We have two conventions in the rear-view mirror, and while they were completely different in focus and tone, they were very similar in how they made their partisans feel in the moment: confident and euphoric.
I know it’s been a long month with a lot of changes in this campaign, but let’s not forget how high spirits the Republicans showed at the convention, when delegates felt confident and comfortable that former President Donald Trump survived an assassination attempt. intervention. Trump’s survival really infused the convention with the tone of confidence and unity that the GOP strives to project.
And then came Trump’s acceptance speech last night.
After promising a more forward-looking unifying speech, Trump avoided some of his planned remarks and instead broke into his favorite rally riffs. With even skeptics and detractors wondering if another Trump would be on stage that night, it was a missed opportunity for him to benefit somewhat from the post-shooting halo effect.
What the curious saw: a low-energy version of the same Trump. Skeptical voters looking for a different Trump shut down in frustration.
In retrospect, and especially through the lens of this Democratic convention in Chicago, it now looks like Trump and the GOP blew it in Milwaukee. This includes the party’s decision to use its vice presidential pick to electrify the MAGA base rather than trying to unify its Nikki Haley-Mitch McConnell wing, and its decision to use celebrities to deliberately target male gaming and sports fandom. From Hulk Hogan to Dana White to Kid Rock, the GOP convention focused on just one demographic: young working-class men — people who don’t disprove voters unless you see them as swing voters. .
Unlike what the Democrats did in Chicago, the Republicans did not appeal directly to the heart of the American electorate. The GOP has done little to assuage fears among some voters that it is drifting too far to the right. Aside from inviting Haley to speak, it’s hard to pin down a night devoted to expanding Trump’s GOP tent.
For all the public warnings from Republicans that the Democrats might replace President Joe Biden, it still shocks me that the Trump campaign hasn’t actually prepared for that possibility. Did they really not believe their own rhetoric about this? Were they convinced that Biden could be as stubborn as Trump in 2016 when he refused to go off the “Access Hollywood” tape? Maybe they just didn’t think Vice President Kamala Harris could energize the Democrats as the new nominee.
Whatever the reason, given the current state of the campaign, the GOP convention was a huge, massive, wasted opportunity. They could treat their convention as an opportunity to expand their tent, see if they can make coats for Trump, and even rebrand him as less of a rebel and more of a responsible change agent. But Trump’s biggest appeal to his base and his Achilles heel with swing voters is the same thing: Who he is.
Which brings us to the Democrats and this convention. Like Republicans in Milwaukee, you can sense a shockingly high level of confidence and euphoria about Harris that would have been hard to fathom just six weeks ago.
But if there’s one glaring difference between the two conventions, it’s how long Democrats have spent convincing skeptical moderates about the party’s direction. From breaking promises in their platform to abolish the death penalty to supporting a tough bipartisan border security bill, Democrats have scrambled to respond to Republican criticism that they have been too soft on homeland security.
And that’s just about immigration and crime. Democrats have also tried to dispel the idea that the party is too “woke”. The Obamas, in particular, both told Democrats to remember that they always need the votes of people who disagree with them.
While some progressives tried to pressure Harris and the Democratic National Committee to accommodate the Gaza protesters, and Harris addressed the issue in a significant part of his speech, they kept much of the debate out of the convention as much as possible. Thursday night. Many Republicans were sure that the Democrats would have to give in to the various demands of the protesters, but the Democrats were disciplined and did not budge on the main demand of a handful of “non-threat” delegates: a talking point for a sympathetic supporter.
As far as what was said from the stage, it was a strictly controlled convention. In addition, congress organizers had “persons in charge” or “chiefs” (or whatever you want to call them) for the delegations, most of whom were “unrestricted” delegates who were Gaza protest voters. The last thing they wanted was delegates trying to create a scene on the convention floor.
The third night, in particular, was an attempt to talk to skeptical independents and disaffected Republicans that voting for Harris doesn’t mean giving up their conservative beliefs or somehow becoming a Democrat. While this election is binary, no one’s belief system should be — that was the message from people like Oprah Winfrey (who stresses that she’s a registered independent) and former Georgia Lt. Gov. Jeff Duncan (still a registered Republican). .
Now the flip side of all this: It might not matter.
It’s possible that the impact of this Democratic convention on the race is fading faster than people think. Five of the last six elections this century have been decided by 5 points or less, and it’s hard to point to any convention in the last 20 years that has had a big impact, positive or negative. Recent studies have shown that conventions are mostly watched by people who are already supporters.
But I don’t want to rule out the idea that the convention put Harris in a better position. There is much about this convention that reminds me of two Democratic conventions from the 20th century: Al Gore in 2000 and Bill Clinton in 1992.
In both cases, Gore and Clinton trailed their opponents heading into their respective conventions. Both needed rebranding to get back into the game.
Clinton’s 1992 convention actually shares many similarities with this one. He was in third place for most of the summer before the convention and was chosen by Gore as his running mate. Things were so murky in the minds of some Democrats that then-powerful California Democrat (Willie Brown) openly considered replacing Clinton with independent candidate Ross Perot, who had been the front-runner against both Clinton and President George HW. Bush.
A lot of pressure was put on Clinton voters to convince them that she had the character and, most importantly, that she was tough enough to be president. The biggest moment of that convention was the display of that famous photo of a young Clinton shaking JFK’s hand – which created the sense that Clinton was the rightful heir to lead the Democratic Party.
Clinton left the convention in first place and never relinquished the lead.
As for Gore in 2000, his challenge was to find a way out of Clinton’s shadow. The nomination of Senator Joe Lieberman, a Clinton critic, was one of the key components. Then Gore went more populist in his acceptance speech, ending with a famous kiss from his wife Tipper — and suddenly the race changed. The whole convention really resonated. He caught George W. Bush in the polls, and although he lost in agonizing fashion, the fact that the 2000 campaign ended in a virtual tie began with Gore’s rebranding of the convention.
Now, despite the happy chatter and positive vibes in Chicago, there’s also a sense of fear or apprehension among many Democratic strategists — not a sense of it now, but a sense of needing to look around the corner. Is there another shoe to drop in this already wild ride of a campaign? What external event could occur that could cause another twist in this race?
Any high-profile government failure (such as the storm response) can become a headache for the Democratic ticket because Democrats are in the White House.
Two hypothetical events that I have long thought could work against Harris and in Trump’s favor are escalating violence in the Middle East, particularly military conflict between Iran and Israel, or surprise bank failures resulting from the collapse of the commercial real estate market. before November.
But so far, Harris has won the summer, and given where the Democratic Party is at the end of June, he’s done it. The real question is whether it is sustainable.
Democrats have won the summers before, but lost the falls in 1988 and 2016. Right now, Harris is getting a lot of help from his opponent. Trump had a hard time answering him. Even during this convention week, he ran after every attack on him, whether it was from the Obamas, the Clintons, or Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro. Even after what’s happened with his leadership, his inability to focus on Harris should really worry Republicans. A general Republican is likely to be stronger against Harris than Trump right now.
But here we are, and while I’m not ready to call Harris the favorite in this race, I think it’s fair to say he’s winning right now. He still has some trials to pass; his unwritten moments in the past have been uneven. But he somehow took the mantle of “change” from Trump despite being a sitting vice president. If he can continue to be on the side of the “new” and the “future” and prevent Biden from having to answer too much for his position until October, this may indeed be his race to lose.
But given how many times this campaign has already taken a turn, it’s best to be prepared for the challenge of the unknown over the next 60 days.