Conventions are over - Your thoughts?

[woodie1]

While I don't watch a lot of TV anymore there are some prime time shows I like. Glad we are back to the reruns of yesterday.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I don't have a lot of thoughts about the convention except that the Dems had at least a few good speeches (and Kerry's "Ask Osama bin Laden if he's better off now than he was 4 years ago" line was pretty funny).

The interesting thing to me though is that pundits (of the professional and amateur variety) on both sides have spent a LOT more time talking about the Democratic convention. The conservatives seem more interested in bashing the Democratic convention than praising the Republican one, and liberals seem more interested in praising the Dems than bashing the Reps. The rhetoric about the convention closely follows that of the election as a whole...whether you like or don't like Obama.

The Dem convention got more press so they were in the spotlight more. Even so Obama is the guy to beat, with a candidacy guaranteed for a second term the day the won the first (another pet peeve of mine which applies to the political system we are effectively enslaved to).

I'll have to say that while I acknowledge the reasons and value of conventions to the party faithful I see little of use in terms of practical application. Since rhetoric is never binding all I really have to go on is past behaviors. It's grand to say splendid things but only those of the party line have a chance. If a miraculous solution to a pressing problem came to light but a party could not claim it as their own it would be ignored at best. That is a major complaint that I have which is inherent and unavoidable as things stand. The best solution rarely comes to light when so few ideas are considered by the establishment.

 

[Incorruptible]

Disgusted by both of them. The Ron Paul delegates from Maine were kicked out for not supporting the status quo

Those idiots at the dnc had the nerve to boo God and Jerusalem-radical extremists and obama wanted the two put in the platform when the majority said no

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Well here's some more for you.

September 8, 2012 The Charlotte Freak Show​

By Peter Heck​

Not since the tear gas and mass arrests of Chicago 1968 have the Democrats put on a convention that better demonstrated to the American people the sorry state of the left's values and ideals. From the opening refrains that echoed the macabre yet unifying obsession amongst Democrats in Charlotte to promote the killing of unborn children to the culminating moment of President Barack Obama telling us why we need more of him in our lives to survive, the Democrat National Convention revealed just how deplorable things have become in that party.​

​

The part in red is all I needed to read to conclude that Peter Heck is a member of the Christian Taliban. Therefore, almost anything he has to say is the ravings of a religious lunatic.

 

[Moonbeam]

Disgusted by both of them. The Ron Paul delegates from Maine were kicked out for not supporting the status quo

Those idiots at the dnc had the nerve to boo God and Jerusalem-radical extremists and obama wanted the two put in the platform when the majority said no

It doesn't take any nerve to boo your god.

 

[Incorruptible]

​

The part in red is all I needed to read to conclude that Peter Heck is a member of the Christian Taliban. Therefore, almost anything he has to say is the ravings of a religious lunatic.

So you'll attack Christians but not the real taliban, typical leftist

 

[Fern]

MY opinion is that they were held too close together. I don't like listening to speeches, so several days in a row of speech giving is too much. And putting together two conventions of speeches is downright abusive IMO.

Fern

 

[blankslate]

The Democratic one was more carefully orchestrated imo.

I say this because there hasn't been a speech that was highlighted because the speaker took several minutes of a self biography before mentioning the Democratic candidate.

While there was one by Chris Christie who seemed to take awhile before mentioning Mitt Romney.

Admittedly though it's easier if you hold a convention last because you can capitalize on the mistakes made by the party who holds their convention first...

Like Mitt Romney's seemingly forgetting to mention veterans. The DNC made sure to mention them in their convention.

