). To me, Romney was blind and completely negligent to his audience and purpose by omitting the War and failed to meet even his lowest expectations. He proved once again that the election is only a referendum on Obama. On the other hand, President Obama did not provide specifics to his plan but proved his oratorical supremacy. Pundits both praised and bashed this issue, but as Joe Scarborough noted “The President said nothing in his speech tonight. But he said it so much better than Mitt Romney when he said nothing in Tampa” (3). Statistically, Obama fared better. The president went on to beat Romney by 5.4 million TV viewers and also – devastatingly – in reactions on Twitter (4). Concerning other speakers, they stole the show at both conventions but not always in the right way. Proving a negative for the Republicans, Clint Eastwood went out and offered a “strange” and “off-kilter” speech while Clinton delivered a deft speech providing sound reasons for Obama’s re-election better than Obama did (5). In fact, Clinton’s ratings beat the first NFL game of the season between the Dallas Cowboys and the New York Giants (5). Clinton has the magical ability to speak into the hearts of diverse audience and tell them his truth, something lacking in the rhetoric of Governor Christie and Representative Paul Ryan. In addition, Obama saw a poll bump as a result of the DNC and Romney lost ground (6). These statistics, the strengths of Clinton’s arguments, and the power of Obama’s rhetoric over Romney’s made the DNC more successful than the RNC. The masses are more energized and unified, and the few moderates left are more swayed to the president. Do the conventions outright prove who will win this November? Absolutely not. Will they provide the basis for the final 2 months of the election? Yes they will. The candidate that continues to capitalize more consistently will win, and right now President Obama and the Democrats have that leg up because of their better convention.
1. http://www.gallup.com/poll/157256/gop-convention-romney-speech-evoke-lukewarm-reactions.aspx
2. http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/mitt-romney-defends-omission-of-afghanistan-from-speech-says-obama-should-report-on-promises/2012/09/06/269d2e32-f85a-11e1-a93b-7185e3f88849_story.html
3. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-207_162-57508819/obama-beats-romney-in-nielsen-tv-ratings-of-conventions/
4. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/07/barack-obama-media-reactions_n_1863393.html
5. http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentaries/168979896.html
6. http://www.gallup.com/video/157421/obama-gets-convention-bounce-romney-not.aspx
Convention; noun, an assembly of delegates of one party to select candidates for office(1). The conventions are primarily an engine for selecting the candidate the Republican and Democratic Parties wish to endorse (1). Barack Obama has been the hands down pick for the Democratic Party. On the other hand, the Republican party had been scrambling for a candidate of their own. It was just months ago that many thought names like Chris Christie, Rick Perry, or even Rick Santorum could grace the party's ticket. In short, the Democrats have firmly thrown their support behind Obama, who shows promise in reaching younger voters, women and Hispanics(4). Now that the Republicans have latched on to their candidate, he has had a chance to prove his party rhetoric (2). Perhaps they feel less unified in their support;it seems to have been a lukewarm reception for Mr. Romney(2). For one thing, the people did not respond as enthusiastically at Tampa as they did in Charlotte (3). The encouraging claps in Tampa after a Septet's rendition of 'Star Spangled Banner' paled in comparison to the moving solo from Glee's Amber Riley, who moved the DNC to tears (3). And there is more than just that to show that the Dems can throw a better party. The DNC appeared more human and inclusive. Applause welcomed former President Clinton's allusion to President George W. Bush's handling of natural disasters and even Mitt Romney was applauded when referred to as a 'decent human being' in Joe Biden's speech (4). In contrast, the Republicans chose to exclude many people from speaking at the RNC including Tea Party darling Michelle Bachmann (4). When it comes down to it, one of the easiest ways to gauge the successes of the two conventions is to look at poll numbers. According to an ABC/Washington Post poll, 49% of those polled actually disapprove of Romney in the wake of the RNC(5). In contrast, a similar poll put Obama's approval at about 55% after the DNC (5). As the two parties come to loggerheads this November, it is anyone's guess as to who the winner will be. As for the success of the respective conventions, I believe that the Republicans have figuratively shot themselves in the foot by forcing a candidate on people who don't wish to be courted. In my opinion, the numbers, tears and generosity of the Democratic Party have grabbed center stage over the stumbling Republican party.
1. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/convention
2. http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/globalpost-blogs/highway-2012/rnc-vs-dnc-obama-polls-sugar-high
3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ij5yNAZVVQM
4. http://thestir.cafemom.com/in_the_news/143183/democratic_national_convention_inspired_me
5. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/
The presidential race is always leading in the news, every four years that it comes around. This year, the two national conventions were both powerful and moving in their own ways. Between the Republican National Convention and the Democratic National Convention, I think that the Democratic National Convention was the most successful.
During the Democrat’s convention, former president Bill Clinton gave a very powerful and meaningful speech wherein he swept the crowd over with reasons why president Obama should be re-elected (1). In a survey, 29 percent of people that watched the convention said that Clinton’s speech was a huge highlight (1). This was a huge success because president Obama was able to pick speakers who were going to win over the crowd and he did exactly that by choosing Clinton as one of them. Statistics also show that 25.1 million viewers tuned in to watch Bill Clinton’s speech on the second night of the DNC (4). He only fell 1 million viewers short from the speech that Michelle Obama gave. The RNC only had about 22.3 million viewers tune in on the first night compared with about 26.2 million viewers that tuned in for the DNC (4). This shows that already, president Obama had about 4 million more interested viewers, at least on those nights. I also believe that the Democratic National Convention was more successful compared to the Republicans because president Obama was very moving in his words. He said things like, “Yes, our path is harder but it leads to a better place,” and “So you see, the election 4 years ago wasn’t about me. It was about you. My fellow citizens you were the change (2).” These sort of moving lines is what connects someone like the president to the people. I know it should be more about the facts than emotion but if there is no emotion or passion in something, than what’s the purpose? So, I think president Obama succeeded in really drawing in the American people and zeroing in on their feelings. After the DNC, Obama had a boost in the polls. He went up five percentage points among women and he also went up twelve points among independents (3). Before the convention, president Obama trailed Romney, 45 points to 44 points but after the DNC, president Obama now pulled away with 48 points over Romney who now has 43 points (3). Obama also had a boost in his personal favorable rating which is now up to 53 percent as opposed to Romney who stands at 49 percent (3). After the convention, president Obama is also ranking higher on trust with the people and on every presidential issue but one (3). So, overall, I would say that the Democratic National Convention was the most successful. President Obama was able to capture the public and he was able to increase his appeal. That is what these conventions are all about and I would say the Democrats played it the best.
1) http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/169387076.html
2) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/06/democratic-national-convention-2012_n_1848873.html
3) http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/12/fox-news-poll-obama-has-lead-over-romney-in-post-convention-poll/
4) Newspaper clip by the Associated Press
Various political experts from media networks such as MSNBC and Fox News, have come to a conclusion that the Democratic and Republican National Conventions have to masterfully convey party stances on key issues. How the speakers and candidates convey their messages and what content matter they deliver, will determine the reaction by the American public (3). The Republicans have to address the poor unemployment rate, small businesses, individual futures, and stress that smaller government results in a stronger economy (3). They, along with the Democrats, must appease moderates and independents. Looking at the lineup of speakers with Puerto Rico’s first lady and Governor present, the RNC’s duty is to address the needs of minorities and women (3). Both parties must not alienate women regarding abortion. Also, the budget will be a battle between the Democrats, who has to defend its spending, and Paul Ryan whose goal is to berate Obama’s actions (3). The last issue for both parties is connecting to the American people. On one hand, Romney, a successful businessman, has to defend his success, but must come down to Earth with the poor and middle class. Obama, welfare advocate and lower class driven, has to encourage Americans to see the good in his actions (3).
Based on the three-day conventions of both parties, I believe that it is clear that the Democrats have come out on top (4). The Democrats were victorious because both conventions focused on Obama (4). The Republican speakers spoke against Obama’s actions on jobs and markets, but stated nothing on how they would change the economy and health system (4). Drawing meager support, Romney was essentially an “afterthought”, in which only a few speeches referred to the Mormon Church, Bain Capital, and his childhood. The speeches by Chris Christie and by Marco Rubio left out Romney’s character, and seemed to advocate their own interests (4). The RNC seemed to focus on the past days of Ronald Reagan, blaming Obama for all negative issues (4). Although the Democrats had to deal with the difficult issues of the capital of Israel and God, they accounted for them through a livelier and younger atmosphere compared to the older-white based RNC (4). President Bill Clinton’s speech, with some saying it was the best of his political career, stated that, “We left him a total mess. He hasn’t cleaned it up fast enough. So fire him and put us back in,” was the Republicans’ message (4). Clinton and Joe Biden powerfully attacked the RNC, while praising the president on his previous actions, and what he can and will do (4). Enthusiastic, the DNC floor praised America on the defeat of Osama-bin-Laden and the Afghanistan victory. The RNC was silent on the war and was criticized for worsening relations with Russia (4). Using his greatest asset of bonding, Obama stressed that Americans made the U.S. better off than it was 4 years ago (4). The Democrats’ success has translated into Obama’s approval rating going up 7% to 52%, according to the Gallup-poll (1). Mitt Romney’s rating dropped from 47% to 46% (1). The DNC received twice the tweets than the RNC as well as better television and media ratings (5). Joe Biden exclaimed, “Governor Romney said that as president, he would take a jobs tour. Well with his support for outsourcing, it would have to be a foreign trip (2).” Many sayings of the DNC were similar to that of Biden’s in that they attacked Romney while supporting their candidate to the fullest extent. We have to see if the Democrats’ success, will carryover into the presidential election.
