Conventions: Dems win, Repubs lose. On to the Debates
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
|
Sorry, but the GOP got smoked in the conventions. The GOP came out with a mixed bag of presenters, a big mess with Eastwood, and a Romney address that fell flat. Result: no bounce. The spin was that conventions don't matter.
But the Dems rocked it. Their speakers were strong, the content on target, Obama did not great but good, and the polls clearly show that conventions still matter because they got the bounce. So, on to the debates. The GOP should be scared. Romney is going to have to get specific for the first time in his campaign, and he will have to defend the contradiction between his criticisms of Obama and his own record as governor. Ryan will have to debate the details of his plan against an experienced VP who is not even responsible for being the ticket's budget accountant. It's a one-sided contest. Meanwhile the strengths and weaknesses of the current administration are already known to the voters. So the Republicans have little room to go up and the Dems only go down if they make a huge and unlikely mistake. |
Anonymous
|
What struck me about the GOP convention was how nearly every speaker spent the majority of the time speaking about himself or herself, rather than Romney.
At the Democrats' convention, every speech was about Obama and why he should be reelected. Quite a contrast. |
Anonymous
Some people said that was because they are trying out for 2016. But I think it is because they struggle so hard to show that the GOP is friendly to blacks, hispanics, other immigrants, and women. So all of those speakers were sent up there to "tell their story". But in doing that, they talk about themselves. It's not the same as the Dems. They can do that with one or two speakers, but the party doesn't have to prove anything there. Also, I think that very few of the speakers on the podium at the GOP convention can speak extensively and persuasively about Mitt Romney. THey just don't have a relationship with the guy and unless they lived in Mass (btw was any speaker from Mass?) they haven't personally witnessed his experience as governor. |
Anonymous
|
Thank you for spouting back (perfectly, word for word) the talking points from the DNC.
Anyone who watched them both (which I'd bet my bottom dollar that OP did not, at least not completely) knows that they were both a "success," in a general sense, but unlikely to produce the much anticipated bounce for either, because no one watches these things any more. |
Anonymous
| True until the unemployment report negated the entire dnc conference |
Anonymous
More people watched Bill Clinton speak then watched the opening game of the NFL season, a match between the Super Bowl champion from the country's largest media market and "America's team." Sorry if no one watched your convention. |
Anonymous
| There's already been a small bounce from just Michelle Obama and Clinton's speeches. It's fairly clear that the Democrats were more successful than the Republicans'. |
Anonymous
That might have been true. But the polls showed a bounce for Obama. Even Rasmussen. The data is what it is, and it does not support your statement. |
Anonymous
In contrast more people watched Honey Boo Boo than the RNC. How could they expect to draw their base with THAT on? |
Anonymous
| The GOP message was "Things are horrible, vote for us," the Dems was "We love you, vote for us." Whichever you believe, and I'm skeptical of both, the latter makes a much more entertaining show. |