 

[blankslate]

In terms of who got the bigger bounce it looks like the Democratic Convention did more for President Obama than the Republican Convention did for Governor Romney.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/Decoder-Wire/2012/0910/Obama-gets-convention-bounce-Should-Mitt-Romney-be-worried-video

Currently, it seems like President Obama got a substantial bounce upward in his poll numbers from the Democratic National Convention. Gallup’s tracking poll now gives Mr. Obama a 5 point edge over GOP nominee Mitt Romney, up from a 1 point lead prior to the Charlotte, N.C., festivities. This morning's Rasmussen Reports' tracking poll shows Obama with a similar 5 point lead – his largest margin in that survey since March 17

But there’s a reason a post-convention poll gain is called a “bounce.” Bounces go up, and (usually) they come down. Where the polls will be when the numbers settle, nobody yet knows.

Of course there's still about a month and 3 weeks until the election so well see how the numbers change.

Other reasons that I think the DNC was more effective was that unlike in the RNC there was no speech highlighted in which the speaker took a seemingly long time before mentioning the candidate.

Like Chris Christie's speech.


Another reason is that the DNC capitalized on Mitt Romney's lack of mention of the veterans and made sure to mention them.

Of course it is easier to make changes in strategy for the convention if yours is after the other party's.

As for speakers I'd give the edge to the Democratic Party because Bill Clinton's speech did go wildly off from the transcript at times with added ad-libbed detail but it was to people, who aren't extremely right-leaning, engaging.

As for the factual content of it. Clinton's speech didn't have any outright falsehoods in it according to both politifact and factcheck.org. Although a certain amount off spin or exaggeration is to be expected.

However, one one assertion that he made that struck me that was found to be on target was the one where President Clinton mentioned job creation under presidential terms
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/sep/06/bill-clinton/bill-clinton-says-democratic-presidents-top-republ/

"Since 1961, for 52 years now, the Republicans have held the White House 28 years, the Democrats 24," Clinton said. "In those 52 years, our private economy has produced 66 million private-sector jobs. So what's the jobs score? Republicans 24 million, Democrats 42 (million)."

Clinton’s figures check out, and they also mirror the broader results we came up with two years ago. Partisans are free to interpret these findings as they wish, but on the numbers, Clinton’s right. We rate his claim True.

http://factcheck.org/2012/09/our-clinton-nightmare/

And plenty of other Clinton statistics checked out as accurate. For example, he said that since 1961, when John F. Kennedy took office, 42 million private-sector jobs had been added while Democrats held the White House, compared with 24 million while Republicans were in office. And that’s exactly what Bloomberg News reported in a May 8 story.

Couple the above with the fact that the Republican ticket got dinged for falsehoods or more false that truthy statements at the RNC by Politifact and/or FactCheck

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2012/aug/29/paul-ryan/did-barack-obama-break-promise-keep-gm-plant-open/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/29/paul-ryan/paul-ryan-said-president-obama-funneled-716-billio/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/31/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-said-barack-obama-began-his-presidency/

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/08/ryans-vp-spin/

It's my opinion that the DNC was more effective than the RNC.

As for whether conventions should continue? Well their are so many channels available compared to when televised conventions started that perhaps they could condense them down to a single day of televised events.

 

[nextJin]

These videos highlight the hilarity of both conventions, Democrats and Republicans are fucking dumb.

Democrats:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_cRaKT2yU8&hd=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwejQBIyjow&hd=1

Republicans:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_NuTWTAXkA&hd=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3U7s7-oXLQ&hd=1

 

[DominionSeraph]

The Democratic one was more carefully orchestrated imo.

I say this because there hasn't been a speech that was highlighted because the speaker took several minutes of a self biography before mentioning the Democratic candidate.

Wasn't necessarily orchestrated that way. Only the Democrats have a candidate worth mentioning.

The RNC should have been 100% Sarah Palin. Because tits. "Tits" I would've tuned in for.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

So you'll attack Christians but not the real taliban, typical leftist

Where and when have I failed to condemn the Islamic Taliban?

 

[phillyTIM]

Romney killed ANY bump, ANY thing, he had from the convention with his latest political antic about the embassy events. He's a dead man walking, this election is over.