1. http://thinkprogress.org/tag/democratic-national-convention
2. http://www.policymic.com/articles/14431/bill-clinton-condoleezza-rice-and-the-top-50-quotes-from-the republican-and-democratic-conventions
3. http://pjmedia.com/blog/secrets-to-convention-success-for-the-rnc-and-dnc/
4. http://thegrio.com/2012/09/07/dnc-vs-rnc-a-tale-of-two-conventions/
5. http://www.examiner.com/article/polls-show-significant-bump-for-obama-after-democratic-national-
convention
Convention? What average teen watches those in this century. In 2012 it has all come down to the economy and presidential campaign ads. However, coming from a seemingly average teen, the DNC won the gold in the 2012 National Convention's. Obama is on a sure track to another round in the White House after his moving speeches. Obama, actually making plans and taking action for America's economy, unlike Mitt Romney who went around in circles chasing his tail. Obama spoke of plans such as "improving education, invest resources formerly spent on warfare, and reduce the deficit." In an extremely crucial time in America, for it's fluxing economy and citizens struggle for their rights, Obama made plans to raise the economy and get America back to the top. Romney trailed behind with points of "we're heard it all before." Mostly shaming Obama on his previous promises, that are currently still in the completion progress. Romney also touching down on the topic of Healthcare, "Obama's failed promise has left families paying, instead of saving." Which looking of a bird's point of view, most of the high profiting countries in the world all have "free" healthcare, even Canada or next door neighbor. Another advantage of the DNC was their one-hundred plus speakers, consisting of former president Bill Clinton who had shared, "I like the argument for President Obama's re-election a lot better. He inherited a deeply damaged economy, put a floor under the crash, began the long hard road to recovery, and laid the foundation for a more modern, more well-balanced economy that will produce millions of good new jobs, vibrant new businesses, and lots of new wealth for the innovators." Very well spoken coming from an accomplished former president. An argument from a Republican Chairman Reince Priebus claims, "we can do better." Also stating on Obama's speech, "tonight's speech from the president had the trademark soaring rhetoric but was devoid of any sense of responsibility for the disappointments of the last four years." President Obama should not have to apologize for a mess he was left with, from the president beforehand. Romney down six points as of Sept. seventh, America is on the right track keeping Obama in the lead.
http://www.demconvention.com/president-obama-rallies-america-to-move-forward/
http://www.gop.com/weve-heard-it-all-before-2/
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/05/excerpts-clintons-remarks-at-democratic-national-convention/
http://www.gop.com/trending/we-can-do-better/
http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/05/politics/democratic-convention-wrap/index.html
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/dnc-2012-day-best-moments-obamas-speech-joe-17179174
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Democratic and Republican Conventions held every four years in the final weeks of the election year are meant to serve a purpose and are both successful in their own rights. The conventions serve as a place to lay down party platform ideas and plans for the next four years, and also to nominate a candidate for each party. But, although they both may have been successful at getting their points across, those not the only purpose of each Convention. The main goal of the conventions nowadays is to rally each party’s voter base and get them out to the polls to vote. Only one convention was able to do this better than the other and that was the Democratic National Convention. According to the polls taken after the DNC, Obama led Romney, among likely voters, 52% to 46% (2). This is up 4% from after the RNC when both candidates were tied at 48% (2). In Minnesota alone, President Obama's lead over Mitt Romney increased to 50%, 10% ahead of Romney's 40% among Minnesota voters (3). This could be for a variety of reasons. During Paul Ryan's acceptance speech, he accused President Obama of closing down a GM plant in his hometown, this is a complete lie for although yes, President Obama was quoted saying that "if our government is there to support you... this plant will be here for another hundred years," the plant did not close under Obama's administration (4). The plant closed under Bush's administration in June of 2008 seven months before Obama took office (4). That was not the only lie told though, many others such as the Stimulus not helping the tax payers, Obama putting the Federal Government in charge or healthcare, and that Obama downgraded our nations Credit Rating (which was actually caused by the House which he led) (4). Another reason why the DNC was more successful is that former president Bill Clinton spoke in support of the reelection of President Obama. Bill Clinton called on voters to support President Obama in the upcoming election stating that Obama, not Mitt Romney, was the best candidate to fix the economy. I determine success based on the polling results of now compared to those of last year. Although both parties were tied in the polls after the RNC, and then the Democrats pulled ahead after the DNC, 4 years ago, the viewer ship of the RNC vs. the DNC is a tell tale sign of the GOP losing popularity (5). In 2008 there were approximately 40 million viewers for the RNC, this year there were only about 30.3 million viewers (5). This is a very steep loss of almost 25% (8.7 million) viewership compared to the Democrats whom in 2008 had about 38.4 million viewers but only lost 2.7 million viewers down to 35.7 million total viewers this year (5). Many Republicans attribute the higher ratings on the polls to a "sugar high" set by the DNC but the view counts do not lie (6). The DNC was a more successful convention and will definitely give the Democratic party the energy it needs to attempt to match the 2008 results this election year.
1. http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/8436
2. http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/09/cnn-poll-obama-bounce.php
3. http://kstp.com/article/stories/S2760311.shtml?cat=0
4. http://www.politicususa.com/5-biggest-lies-paul-ryans-rnc-acceptance-speech.html
5. http://nyulocal.com/national/2012/09/12/whats-red-and-blue-and-partisan-all-over-a-convention-reaction/
6. http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/globalpost-blogs/highway-2012/rnc-vs-dnc-obama-polls-sugar-high
This comment has been removed by the author.
The success of a political convention can be measured in a variety of ways. One indicator of success is the Holy Grail of politics: the polling numbers. Another measure of success, the clarity and energy with which a political statement is delivered, is less quantifiable. Other measures and indicators are even more subjective, based off personal opinions and perceptions. The most holistic way to measure the success of a political convention, however, takes the form of a simple comparison: has a political convention measured up to expectations? In this light, the Democratic Convention appears to have been moderately successful.
The Democrats entered Charlotte having learned their lesson four years ago. Back in 2008, an energetic senator named Barack Obama had electrified the base with the promises to revitalize the economy and change the course of the nation. Unfortunately, candidate Obama promised more than President Obama could deliver, and Obama reaped the displeasure of voters (1), more so for the failure to deliver on naïve promises than his actual handling of the economy, which received positive marks from independent fiscal experts (2).
As a result, the atmosphere in this convention differed greatly from the DNC in 2008. In comparison to Denver (6), the convention in Charlotte was a muted affair (5). Democrats focused on painting the Republican Party’s platform as archaic and extreme-right rather than wasting energy trying to inject 2008 energy into Obama’s campaign (3,4). Bill Clinton especially preformed that task well (4). However, low-energy does not necessarily equate to mediocrity. I stated at the beginning that success is defined as the difference between expectations and results. The Democratic national convention was not supposed to be a repeat of Denver. This election cycle is different than 2008, and the Democrats have an older, harder Obama running for office. The expectation coming in was not for the Democrats to electrify their base; rather, it was for them merely to focus the race on ideological differences rather than the economy. In that regard, the convention succeeded, defending Obama’s economic record (4), but focusing in on the ideologies of the increasingly conservative Republican Party (3,4). Most importantly, however, the Democrats did not make massive mistakes like inviting an aged actor to come on stage and have a conversation with a chair (7). Thus, the Democrats quietly met or exceeded most expectations, allowing their convention to be labeled as successful, while the Republican Convention will be remembered mainly for Clint Eastwood’s monologue, a speech that in no way met Republican expectations of a focused economic message.
1.http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_history
2. http://www.economist.com/node/21561909
3. http://www.npr.org/2012/09/06/160713941/transcript-president-obamas-convention-speech
4. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/dnc-2012-bill-clintons-speech-at-the-democratic-national-convention-excerpt/2012/09/05/f208865e-f7a4-11e1-8253-3f495ae70650_story.html
5. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hd8MFmUDbg4
6. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ato7BtisXzE
7. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoqKdWY692k
In the last week, a lot of the media’s focus has been placed on the recent national conventions and the presidential race in general. In my opinion, I think that the DNC was more successful than the RNC. At this point a lot of what I hear about the election comes from the scrolling news headlines on google as I jump to my email, in the few minutes I spend on my computer, and from that alone, I saw a much larger buzz about the DNC than the RNC. Also President Obama got a bump in his polls and approval rating, in the day after the DNC, that percentage boost was 3% according to the gallup polls [1.] Mitt Romney however did not get a poll bump at all after his convention, quite the opposite, according to the gallup polls his percentage went down 1%. [2] This is quite significant considering before the RNC Romney was ahead in the polls and the loss after the convention, caused him to fall behind Obama, a gap that was widened after the DNC. [1.]
Aside from the polls I think the content of the conventions is also important to look at. It may be said that there was more content at the RNC, however it seemed to me that they felt like they had something to prove, and that something got lost a little in translation. The Paul Ryan protesters, were very vocal at the RNC, and that division in the party, will not help them at all in the election [3.] It also seems that they are pushing the female voter interest group a little hard, in an attempt to sway middle voters, but their attempts seemed rather desperate, because of the division within the party. The DNC on the other hand delivered what it needed to. Obama gave a speech that was clear, and emphasized the hope that he still has for the future [4]. The convention also took some risks by openly accepting LGBTQ community. The DNC was also sucessful in their emphasis on foreign policy, an area that Romney has seen to be lacking, and Obama thrives in. Overall I believe that the DNC did much better, than the RNC, not only in the points made, but it seems that the country believes in the Democrats more according to the polls.
1.http://www.gallup.com/poll/157406/obama-gets-three-point-convention-bounce.aspx
2.http://www.gallup.com/poll/157262/romney-gets-no-bounce-last-week-gop-convention.aspx
3.http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/29/politics/rnc-5-things/index.html
4.http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/07/politics/five-things-we-learned-day-three/index.html
It's hard to measure how effective a convention is because conventions are not at all necessary to the elective process. Going into the conventions, we already knew that Romney would be the Republican candidate and Obama would be going for a second term. The Democratic and Republican conventions are just big rackets of like-minded individuals getting together and saying the same things they've been saying all year. Therefore, I suppose a good way to judge them would be by how clear and unified those messages were. And how does one get a message across? With a speech. I'll begin with the "turncoat" speech givers (Artur Davis and Charlie Crist) and work my way up. Crist did not make a big splash with his speech(1), and he didn't have much to say apart from bashing the Republican candidates(2). Davis, on the other hand, gave a very relevant speech. Instead of bashing the other party, he gave legitimate reasons for why Romney is the better candidate. He was also exteremely charismatic throughout(1), which can't exactly be said for his counterpart. Onto the first ladies. I could pick apart each one's speech, but that would almost be like doing the same thing twice. Mrs. Romney recalled living in a basment apartment with her husband, while Mrs. Obama reminisced about her husband's rusted out old car. Both women did an excellent job of getting behind their husbands' campaigns, however. I wish I could say the same for the presidential nominees. In my opinion, neither candidate gave me a good reason why they were better than their opponent. Both speeches were full of bashes against the other candidate, and both had important omissions(3). Fortunately for the Democrats, Bill Clinton's speech, while long winded(1), was both memorable(4) and managed to 'bring the party back to the center'(1). Kudos to the former president on an excellent speech. The Republicans didn't bring out a former president, which led to jokes about their "witness protection program" from political commentator Bill Maher(4). But they did bring out former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Who gave a magnificent speech. She started off with a topic that binds all Americans, the terror attacks on 9/11. She then transitioned into our need for a strong military (a primarily conservative veiwpoint), and economic stability, affirming both of these as veiwpoints of Romney and Ryan. All with minimal name-calling and bashing. After watching several speeches from both conventions, I have to say that the former Seretary of State's was the best. Well, hers, or Clint Eastwood's (kidding!). Looking back at what I've written, I'd have to give a slight edge to the Republicans on this one. I know they got worse TV ratings and didn't get a 'bump in the polls', but I think the quality and clarity of their message was finer than that of the Democrats. Let the replies fly!
