The Republican and Democratic conventions were quite different in focus and tone, but both left their partisans feeling confident and euphoric. The Republican convention in Milwaukee capitalized on former President Donald Trump surviving an assassination attempt, but Trump’s acceptance speech missed the mark by not being future-focused as promised. The GOP failed to appeal to the center of the electorate, instead focusing on appealing to younger working-class men. The Democrats in Chicago, on the other hand, spent time reassuring skeptics about the direction of the party, addressing concerns about being too far to the left or too “woke.” They avoided caving to demands from protesters and sought to appeal to independents and disaffected Republicans. The tightly controlled convention aimed to convince voters that a vote for Kamala Harris wouldn’t mean giving up conservative beliefs. While the impact of these conventions on the race is uncertain, historical comparisons suggest that a successful convention could catapult Harris to a more commanding position. The fear among Democratic strategists is that an outside event could create another twist in the already tumultuous campaign. Remembering past conventions, such as Bill Clinton’s in 1992 and Al Gore’s in 2000, shows the potential for a well-executed convention to rebrand a candidate and change the trajectory of the race.
Photo credit
www.nbcnews.com
The party belongs to Kamala Harris now: She has 10 weeks to make it count.
