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-Dec...on-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.
Gallups 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 theres 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-m...linton-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)."
Clintons 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, Clintons 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 thats 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...arack-obama-break-promise-keep-gm-plant-open/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...yan-said-president-obama-funneled-716-billio/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...omney-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.