1.http://www.policymic.com/articles/14359/dnc-2012-vs-rnc-2012-the-people-who-overshadowed-both-obama-and-romney
2.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/03/charlie-crist-dnc-speech-_n_1852525.html
3.http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-09-10/obama-camp-romney-spar-over-omissions-in-convention-speeches
4.http://www.policymic.com/articles/14348/dnc-2012-vs-rnc-2012-9-convention-highlights-similarities-and-key-differences
The Democratic National Convention and Republican National Convention were both successful in a variety of ways; however I believe that the DNC was the more successful convention this year. The purpose of the conventions is to inform the people of the specific plans both parties have for the next four years, as well as select a candidate to run for each party. After the RNC, which took place one week before the DNC, CNN polls indicated that both Republican and Democratic candidates, Mitt Romney and Barack Obama respectively, were tied at 48%. After the DNC, Obama led with 52% while Romney had 46% among likely voters (1). This 4% increase for the Democratic Party shows that the convention had success in exciting and possibly widening the Democratic base for the upcoming election. Obama’s favorability was boosted to 57% from 52% whereas Romney’s fell from 50% to 48% (4). Additionally, it has been mentioned in many sources that the DNC had a much bigger audience (close to 26 million viewers) while the RNC had only about 22 million. The Democratic speakers had seemed to be chosen very strategically, as well. Among the highlighted ones was former president Bill Clinton, who spoke on why Obama should be re-elected (3). While the Republican speakers were impactful, they did not seem to have as much success as the opposing party. This is clearly evidenced by comparing the number of overall viewers and poll results. The DNC also largely focused on Obama and his future plans while the RNC seemed to mostly try to prove why they believe Obama’s past actions have been erroneous. While the Republican speakers spoke down on the Democratic Party and its candidate, they barely mentioned how they would change what has been done to hot-topic issues such as healthcare, the economy, jobs, and the market (2).
Though nobody can look into a crystal ball and see who the winner of the November 2012 election will be, it is obvious that the Democratic Party has an advantage due to its success during its convention. Strong speakers, touching on controversial topics, and the polling numbers prove that the DNC was exceptional. The RNC was somewhat successful, but did not seem to surpass the quality of the DNC.
1. http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/09/cnn-poll-obama-bounce.php
2. http://thegrio.com/2012/09/07/dnc-vs-rnc-a-tale-of-two-conventions/
3. http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/169387076.html
4. http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/09/cnn-poll-obama-gets-convention-bump-135087.html
In analyzing the success of the DNC & RNC we have to acknowledge that there are many factors affecting a campaign. However, the most important and quantifiable one is who gained more voter support. Other factors, like donation levels, volunteer engagement, party enthusiasm, or debate performances, either provide a negligible impact on the election, or are very difficult to objectively quantify, respectively. So, in order to analyze which of the Conventions had a larger positive impact we must look at the numbers.
According to Gallup (2), before the RNC Romney led Obama 47% to 46%, while afterwards Obama led Romney 47% to 46% (well within the 3% margin of error at 95% confidence). Not only was there negligible change in overall polling numbers, but another Gallup poll (3) shows that the RNC made only a 2% positive impact (hardly statistically significant with a 4% margin of error at 95% confidence) on the likelihood of voters to vote for Romney. While Republicans and Democrats split predictably on this poll, 36% of Independents said what they saw at the RNC would make them more likely to vote for Romney, while only 33% said it would make them less likely.
The DNC on the other hand, showed a much more significant bump in polling numbers. The Gallup poll (4) conducted following the DNC showed a 3% jump for Obama, and a 2% drop for Romney, creating a net 5% gain for Obama following the DNC (3% margin of error at 95% confidence). Furthermore, following the DNC 43% of Americans said they were more likely to vote for Obama due to the Convention, while only 38% said they were less likely, a net gain of 5% for Obama (compared to Romney’s 2% on the comparable poll) (the margin of error was 4% with 95% confidence). A model developed by Simon Jackman, Professor of Political Science at Stanford University, for Pollster (an affiliate of the Huffington Post) which accounts for bias and skew in different polls, also shows Obama gaining 5% on Romney (6) following the DNC, compared to almost no change following the RNC. So all indicators point to the DNC being more successful than the RNC.
However, while the data clearly suggests that the DNC was more successful short-term, what matters is its long-term effect in the election. Many would point out that the domination of coverage by a Convention could explain any increases observed. However, political scientists Robert Erikson and Christopher Wlezien argue to the contrary. (7) They point out that four times since 1988 a party convention has served as a pivotal moment in the election campaign, where the leader before the convention(s) came out trailing and never retook the lead. Furthermore, they explain that much of the campaigning following the Conventions does little to change minds, pointing to the fact that over the past 15 elections no candidate who was behind two weeks after the conventions ever came back to win the popular vote. (7) They do concede however, that some Convention bumps are only temporary and that they have no overall effect. So while the 2012 Conventions may have had vastly different short-term effects, their long-term consequences will not be discernible for quite a while, probably until about November 7, 2012.
1)http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/10/obama-convention-bounce_n_1870087.html?utm_hp_ref=elections-2012
2)http://www.gallup.com/poll/157262/romney-gets-no-bounce-last-week-gop-convention.aspx
3)http://www.gallup.com/poll/157256/gop-convention-romney-speech-evoke-lukewarm-reactions.aspx
4)http://www.gallup.com/poll/157406/obama-gets-three-point-convention-bounce.aspx
5)http://www.gallup.com/poll/157322/democratic-convention-rated-slightly-better-gop.aspx
6)http://www.huffingtonpost.com/simon-jackman/biggest-lead-over-romney_b_1868893.html?utm_hp_ref=@pollster
7)http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/29/presidential-polls_n_1837757.html?utm_hp_ref=@pollster
This comment has been removed by the author.
The National Conventions near the end of the Presidential Campaign are a means to fired up each party. At the conventions, leaders assert their points and assure that those in attendance are clear on what they should be voting for. As a large media spot, conventions are big ways to pull voters who are on the fence or not even registered yet. Thus, the most important part of a party's National Convention is to leave a bigger impression than the competitor. In this respect, I believe the Democratic Party won this battle of conventions. I may be biased because I only watched about four minute of convention coverage, and it happened to be the Democratic Convention (unwillingly) over dinner. While I would have enjoyed an episode of Adventure Time instead, I did notice that the reporters where practically raving over Mr. Bill Clinton (1). To everyone, Mr. Clinton's appearance was a pleasant surprise and his speech was a huge success in humor, agenda, and Republican-bashing. Newsday.com suggests that both parties have obstacles they still need to jump, such as gender gaps in voting, but Obama pulled out slightly ahead in influence (2). On the other hand, the Republican convention was enough to make a grown man break out in tears (3). With emotions on Romney's side, it would seem he would have no problem hyping up his party members. However, I find little evidence of such a hype. The focus of the convention was on Paul Ryan and speeches held too much Anti-Obama, so viewers apparently report (4). Convention-goers walked away from Tampa knowing they sure as hell weren't gonna vote for Obama, but they were not entirely convinced to vote for Romney, either. In the end, as Newsday put it, “U.S. presidential elections...are played in quarters; the Democrats just won the third.”
(1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPm2qOxYnow
(2) http://www.newsday.com/opinion/oped/hunt-barack-obama-s-shaky-lead-entering-the-post-convention-home-stretch-1.3989116
(3) http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/republican-national-convention-emotional-moments-mitt-romney-nominated/story?id=17127043#.UFKECY2PU_o
(4) http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/30/after-convention-warm-up-romney-to-make-his-case-in-nomination-speech/
Based on the most recent polls, the Democratic Party was the more successful of the conventions. Nationwide polls from Saturday, September eighth, show that Obama has forty-six percent of the votes compared to Romney’s forty-four percent (1).
It is important to take the central issues of the upcoming election into consideration when discussing the success of the two conventions (3). The two main issues of the 2012 election are the economy and foreign policy (1). Republicans are urging Romney to focus his campaign more on the economy (3). Obama has been criticized for his actions regarding the attack in Egypt, however, Obama’s comment that Romney “has a tendency to shoot first and aim second” has lead the way for Democrats and Republicans alike to criticize Romney’s aggressive approach on foreign policy (3). In my opinion, the fact that the Republicans are urging Romney to focus more on the economy and criticizing their own candidate for his views on foreign policy demonstrates that the Democrats are in a stronger position than the Republicans after their respective national conventions.
A more specific look at the success of the conventions can be found in data from New York, where Obama is clearly in the lead (2). Based on the Quinnipiac University poll, Obama is at sixty-two percent in New York and Romney is at thirty-four percent (2). In New York, Obama is thirty-five points ahead with women, twenty ahead with men, and nineteen points ahead of independent parties (2).
A study based on 443 polls shows that Obama is in the lead (4). This poll places Obama’s rating at forty-eight percent and Romney’s at forty-five percent (4). Of the most popular polls, including CNN, Fox, the Economist, and Democracy Corps, only one poll, Rasmussen, suggests that Romney is leading (4). The margin of this lead is one point (4). A survey taken by the Voice of America News after the conventions shows that Obama received a larger boost in ratings than Romney (3).
(1)http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/13/poll-obama-tops-romney-by-nearly-2-to-1-in-n-y/
(2)http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-leads-romney-new-polls-after-democratic-national-convention
(3)http://www.voanews.com/content/romney-obama-polls-election/1507542.html
(4)http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2012-general-election-romney-vs-obama
Deciding the future of our country is ultimately what both national conventions were essentially about. How both parties addressed the major issues concerning our country differed in many ways, each with a different plan of how to get our country to basically the same point of stability. So what way or what plan is actually going to get the United States to the secure state they all promise we can get to? We can analyze the response to both the conventions to get a sense of the direction the country is about to head toward.
First, I watched a clip from a news station covering the Democratic National Convention (2). They had a Google chat in between speeches and performances with people watching the convention and their views on it. They had a panel of college kids and younger Americans. They were very supportive of the promises of lower college tuition mentioned by the Democrats. There was also a group of religious viewers ranging from Episcopals to Muslims. This seemed to show that the Democratic Convention was reaching a very wide range of views, which can be seen as success in the area that they were able to gain the interest of a variety of perspectives. They also talked to a Hispanic panel. They replied that neither party was promising great options for immigrants, but that the Democrats were noticeably more sympathetic concerning the matter (2). This coverage clip showed me that many people were interested in what the Democrats had to say. When I visited the GOP’s website, I was disappointed to only see three outreach categories: Black Republicans, Hispanics, and Women (6). Were those the only groups they were reaching out to when on the flipside the Democrats had listed 17 groups to outreach to including the LGBT community and ranging to veterans and the military community (7).
Regarding the RNC’s viewership, a poll from USA Today states that the number of viewers that watched the RNC was down 22% from John McCain’s viewers in 2008 (4). This statistic showed a lack of appeal to the Republican’s message. A poll by the Tampa Bay Times reports that even with an NFL football game playing during prime time, the DNC still had more viewers than the game (5). Another poll I looked into gave Mitt Romney the worst acceptance speech approval rating since Gallup poll started taking the survey in 1996 (3). Looking at the collective data numerically, any person could see that the Democratic Convention definitely overshadowed the Republican Convention.
However, the Republicans did have some solid support and a strong lineup for the convention. Key speakers such as Paul Ryan, Ann Romney, Chris Christy, Condoleezza Rice, and even Clint Eastwood came out and showed their support for the Romney ticket (1). Nonetheless, having celebrities speak their support is not a valid way to gauge success when the numbers are so unarguably biased toward one campaign. In my opinion, there is no doubt that the Democratic National Convention overpowered the Republican National convention.
Sources:
(1)http://www.boston.com/news/source/2012/08/video_clips_fro.html (2)http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/obama-biden-dnc-speeches-google-hangout-analysis-17179076
(3) http://www.eurweb.com/2012/09/mitt-romneys-rnc-speech-gets-lowest-approval-rating-since-1996/
(4)http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/news/story/2012-09-05/Nielsen-ratings-analysis/57614822/1
(5)http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/media/content/second-night-251-million-viewers-watch-dnc-coverage-hinting-nfl-game-didnt-hurt-much
(6) http://www.gop.com/coalition-support/
(7) http://www.democrats.org/
It is election year once again. And if you have not noticed then where have you been and can I get directions? The DNC and RNC have had their conventions a week apart as usual. The question posed every year is who had the more successful convention. This year I believe that the Democrats had the more successful convention. There are benchmarks for success like, T.V. ratings, increases in funding, and impactful speeches. Both parties also have different approaches on the way they deliver their information. The Republicans were more factual and stern in their delivery while the Democrats had much more emotion in their convention. One of the moving parts of the Democratic convention was when Ted Kennedy stood up and vowed to live long enough to see health care reformed for Americans (1). Along with that is when Gabby Giffords stood up on the main stage and spoke the words of the national anthem, with a minimum of studders. In both conventions the first wives plead the cases for their husbands and did an eloquent job of it. One person that did not such an eloquent job was Clint Eastwood. He spoke on the same night as Romney, and the next morning more people were talking about what he said then what Romney said. He delivered a rambling performance that included the Hollywood legend yelling at a stool that held an imaginary Obama (2). While it might have been a nice break for the crowd from the typical political speeches it was still a strange speech. As i flipped through news shows that day after the Eastwood and Romney speeches all the analysts were talking about was Eastwood. Labor Day weekend my family was at the cabin and my uncle is a republican and even he thought that Eastwood was not the best move the RNC could have made. To attest to this point there were some statistics that shocked and concerned me. On the Thursday night of the convention TLC’s “Here comes Honey Boo Boo” out rated the RNC (3). “Here comes Honey Boo Boo” had a rating of 1.3 which was better than the 7.7 million viewers of the RNC on the same night. This concerns me, more people in our country watched a “redneck” family then the RNC. It is an election year so it stands to reason that those of us that can vote should be well informed. Even still there has to be something better on for people to watch then “Here comes Honey Boo Boo.” This really says something about how we view conventions these days, not to mention it looks bad for the Republicans when they lose in rating to a six year old and her family. Finally one hugely important part of the conventions. The money earned. In August the Obama campaign raised more money than the Romney campaign (4). The Obama campaign reported that they received donations from 3.2 million donors(4). This could prove to be an advantage for Obama the more smaller donations, the more that individual can contribute. Whereas Romney relies more on large donations from wealthy people. Either was this just means that we will have the joys of watching endless political ads as the election becomes closer. Let the fun commence.
Sources
1.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7576692.stm
2.http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/80498.html
3.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/31/honey-boo-boo-ratings-top-republican-national-convention-rnc_n_1846155.html
4.http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-raised-more-campaign-money-than-romney-in-august/2012/09/10/6276259a-fb51-11e1-8adc-499661afe377_story.html
When talking about how successful both conventions were, Democrat and/or Republican, you need to define success. Success, at least to me, means that you have achieved your goal and/or gained something (like voters or support). So, to that regard, I feel like the Democratic National Convention (DNC), was more successful than the Republican National Convention (RNC).
One thing that the DNC did well, was to excite voters. The current President is a Democratic, so the DNC goal was to excite their party members. They accomplished that goal, and did it by utilizing exciting speakers. For example, former President Bill Clinton gave a speech that was heavy in statistical data and facts. This was missing from the RNC speeches. (1) “The Recovery Act saved and created millions of jobs and cut taxes for 95% of the American people. In the last 29 months the economy has produced about 4.5 million private sector jobs. But last year, the Republicans blocked the President's jobs plan costing the economy more than a million new jobs. So here's another jobs score: President Obama plus 4.5 million, Congressional Republicans zero”
First Lady Michelle Obama is a distinguished lawyer herself, and her speech showed it. She humanized her husband by noting (2) “You see, even though back then Barack was a Senator and a presidential candidate...to me, he was still the guy who'd picked me up for our dates in a car that was so rusted out, I could actually see the pavement going by through a hole in the passenger side door “ and “he was the guy whose proudest possession was a coffee table he'd found in a dumpster, and whose only pair of decent shoes was half a size too small.” Michelle painted a picture of her husband that shared more in common with the average voter than what was painted of Mitt Romney. Ann Romney tried to humanize Mitt Romney, but is not the polished speaker that Michelle Obama demonstrated.
Paul Ryan was impassioned speech, however, next day fact checkers determined he was not telling the truth. (3) “Ryan’s comments are highly misleading. Neither Obama nor his health care law literally cut funding from the Medicare program’s budget.”
The lead up to the candidates speech is critical. Millions of people are watching, and convention delegates must be at a fever pitch. Unfortunately the RNC had a movie star, Clint Eastwood, who was the introduction to candidate Romney. Eastwood’s speech was ill prepared, not vetted, and rambling (4). It took up precious time, and resulted in a failure in the critical lead up to the “main event” being Mitt Romney and his speech.
1.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/05/bill-clinton-speech-text-_n_1850531.html
2.http://www.npr.org/2012/09/04/160578836/transcript-michelle-obamas-convention-speech
3.http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/29/paul-ryan/paul-ryan-said-president-obama-funneled-716-billio/
4.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoqKdWY692k
After the end of both the Republican and Democratic national convention, both Mitt Romney and President Obama are still dead even in the polls (1) . Obama gained a slight boost from his convention, but among registered voters, both are holding at 47% (2). Clint Eastwood’s speech at the Republican National Convention has been widely criticised for its overuse of humor and other distractions. However, it didn’t totally disappoint, as many independents liked his speech (5). He also is a high profile actor who very publicly came out in support of the Republican party and Mitt Romney in particular. Although this is not going to sway a Democrat, it will be a factor on those who are undecided. The Democrats picked a safer choice, former President Bill Clinton, whose speech has been praised by liberals. Although former President Clinton has status and political experience, his speech is not going to sway a Republican to support Obama. Therefore, this is mainly a battle to convince independents to vote for your candidate. However, Romney is currently winning this battle (53% of independents vs. 39% for President Obama) (3). The Republicans still have a good chance to get the Presidency in the upcoming election. Democrats have more votes among younger voters and minorities, but the Republicans have more votes among white people and the elderly. The latter have the highest voter turnout rate. Despite Obama having a slight lead in some areas, among people who are registered to vote and say they are “certain to vote”, the voters are split almost evenly, 49% for Obama vs 48% for Mitt Romney (well within the possibility of error) (2). Also, at the Republican National Convention, the Republicans did a good job about pointing out the failures of Obama’s presidency. From Obamacare to the economy, Obama’s presidency has not helped the American people at all. Furthermore, no incumbent with an approval rating below 50 percent in the month of September has been re-elected since the Reagan presidency (2). The Republicans also have a very high 88% support from Republicans (matching Obama’s score) (3). This means that the Republican National Convention was very effective in regards to shoring up its base. And while much has been made of the Democrats entertainment during their convention, let’s face it, when election week rolls around, no one in their right mind is going to vote for Obama simply because Amber Riley (Glee) made the Democrats cry (apparently) over her singing of the National Anthem (6). When it comes down to it, this election will be about the ISSUES. The Republicans seem to have a better grasp of where America should go in the next 4 years. I will give a slight edge to the Republican National Convention.
1 http://www.gallup.com/poll/156845/candidate-support-typically-five-points-convention.aspx
2 http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/obama-gains-a-convention-boost-but-not-among-likely-voters/
3 http://www.washingtonpost.com/page/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2012/07/10/National-Politics/Polling/question_5592.xml#
4 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/11/presidential-polls-2012_n_1873550.html
5 http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/09/03/clint-eastwoods-speech-re-examined/
6 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ij5yNAZVVQM
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
In today's state of economic uncertainty, Americans need to know that the future president can and will implement plans that will help Americans lead a fulfilled life. And one of the many stages that a candidate can use to persuade the citizens that he is able to lead this country better than the other candidate is the National Convention. On August 30th, the Republicans successfully used the National Convention to this effect. The RNC was able to set a plan for America's future and convince the people that the GOP would better lead this nation than President Obama. During the entirety of his speech, presidential candidate Mitt Romney mentioned many goals that he hoped to achieve such as creating "12 million new jobs" and "taking advantage of our oil, our coal, our gas, our nuclear, and renewables (1)." Throughout his speech, Romney characterized President Obama as inexperienced and timid when faced with decisions that demanded expertise and courage. Romney expressed President Obama's inexperience by demonstrating the lack of improvement in the economy, citing the continuing high unemployment. In fact, recently the jobs report showed that only 96,000 jobs were created, significantly fewer than the expected 125,000 new jobs (2). Romney also cited President Obama's lack of tenacity in controlling Iran's growing nuclear power. Although claiming that he finds the "Iranian program intolerable," President Obama has only implemented weak sanctions, which, some senior political analysts agree, can actually increase the likelihood of war just as it did in the days before WW II (3). "It creates the same conditions that helped trigger World War II — years of negotiations and threats, where the threats failed to be taken seriously until war became all too real,” writes Anthony Cordesman, a national security analyst. It is situations like these that Mitt Romney cites as proof of how President Obama's "promises have lead to disappointment (1)."
In contrast, President Obama had few plans for the future in his speech. One of the few times that he mentioned a plan was his reference to a policy that would increase the tax hike on the wealthiest of Americans. As support for this plan, President Obama implied that a similar tax hike passed by the Clinton Administration created 23 million new jobs (4). However, when held to the fire, this claim does not hold up. Before Clinton passed the tax hike on the wealthy in 1993, America's economy was rapidly expanding as a result of the "end of the Cold War" and the drop in gas prices to "less than $11 a barrel" (5). After the tax hike was implemented, while still showing strong growth at 3.3%, the economic potential was not being met. After the tax hike was removed by Congress in 1997, the economy grew by 4.4% and 23 million new jobs were created.
As all of the lights and the cameras fade, all that remains of the convention are the ideas that the candidates promoted to help this country recover from the worst economic slump since the Great Depression. And when these ideas are held side by side, one can see that Mitt Romney is the one with better plans that will lead this nation to a more secure and economically prosperous future.
1. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/30/transcript-mitt-romney-speech-at-rnc/
2. http://www.npr.org/2012/09/07/160766890/new-unemployment-report-weaker-than-expected
3. http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/fiddling-iran-nuclear-article-1.1158996#ixzz26PCId988
4. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/transcript-of-barack-obamas-remarks-at-the-democratic-national-convention/2012/09/06/b1534044-f895-11e1-a93b-7185e3f88849_story_4.html
5. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/09/clinton-tax-hikes-slowed-growth
The Republican and Democratic National Conventions have similar goals. The Republicans needed to unveil the party platform and present it in a way that appeals to all Americans. They also needed to introduce Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan (whom Romney refers to as a man with a big heart from a small town) (3) to the American people; introduce them not just as candidates, but also as people. This is one of the reasons that republicans chose to have Ann Romney speak at the convention. She had to make him sound both fully qualified to be President of the United States and, at the same time, someone whom you and I could meet while walking down the street. Meanwhile, Mitt Romney talked about his faith and his experience in economy (3). He talked about forming his company. He also talked about global security, specifically the countries of Iran, Israel, Poland and Russia (3). The other speakers at the convention each had their own part to play as well. They had to lay out a plan for the future. They had to face the issues that America now faces; the war in Afghanistan, the economy, finding new jobs and renewable energy and health care. The Democratic Party had its own goals for its national convention. They mainly had to focus on the economy. Obama had several goals that he outlined: to increase manufacturing jobs, cut college tuition costs and reduce foreign oil imports (4). Obama also talked about his leadership of the country through the tough times that we have had. He spoke on our “war on terror” and of the death of Osama bin laden at the hands of American SEALs. Gallup polls show that in the month of August, Obama received a support from those ages 18-29, as well as from the Hispanic populations and other Democrats. However, he lost support with those ages 30-49, and 50-64 and those 65+ (numbers 44%, 43% and 39% respectively) (1). According to Gallup polls taken 9/12, President Obama leads Governor Romney by 6.0 points (50% to 44% respectively) (2). This boost was gained partly after the Democratic National Convention, while Mitt Romney did not receive any such boost from his convention. However, this fact may prove to be irrelevant. Many people today have become disenchanted with politics. 20% of voters claim to pay little or no attention to the 2012 election (5). And while President Obama may lead in the polls, Mitt Romney’s voters are proven to be more likely to vote. Therefore, while both parties achieved their own set of goals, neither side has pulled any significant numbers and both sides are still relatively even.
(1) http://www.gallup.com/poll/politics.aspx
(2) http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/09/cnn-poll-obama-bounce.php
(3) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGTi4-ysJS8
(4) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rl8Ou84s5U
(5)http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57502015/poll-20-percent-say-election-is-an-afterthought/?tag=cbsnewsSectionsArea;cbsnewsSectionsArea.2
National conventions for our two main political parties in the U.S. are some of the biggest shows of force that they can display. Both the Democratic and Republican conventions are broadcast country-wide on all major television networks. It gives the parties and their candidates a chance to persuade the American people to their side - and in the form of long speeches that point out each side's strengths and weaknesses. This quality is usually something that is lacking in the 30-second mudslinging ads we usually see. After the conventions are over, however, it is time to ask the important question: Which party succeeded in persuading more American voters to their side? First we must look at the polling data. In my opinion, the polls are the most accurate reflection of the mood of the American public. Therefore, we must define polling data as the most definitive factor in our judging of which party succeeded. Keeping the polls in mind, it is apparent to me that the Democratic party and their convention did a better job of winning over more voters than did the Republicans. A Gallup poll taken right after both conventions shows that the Democrats gained more supporters as a result of their convention than did the Republicans (1). And although both sides did end up with a net gain, the gain of the Democrats was more than double that of the Republicans. Another interesting statistic to see is that Republican candidate Mitt Romney did not see any post-convention boost in his supporters (2). A different way to look at the conventions is the important speakers that were invited to them. The main standout of the Republican speakers, maybe even more so than Mr. Romney, was the speech of actor/director Clint Eastwood (3). He referred to an empty chair as "Mr. Obama" and asked him about not keeping certain promises. Critics labeled the speech as "unorthodox" and "weird" (3). He even seemed to cross party lines on issues like the U.S. involvement in the Middle East. As for the Democrats, mayor Julian Castro gave the keynote speech - the first ever given by a Latino. If Obama didn't have the Hispanic vote already, this was a smart move to persuade minorities once again to his side (4). The most powerful speech of all arguably came from Bill Clinton (4). Personally speaking, watching him deliver it almost moved me to tears. I must not have been the only person watching to feel this way. To sum up the results of the conventions and in measuring their success, one choice is clear. The Democratic party's convention succeeded in winning over more voters. While Republicans tried to assail the bad decisions of the left, it seemed as if they never got around to asserting why they would be the better choice. President Obama and other speakers struck the right balance of both affirming they were doing the correct job, and why Romney and Ryan should not be the voters' choice. Thanks to their compelling convention, President Obama has a better chance of being re-elected in November.
1. http://www.gallup.com/poll/157322/democratic-convention-rated-slightly-better-gop.aspx?ref=image
2. http://www.gallup.com/poll/157262/romney-gets-no-bounce-last-week-gop-convention.aspx
3. http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/09/07/clint-eastwood-and-the-empty-chair-how-he-conceived-his-speech/
4. http://www.demconvention.com/speakers/
National conventions for our two main political parties in the U.S. are some of the biggest shows of force that they can display. Both the Democratic and Republican conventions are broadcast country-wide on all major television networks. It gives the parties and their candidates a chance to persuade the American people to their side - and in the form of long speeches that point out each side's strengths and weaknesses. This quality is usually something that is lacking in the 30-second mudslinging ads we usually see. After the conventions are over, however, it is time to ask the important question: Which party succeeded in persuading more American voters to their side? First we must look at the polling data. In my opinion, the polls are the most accurate reflection of the mood of the American public. Therefore, we must define polling data as the most definitive factor in our judging of which party succeeded. Keeping the polls in mind, it is apparent to me that the Democratic party and their convention did a better job of winning over more voters than did the Republicans. A Gallup poll taken right after both conventions shows that the Democrats gained more supporters as a result of their convention than did the Republicans (1). And although both sides did end up with a net gain, the gain of the Democrats was more than double that of the Republicans. Another interesting statistic to see is that Republican candidate Mitt Romney did not see any post-convention boost in his supporters (2). A different way to look at the conventions is the important speakers that were invited to them. The main standout of the Republican speakers, maybe even more so than Mr. Romney, was the speech of actor/director Clint Eastwood (3). He referred to an empty chair as "Mr. Obama" and asked him about not keeping certain promises. Critics labeled the speech as "unorthodox" and "weird" (3). He even seemed to cross party lines on issues like the U.S. involvement in the Middle East. As for the Democrats, mayor Julian Castro gave the keynote speech - the first ever given by a Latino. If Obama didn't have the Hispanic vote already, this was a smart move to persuade minorities once again to his side (4). The most powerful speech of all arguably came from Bill Clinton (4). Personally speaking, watching him deliver it almost moved me to tears. I must not have been the only person watching to feel this way. To sum up the results of the conventions and in measuring their success, one choice is clear. The Democratic party's convention succeeded in winning over more voters. While Republicans tried to assail the bad decisions of the left, it seemed as if they never got around to asserting why they would be the better choice. President Obama and other speakers struck the right balance of both affirming they were doing the correct job, and why Romney and Ryan should not be the voters' choice. Thanks to their compelling convention, President Obama has a better chance of being re-elected in November.
1. http://www.gallup.com/poll/157322/democratic-convention-rated-slightly-better-gop.aspx?ref=image
2. http://www.gallup.com/poll/157262/romney-gets-no-bounce-last-week-gop-convention.aspx
3. http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/09/07/clint-eastwood-and-the-empty-chair-how-he-conceived-his-speech/
4. http://www.demconvention.com/speakers/
After looking as objectively as humanly possible at both the Republican and Democratic National Conventions, it’s safe to say that neither stood out as obviously better or worse than the other. Each had their own successes, but neither managed to prompt a huge change in the election climate or radically change the plans of the average voter. That being said, when evaluated in terms of popularity and effects on the polls, the Democrats come out clearly ahead.
The first measure of success is popularity, and it comes down to a single question: which party managed to get more people to watch? By all accounts, the Democrats come out ahead in the category, leading the Republicans fairly substantially in TV ratings (1). Considering that the Republican Party is traditionally more popular with older Americans, this bodes especially badly for them. Older voters are less likely to be getting their news from tech-based sources, like the Internet, and tend to rely solely on TV and print media. Thus, a rating drop for the Republican party it implies lower overall viewership, whereas a drop for the Democrats could simply the audience watched online instead (2). This trend indicates a real problem for the Republicans- after all, it’s impossible to convince a voter who stays removed.
The final measure of success is the more obvious of the two. It’s fair to say that the party that saw the biggest jump in the polls had the best convention, and this year the award goes to the Democrats. Though both candidates were tied when entering the conventions (3) , Obama bounced up 4 points after the DNC. By contrast, Romney dropped 2 points, giving Obama a definite, though not decisive, edge (4). The Democratic party was clearly successful at gaining more positive nationwide attention than the Republicans, which, combined with their impressive viewership, indicates that they held a much more successful and effective convention overall than the competition.
1. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-207_162-57507042/dncs-first-night-beats-rncs-in-tv-ratings/
2. http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/31/aug-31-tv-ratings-may-be-leading-indicator-of-convention-bounce/
3. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/02/us-usa-campaign-poll-idUSBRE87U1CJ20120902
4. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/10/cnn-poll-obama-up-six-points-over-romney/
In a manner of speaking, the conventions stopped being successes a long time ago. A national convention should deemed successful when its excited members of it’s own party and drawn voters towards said party. With a 50% voter turnout, the only people really affected by the convention were people who were already paying attention. Sure there may be a small percentage that were swayed, but most people these days are set in their political views and even less would be swayed by the national convention, a circus of speeches and party pride, when they could look at the debates as well as the platform of the candidate. Even despite this the Democratic Convention managed to get Obama a rise in ratings (4). It’s also been reported multiple times that the Democratic Convention has excited it’s members more then the RNC (4, 5). However if we change our standards to ones more fitting of a current demographic, some success can be found. Attention. If a convention receives attention, then it has achieved its goal. In that way the Republican Convention was a success, if purely for Clint Eastwood talking to a chair (1). That alone raised the Daily Show’s average views per views on their website by 300,000 (2). However it’s TV ratings were lower then the Democratic Conventions, which turned out to be great for NBC (3). No matter how much “success” is achieved by these parties, we as constituents lose. The election has turned into a circus, and both parties are guilty of showmanship. Whether it’s Clint Eastwood and a chair, or Clinton and social media, our elections have become a popularity contest rivaling that of our own homecoming court. I’m not saying that elections haven’t been popularity contests in the past, because that’s what the elections are, I’m saying that there has been a larger emphasis on who can be flashier to the public and not who can be a better leader. Despite my own opinions on Obama, I believe that a good chunk of the reason why he won is that he was the younger, more flashier candidate, who had a little bit more flair then crusty old McCain who’s only back-up was the butt of every joke in 2008. I’m sure that as we move on to the debates, actual politics will start to play a bigger part, but I will never forget mistaking the RNC for the Academy Awards.
1. http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/entertainment&id=8802453
2. http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/fri-august-31-2012-
3. http://washingtonexaminer.com/1st-night-of-dnc-bests-rnc-in-tv-ratings-race/article/2507715
4. http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/11/politics/convention-enthusiasm-bounce/index.html
5. http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-daily-rundown/48939977
In a manner of speaking, the conventions stopped being successes a long time ago. A national convention should deemed successful when its excited members of it’s own party and drawn voters towards said party. With a 50% voter turnout, the only people really affected by the convention were people who were already paying attention. Sure there may be a small percentage that were swayed, but most people these days are set in their political views and even less would be swayed by the national convention, a circus of speeches and party pride, when they could look at the debates as well as the platform of the candidate. Even despite this the Democratic Convention managed to get Obama a rise in ratings (4). It’s also been reported multiple times that the Democratic Convention has excited it’s members more then the RNC (4, 5). However if we change our standards to ones more fitting of a current demographic, some success can be found. Attention. If a convention receives attention, then it has achieved its goal. In that way the Republican Convention was a success, if purely for Clint Eastwood talking to a chair (1). That alone raised the Daily Show’s average views per views on their website by 300,000 (2). However it’s TV ratings were lower then the Democratic Conventions, which turned out to be great for NBC (3). No matter how much “success” is achieved by these parties, we as constituents lose. The election has turned into a circus, and both parties are guilty of showmanship. Whether it’s Clint Eastwood and a chair, or Clinton and social media, our elections have become a popularity contest rivaling that of our own homecoming court. I’m not saying that elections haven’t been popularity contests in the past, because that’s what the elections are, I’m saying that there has been a larger emphasis on who can be flashier to the public and not who can be a better leader. Despite my own opinions on Obama, I believe that a good chunk of the reason why he won is that he was the younger, more flashier candidate, who had a little bit more flair then crusty old McCain who’s only back-up was the butt of every joke in 2008. I’m sure that as we move on to the debates, actual politics will start to play a bigger part, but I will never forget mistaking the RNC for the Academy Awards.
1. http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/entertainment&id=8802453
2. http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/fri-august-31-2012-
3. http://washingtonexaminer.com/1st-night-of-dnc-bests-rnc-in-tv-ratings-race/article/2507715
4. http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/11/politics/convention-enthusiasm-bounce/index.html
5. http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-daily-rundown/48939977
As the 2012 elections are nearing, both parties are starting to roll out the big TV commercials and address major issues during their conventions. Every four years the National Conventions play a key role in a candidate’s campaign, they can hurt or help the ratings of a candidate dramatically. Both political parties addressed major issues like the economy and taxing the middle class. After watching both conventions, I believe the Democratic National Convention was far more successful for raising support for Barack vs. the Republican National Convention raising support for Romney. Watching Romney and his supporters speak it seemed the overall theme of their speeches was to attack Obama ,whereas, at the DNC the overall theme was to back up their candidate. The crowd’s reaction at the DNC was lively and enthusiastic compared to the stuffy cheers from the suited up republicans. Obama kept reminding his supporters of his bailout for General Motors and Chrysler which helped raise his lead to ten points in Michigan (1). Recent polls have estimated that Obama’s lead rose to 6% after the DNC (2). The DNC successfully raised more support vs. the RNC for Romney (3). The DNC promoted Obama as a husband and father and wanted the public to feel a connection to Obama. The DNC felt more like a community with former president Bill Clinton showing his support and emotional interviews with Michelle and close friends. The RNC felt more like a rally to attack Obama and less about the overall support for Romney. The RNC even got a little weird as Clint Eastwood gave the most bizarre speech I’ve ever seen (4).
Overall, I believe the Democratic National convention was better at raising support for their candidate. They came together as a party and praised Obama for his success and gave viewers a closer look at his relationship with his wife and kids. The Republican Convention was less successful because they didn’t focus on backing up Romney.
1. http://www.freep.com/article/20120912/NEWS15/120912090/obama-widens-lead-over-romney-to-10-points-michigan
2. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/11/gallup-obama-bump_n_1874735.html
3. http://personalliberty.com/2012/09/10/dnc-rated-slightly-better-than-rnc/
4. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/30/rachel-maddow-clint-eastwood-weirdest-thing-political-convention_n_1845231.html
In order to gauge the efficacy of any action it is necessary to know the intent of said action. For the national conventions, having long ago turned away from their original purpose of nominating each party’s candidate and, more recently, producing less of a discernible effect in voting trends, this makes comparing the success of the two difficult. With almost 90 percent of voters already decided by the time the conventions begin (1), the focus of conventioneers has increasingly shifted towards creating excitement in the voter base for each party and attempting to sway the remaining 10 percent. While the degrees to which each convention fulfilled these goals can certainly be viewed through the lens of polls and statistics, a more holistic approach is required to see the whole picture; in a close race it can come down to which convention had the greater number of big moments that the voters can remember in their cars as they drive to their local voting areas.
According to polling data in the week after the democratic convention President Obama received a larger bump than his adversary, whose small increase in support quickly dissipated as the democrats provided their retort to the republicans (2) (which brings to mind the question of whether switching the order of the two conventions would have changed the effect at all). Obama could see his post-convention wave of support disappear just as quickly though, as the two candidates have been running a close race with frequent changes in lead since May (3). The democrats also won in total television ratings, with nearly 25.1 million viewers during Bill Clinton’s speech despite competition with the NFL’s first game of the season (4) and nearly 35 million for Obama’s (1) ; the GOP convention drew just 21.9 million during Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan’s speech (4) and 30 million for Romney’s (1). Besides hard numbers, the conventions’ success is also determined by how many of the people who already identify with a party are caused to turn up and vote on election day. As someone who identifies as a left leaning moderate, it is easy for me to say that the message of the democrats resounded clearer with me, but it seems that on the whole many people viewed the democratic national convention as a better energizer and more successful with fewer gaffes (1). The most memorable moment in the democratic national convention wound up being the former president Bill Clinton’s salient and cogent endorsement of President Obama, where as for many viewers the most memorable of the RNC was an aged film star talking with (talking AT) an empty chair (1). In all, the democrats seemed more successful than their counterparts across the aisle, but how much all the pomp will actual affect the outcome of the presidential race has yet to be shown.
1) http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/08/us/politics/conventions-draw-crowds-but-sway-few-voters.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1
2)http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/09/10/obama-rides-convention-bounce-into-fall-campaign/?KEYWORDS=national+convention
3)http://www.gallup.com/poll/157406/obama-gets-three-point-convention-bounce.aspx
4)http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/168845186.html?refer=y
With the presidential election of 2012 on the horizon, both Republicans and Democrats have been hard at work on their respective campaign trails. After evaluating each of these highly influential events, I have come to the conclusion that the Democrats were more successful in their endeavors than the Republicans. I define success in this particular event as invoking a positive reaction from the audience. This reaction can be measured by either changes in national polls, whether large or merely marginal, or by examining the specific opinions the public has expressed after the events took place. For starters, the Republic Convention was received with a drop in Gallup’s polls from 47% to 46% (1). Although this change seems insignificant, its effect is a simple way to gage the aftermath of this event. Many agree that the highlight of the RNC was an intriguing appearance made by famous actor Clint Eastwood. Eastwood’s speech was defined by words such as “bizarre,” “awkward,” and “rambling” (2). One columnist referred to his attempt as “the weirdest thing I’ve ever seen” (2). To cap it all off, Romney’s speech lacked important detail regarding his political policies and plans after taking office (3). Rather, he focused more on establishing a positive personal image for himself by providing family anecdotes (3). This rallied conservatives but left those on the fence scratching their heads as he withheld crucial details regarding his platform (3).
On the other hand, the Democratic Convention saw an increase from 46% to 47% (1). This slight increase becomes more relevant when compounded with the drop in Republican ratings. Additionally, speeches given by the likes of Bill Clinton inspired audiences (4). Even Mitt Romney agreed that Clinton “did elevate the Democratic National Convention” (4). Clinton’s speech appears to contrast greatly with Eastwood’s poorly received articulation. President Obama also showed excellent composure when relaying his speech; although, he could have delivered more (5). Many would argue that despite his “solid” performance, Obama was “probably not the best of the Convention” (5). In comparison with Romney, who seemed lacking, Obama’s performance was dominating despite not being on top of his game. With the other remaining examination to be Eastwood versus Clinton, I think the stronger performance is clear.
1. http://www.gallup.com/poll/157262/romney-gets-no-bounce-last-week-gop-convention.aspx
2. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/30/rachel-maddow-clint-eastwood-weirdest-thing-political-convention_n_1845231.html
3. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/howard-fineman/romney-rnc-speech_b_1845403.html
4. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/09/10/onal-convention-star/
5. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/07/barack-obama-media-reactions_n_1863393.html
Which Convention won in the increasingly media based game that is the Presidential election? One need only look at the numbers to see the answers: Obama received somewhere between a 6 to 9 point lead (conflicting sources) after the DNC (1,2), while Romney received no significant bump in the polls after the RNC (1). In fact, some polls taken after the RNC showed that Romney actually lost ground during the convention (3). The reason for this is fairly clear: The Democratic National Convention was simply more positive, energetic, and youthful than the Republican Convention. Take for instance the singer of the national anthem. At the RNC, a more or less barber shop septet sang and the audience clapped politely (2). At the DNC, however, Amber Riley (Mercedes on Glee) had the audience in tears by “Rockets’ red glare” (2). Need more convincing? Look at who spoke at each convention. At the RNC the most exciting guest was Actor Clint Eastwood, and all he did was ramble for longer than he was supposed to and point to an imaginary president in a chair. The DNC had guests like Eva Longoria Parker, Scarlett Johansson, and Mary J Blige. Though a celebrity does not a successful convention make, it speaks to the youth and popularity of the Democratic Party. The speakers too included the youthful and optimistic mayor of San Antonio Julian Castro. The audience at both conventions tells us something about the party as well. At the RNC basically only delegates and journalists were allowed inside the auditorium (4). There was a striking lack of diversity in the audience, and a lot of cowboy hats. But at the DNC, the atmosphere was more like a concert, with people cheering at the top of their lungs. Both the audience and the speakers were diverse, and you could feel the passion in the air. At the RNC, the crowd and speakers seemed to be more against the President than for Romney. In contrast, at the DNC every speech was feverishly for the President, and when he and Michelle spoke, people didn’t just listen, the cried. The atmosphere around the convention was remarkably different at each one as well. The Democratic Convention was a street fair, with people from all over the country celebrating together. The Republican Convention on the other hand, felt like a war zone (4).
1. http://video.msnbc.msn.com/politicsnation/48947659#48947659
2. http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/globalpost-blogs/highway-2012/rnc-vs-dnc-obama-polls-sugar-high
3. http://www.examiner.com/article/a-breakdwon-of-the-most-recent-romney-versus-obama-poll
4. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofnEUOPFze4
There’s always an incredible amount of hype and energy surrounding the national conventions of both major political parties, but why? At this point in the presidential race, not many people’s opinions will be swayed too far left or right by excited banner-swaying and slogan-bearing (1). Instead, the conventions largely hope to improve their image in the public eye, and catch the attention of growing minorities who play an increasing role in the outcome of the elections (1). Looking at the afterimages left by these conventions, I find the DNC to have been the more successful.
One good reason for this was its legitimacy through the speakers: I think most everyone can agree that Clint Eastwood’s speech was less than politically inspiring, and became more of an internet gag, though it did increase social media awareness of the RNC…though perhaps not in the way they had intended (3).
One of the better speakers of the RNC was former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. She spoke eloquently on national security and several other hot-button topics without resorting to the rampant Obama-bashing of some other Republican speakers such as Tim Pawlenty, with his string of anti-Obama jokes which were in less than good taste (6, 7).
By contrast, the decision made by the DNC to bring on Bill Clinton as a speaker was brilliant: according to polls, it was the highlight of the entire convention, with three-tenths of those who watched the convention claiming that. Only 16 percent actually said that Obama’s speech was a highlight; oddly enough, Clinton and Eastwood have gotten more media attention than the nominees themselves in regards to their speeches (3, 4). Despite this, though, sixty percent of Americans who watched part of the convention considered Obama’s speech to have been good, compared to fifty-three percent in the case of Romney (4).
The Democrats also played a smart move by bringing in current Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, who shot down several of Romney’s points on the “success” of his tenure as governor, saying that the state actually became 47th in creation of jobs while the Republican was in office (2). By adding Patrick as a speaker, Democrats were easily able to see the different effects of a Republican governor (Romney) versus a Democratic one (Patrick), and just how the state fared under each: clearly, Romney didn’t do quite as much for his state as he’d like us to think he would, and it all comes back to image (2).
The addition of Michelle Obama to the list of speakers was also a smart move: with the energy she brought to the floor, she incited a motivation to strive for goals and dreams and to problem solve (2). Using careful rhetoric and key points such as “forward” and “we are all in this together, the Democrats were able to achieve a highly resounding array of speeches.
All considered, Obama received a poll boost of 4% from the 48% that the two candidates were tied at prior to the conventions, which actually makes Obama the winner on this stretch: 36% said after the RNC that it made them more likely to vote Romney, compared to a quite larger 46% for Obama (5). But with such close campaigns right now, who knows in which camp voters will seek refuge come November? These last few weeks will be filled with strong pushes and last-ditch efforts, but only one can come out on top this year, and the image portrayed by these speeches and others will likely play at least some role.
1. http://americasvoiceonline.org/blog/who-out-latinod-who-assessing-the-rnc-and-dnc-conventions-latino-outreach/
2. http://thesnapper.com/2012/09/12/does-democratic-national-convention-mobilize-voters/
3. http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/31/politics/eastwood-speech/index.html
4. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/09/10/onal-convention-star/
5. http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/10/polls-slight-post-convention-bounce-for-obama/?ref=republicannationalconvention
6. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvdYUBIN_6o
7. http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/topoftheticket/la-na-tt-romneys-convention-20120831,0,3064107.story
It is obvious that the presidential election this year is going to be one that will be close and have much lively debate. To prepare for the close battles, both candidates are spending much time and money on advertising and other campaign strategies. A more recent chance at heading closer to a victory is the Democratic National Convention and the Republican National Convention. The two nominees worked hard to give each parties fans a good convention, and to hopefully attract new members. I strongly believe that the DNC was a more riveting, exciting, fresh, and successful convention. There were many factors that were running through my head as I made this decision. The most obvious things to look at when deciding what people thought about the convention were the number of viewers. According to Nielsen Co., there were 26.2 million viewers the opening night of the DNC; the RNC had 22.3 million viewers on their opening night [1]. I think it is clear to see the most popular initial choice. As we move deeper in the convention we begin to notice the nature of thing, and get a real feel for the atmosphere. The RNC stuck to the traditional patriotic feel. One viewer described it as “G.O.P. delegates were the stuff of Texas beauty pageants” patriotic accessories, sequins, bespoke elephantine pins, and festive, cowpoke-y hats [2].” There is nothing wrong with this old fashioned cheer-for-America feel, but the DNC did a wonderful job of making things a little fresh. The country needs some change and the DNC showed how things are changing. The DNC was much more diverse and seemed to attract younger audience. New, exciting things appeared at the convention including “a crossdresser wearing a rainbow sash; the opportunity to purchase alcoholic beverages; 20-something boys who look like that have strong opinions about the strengths and weaknesses of Cure albums [2].” These new appearances shows how different and exciting Obama and the whole democratic party is! The next thing that sways me to the DNC side is the atmosphere of the convention. There was a article made about the top quotes from both conventions. A lot of the top ones from the RNC were negative, and bashing against the other party. An example, which happened to be the top on the list, is a quote from Paul Ryan who said “College graduates should not have to live out their 20s in their childhood bedrooms, staring up at fading Obama posters and wondering when they can move out and get going with life [3].” On the other hand, the DNC had a more friendly, yet informative feel. The speakers at the DNC talked more about family, and issues that are close to the heart. This I felt was more effective than a hostile, negative feel. One of the final things I looked as was the how the conventions changed people’s views. After the DNC, CNN released the a poll which showed that President Obama had taken lead over Romney [4]. I think this shows that not only I thought the DNC was the most effective of the two conventions, but the people of America agree.
1.http://washingtonexaminer.com/1st-night-of-dnc-bests-rnc-in-tv-ratings-race/article/2507715#.UFK0hY2PWcE
2.http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2012/09/RNC-vs-DNC-Audience-Showdown-The-Clothes-The-Celebrities-The-Competitive-Misery
3.http://www.policymic.com/articles/14431/bill-clinton-condoleezza-rice-and-the-top-50-quotes-from-the-republican-and-democratic-conventions
4.http://www.statenews.com/index.php/blog/politicker/2012/09/obama039s_poll_ratings_jump_following_dnc
From Jake the Snake:
I believe that the DNC was the most successful of the two conventions. The purpose of the the conventions is to whip up support for your party. The RNC did a very poor job of this. They had no dynamic speakers who were able to make one truly believe that the party could bring about real change. They preached about tax cuts and decreased government involvement and regulations. However, in light of the rich being bailed out and general public dissaproval of the private sector no once cares to hear about how we should deregulate and tax the rich less. Also it has become clear that decreased government involvement is not what we need at the moment, and anyone who has taken basic economics for the past two weeks with trusinsky knows that isnt what we need at the current. One strength of the DNC was the appearance of Bill Clinton. He presided over some of the best years America has ever seen and is a very likable person. Even republicans could not really hate him becasue he related so well to people and took a middle road stance in issues that alienated only extremists. His speeches are really what Obama needed. He does not have a strong enough personality to sway people himself, and it is common knowledge that his base is unsteady. This being said there is almost no threat from the republicans. They have no real candidate and people dont want a lukewarm politician in these times. The democrats really just need to hang on and not mess up these next few month in the debates and in the office. Short of a catastrophe the democrats are almost a sure bet. In this sense the DNC is the better convention. It is meant to keep the base obama already has, while the RNC is struggling for a foothold. The function of the two is quite different and so their pitches were. The Democrats also in general have the support of the young, making them the more enduring party and giving them the dynamic politicians like Julian Castro. His image as a young, vibrant man with young children makes him look good, and therefore the democrats are given a youthful appearance. The republicans meanwhile look rich and boring, which alienates the average voter.
From Marco:
Already, the 2012 presidential election is shaping up to be a very close race. None of the candidates ,Republican Mitt Romney, or current president ,Democrat Barack Obama have had a clear, decisive edge over the other. Both are trying very hard to fight for every vote they can possibly obtain for the November elections. Meaning that with such a close race heading into November, each party’s national convention is of greater importance to obtain as many moderate and undecided voters. The RNC was held in Tampa Bay, Florida this year and included many prominent speakers including Clint Eastwood, Jeff Bush and Senator Marco Rubio. They all talked about the need for change and a better economy and better future which could only be achieved by not re-electing Obama to a second term. Meanwhile, the DNC took place in Charlotte, North Carolina this year which was headlined with key speakers of their own including San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro, Emanuel Cleaver, Bill Clinton and First Lady Michelle Obama. The Democrats talking about moving forward in the upcoming year, while again pointing out that Romney would only help the rich and not the middle class. However, I believe that the Democrats had a more successful convention than the Republicans did this year. First, according to a recent Gallup poll, Mitt Romney did not receive any bump in the polls after the RNC, and actually fell from 47% to 46% in the polls (4). Meaning that Mitt Romney’s speech did little to change the opinions of voters who did not already approve of him before the convention. While according to a CNN poll, Mitt Romney ended up only tying President Obama at 48% of likely voters after the RNC (1). This indicated that the RNC did not a great success in rallying voters from their party. Yet, if you look at success and define it through the polling numbers, then President Obama has the clear victory after his party’s convention. President Obama ended up receiving a 6 point bump in the polls after the DNC (1). Yet those same polls indicated that the Democratic base was affected more by the DNC than the Republican base was with the RNC. Showing that 59% of Democrats were more excited to vote compared to the 57% of Republicans (1). However, in another poll Obama was shown with a bump of 7%, while the DNC even beat out the second half of the NFL season opener game between Dallas and New York, with Bill Clinton’s speech at the convention (4). Furthermore, the success of the DNC can be seen in their use of diversity during the convention with many diverse speakers taking stage to talk. Both parties brought many diverse speakers from different racial groups to gain votes from minorities in the United States. The Democrats brought out speakers like Julian Castro, a Latino mayor from San Antonio to give a keynote speech. They also had Emanuel Cleaver, a U.S. Representative, and chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, with many others as well. However, the Republicans also had diverse faces during their convention. Including, former Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, Florida Senator, Marco Rubio and New Mexico Governor, Susana Martinez (2). Yet according to Los Angeles Democratic Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa ,“you can't just trot out a brown face or a Spanish surname and expect people are going to vote for your party or your candidate. Window dressing doesn't do much for a candidate. It's your policies, your platform." (2)
Marco continued:
He brings up a great point, even though the Republican party tried to cover up its white majority, 90% of its voters, with some diverse faces the party’s platform doesn’t seem to appeal to minorities. As polls conducted by NBC-Wall Street Journal show, Obama leads Romney 94-0 among African Americans and a Washington Post poll showed Obama receiving 74% of the Latino vote(2). This huge minority deficit was hard for Romney to compete against even before the RNC, and after the convention it seems he made little progress in the battle to gain some new voters heading into November. While the DNC was able to excite its minority base. The DNC and Obama seemed to send a message of changing peoples lives as the main goal of the campaign. This was important as the audience was full of people of color and seemed to be in complete contrast to the RNC’s message of individualism, which doesn’t appeal greatly to the minorities. Yet, even in a more simplistic view, the DNC was more successful than the RNC through TV ratings and the media. The DNC’s first night was viewed by 26.2 million compared to the first night of the RNC which was only viewed by 22.3 million people (3). The DNC was also more successful through Twitter, with Michelle Obama being responsible for about 28,000 tweets per minute after her speech, which was a big edge over Ann Romney who peaked at about 6,000 tweets per minute (3). Yet all these things seem to indicate that the Democrats are on course for a close victory over the Republicans after the conventions. However, anything can change in the coming months as many major changes could happen and tip the balance to favor a candidate more before elections. However, as of right now after the conventions I would say that the DNC was more successful in many aspects over the RNC.
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/09/cnn-poll-obama-bounce.php
http://www.theroot.com/views/call-it-color-them-democrats?page=0,1
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-207_162-57507042/dncs-first-night-beats-rncs-in-tv-ratings/
http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/09/07/814511/poll-obama-approval-up-after-dnc/?mobile=nc
Akorede:
I believe that President Barack Obama had the most successful speech in the Democratic National Convention. The President was able to emphasize the success of his presidency and why he is the right candidate for the country with great ease amongst the crowd. Obama tells the crowd that he had saved the economy from peril, that if they have him still in office the United States would fully recover. He stressed how making many jobs takes time and that he has to be let finish out the rest of his agenda instead of cutting it short. (1)
Although Republicans argue that President Obama hasn’t done enough of what’s within his strengths to create jobs and expand the growth of the United States in the Republican National Convention, Obama and his constituents still came out strong in the Dem. Convention. "Over the next few years, big decisions will be made in Washington on jobs and the economy; taxes and deficits; energy and education; war and peace - decisions that will have a huge impact on our lives and our children's lives for decades to come." (2) Obama had said in his speech. Along with the many goals the President set for the United States, was to create one million new manufacturing jobs by the end of 2016, double exports by the end of 2014, and reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over the next decade. “You didn’t elect me to tell you what you wanted to hear,” he said. “It will take more than a few years for us to solve challenges that have built up over decades,” The president said. This line itself seemed to me like a line meant for the non believers and the republicans that doubt the ability to save the country that Obama and his followers believe in with much spirit.
Many people who talked before Obama helped thread the needle for the speech he would make but when Obama got on stage he let the people know what he needed to tell them. He let the people know that his “promise of America” that he made four years before was not dead, that it was in dead alive and still striving to be realized. "After all that we've been through, I don't beliieve that rolling back regulations on Wall Street will help the small businesswoman expand, or the laid-off construction worker to keep him home. We have been there, we've tried that, and we're not going back," said Obama. "We are moving forward." As these words flow from the President he looks upon the crowd with the utmost certainty, which is one of his better speech skills that allow him to gain the hearts and minds of the people he talks to. This skill won him the crowd. (3)
The President told the people that the real power is bestowed on the people to choose the future of the Nation, as he said "Only you have the power to move us forward." Obama sought to show his supporters that their votes for him four years before had brought achievements that would be wiped out if Republican Mitt Romney wins the election.(4)
Citation
1. Source link
2. Source link
3. Source link
4. Source link
True:
Everything can be marketed. Products. Lifestyles. Whatever. Politics is the sciencey art of marketing people. There are few larger displays of the selling of the selected sapien than the National Conventions, Democratic and Republican. Believe it or not, this makes these events incredibly important to harness. Effectiveness at the National Convention is imperative to both campaigns. Which campaign, however, was more effective? It is my opinion that in this race the DNC was more successful.
There are those who will point to the fiscal gains of the parties and say that the GOP is out in front solely on that. They would be correct. The GOP has more money (1). Money doesn’t always translate into votes, though (although it usually does and it seriously is an enormous problem. There’s too much money there. Especially scary money from invisible people. Silly PACs). This is the bane of poor Willard. Though his campaign is gilded with dollars sent by the truckload (and scary invisible dollars (2)), it seems he isn’t connecting to people. This has become increasingly evident. Obama now leads Romney by eleven points in registered voters. Perhaps more crucial, he’s got all the political mojo rolling his way. He leads by twenty seven points on who the average voter would bet on winning in November (Side note, an additional question in the same survey asked which candidate would win in a fist fight. I’m not going to say who won that one (in the hearts and minds of the people, of course), but I’ll say a certain equestrian ballet enthusiast we all know didn’t. And it wasn’t won badly (3)).
Anyway, back on course. Effectiveness of the conventions. It’s clear that money isn’t necessarily going to cinch the nomination. What is necessary for winning is connection with the voters and translation of that connection into votes. Luckily enough, the candidates are given this enormous stage on which they can broadcast advertisement for themselves to whatever extent they want to. Indeed this is the precedent. Go to the convention. Make a big infomercial. Play it. Votes. Stuff. You know. Marketing. Romney decided to go a different route this year, however. Instead of his big voter-reaching moment of advertisement glory and paired with at-odds speeches from his wife and Chris Christie, he went with a former cowboy’s mad ramblings (4). This was a mistake from my perspective. On the other hand, Michelle (5). If that doesn’t set the common symbolic understanding of your heart all aflutter with gooby goodness, I question the presence of such a metaphorical entity all together. This is connection. This is what gets votes.
Source 1
Source 2
Source 3
Source 4
Source 5
Josh P -
In today's state of economic uncertainty, Americans need to know that the future president can and will implement plans that will help Americans lead a fulfilled life. And one of the many stages that a candidate can use to persuade the citizens that he is able to lead this country better than the other candidate is the National Convention. On August 30th, the Republicans successfully used the National Convention to this effect. The RNC was able to set a plan for America's future and convince the people that the GOP would better lead this nation than President Obama. During the entirety of his speech, presidential candidate Mitt Romney mentioned many goals that he hoped to achieve such as creating "12 million new jobs" and "taking advantage of our oil, our coal, our gas, our nuclear, and renewables (1)." Throughout his speech, Romney characterized President Obama as inexperienced and timid when faced with decisions that demanded expertise and courage. Romney expressed President Obama's inexperience by demonstrating the lack of improvement in the economy, citing the continuing high unemployment. In fact, recently the jobs report showed that only 96,000 jobs were created, significantly fewer than the expected 125,000 new jobs (2). Romney also cited President Obama's lack of tenacity in controlling Iran's growing nuclear power. Although claiming that he finds the "Iranian program intolerable," President Obama has only implemented weak sanctions, which, some senior political analysts agree, can actually increase the likelihood of war just as it did in the days before WW II (3). "It creates the same conditions that helped trigger World War II — years of negotiations and threats, where the threats failed to be taken seriously until war became all too real,” writes Anthony Cordesman, a national security analyst. It is situations like these that Mitt Romney cites as proof of how President Obama's "promises have lead to disappointment (1)."
In contrast, President Obama had few plans for the future in his speech. One of the few times that he mentioned a plan was his reference to a policy that would increase the tax hike on the wealthiest of Americans. As support for this plan, President Obama implied that a similar tax hike passed by the Clinton Administration created 23 million new jobs (4). However, when held to the fire, this claim does not hold up. Before Clinton passed the tax hike on the wealthy in 1993, America's economy was rapidly expanding as a result of the "end of the Cold War" and the drop in gas prices to "less than $11 a barrel" (5). After the tax hike was implemented, while still showing strong growth at 3.3%, the economic potential was not being met. After the tax hike was removed by Congress in 1997, the economy grew by 4.4% and 23 million new jobs were created.
As all of the lights and the cameras fade, all that remains of the convention are the ideas that the candidates promoted to help this country recover from the worst economic slump since the Great Depression. And when these ideas are held side by side, one can see that Mitt Romney is the one with better plans that will lead this nation to a more secure and economically prosperous future.
1. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/30/transcript-mitt-romney-speech-at-rnc/
2. http://www.npr.org/2012/09/07/160766890/new-unemployment-report-weaker-than-expected
3. http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/fiddling-iran-nuclear-article-1.1158996#ixzz26PCId988
4. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/transcript-of-barack-obamas-remarks-at-the-democratic-national-convention/2012/09/06/b1534044-f895-11e1-a93b-7185e3f88849_story_4.html
5. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/09/clinton-tax-hikes-slowed-growth
I think that even though the Republican National Convention was successful, the Democratic National Convention was more successful. I define success as acquiring more follows and capturing more peoples attention. At the DNC, Michelle Obama's speech caught the hearts of many as she talked about how both Barack and her families had trouble with money. She also talks about how hard it was to make a living but that "if you work hard and do what your supposed to do you can build a decent life for yourself and an even better life for your kids and grandkids."(1) Bill Clinton's speech furthers my point by pointing out all the good things Obama's done and how the Republicans just want to,But it could have been because as Clinton stated, "as the Senate Republican leader said, in a remarkable moment of candor, two full years before the election, their number-one priority was not to put America back to work. It was to put the president out of work."(2 pg 3). However, even though I believe that the DNC was more successful than the RNC, the RNC was still successful. Ann Romney's speech, was from her heart, as she stated, and also talked about how she met Mitt Romney and about how he is a "likable" guy(3). that speech probably helped Mitt Romney look like a more likable guy. However the last point, possibly the craziest too, is one of, I think, the biggest reasons the RNC was not successful - because of Clint Eastwood. Clint Eastwood's speech was to an imaginary person, which was supposed to be the president. Most of the time he just rambled on and on(4). At this point I, felt bad for Romney. That embarrassed the entire Republican party I'm sure. Especially since that is what most of the TV networks and newspapers decided to run instead of, say, Ann Romney's speech, as an example.
1 - http://youtu.be/ZTPdKUA9Ipg(used stuff mostly from 5-8 mins
2 - http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/dnc-2012-bill-clintons-speech-at-the-democratic-national-convention-excerpt/2012/09/05/f208865e-f7a4-11e1-8253-3f495ae70650_story_2.html
3 - http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/28/transcript-ann-romney-speech-at-republican-national-convention/
4 - http://youtu.be/933hKyKNPFQ
This comment has been removed by the author.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home