We have just completed two party conferences. Although they differed significantly in their focus and tone, they were very similar in the way their supporters felt at the time: confident and euphoric.
I know it’s been a long month with a lot of change in this campaign, but we shouldn’t forget how optimistic the Republicans were at their convention. Delegates were confident and relieved, and viewed former President Donald Trump’s survival of the assassination attempt as a divine intervention. Trump’s survival really gave the convention the confidence and tone of unity that the Republicans were trying to show.
And then on the last evening came Trump’s acceptance speech.
Trump had promised a collaborative, forward-looking speech, but he ended up skipping some of his planned remarks and instead offering his favorite riffs, missing an opportunity to capitalize on the post-shooting halo effect, when even skeptics and critics were curious whether a different Trump would be on stage that night.
What the curious ultimately saw was a less energetic version of the same Trump. Skeptical voters who expected a different Trump turned off the show in disappointment.
In hindsight, and especially through the prism of that Democratic convention in Chicago, it now looks like Trump and the Republicans in Milwaukee blew everything. That includes the decision to use the vice presidential election to electrify the MAGA base rather than trying to unite the Nikki Haley-Mitch McConnell wing of the party, and the decision to use celebrities to specifically appeal to the male gaming and sports fan scene. From Hulk Hogan to Dana White to Kid Rock, the Republican convention seemed to focus on just one demographic: younger, working-class men—people who aren’t swing voters per se, unless you consider swing voters to be voters who vacillate between voting and not voting.
Unlike the Democrats here in Chicago, the Republicans have not appealed directly to the middle of the American electorate. The Republicans have done little to allay fears among some voters that they are moving too far to the right. Aside from inviting Haley to speak, there is hardly a night when Trump’s Republicans have increased their presence.
It still shocks me that, despite all the public warnings from Republicans that Democrats might replace President Joe Biden with someone else, the Trump campaign apparently did not prepare for this possibility. Could it really be that they did not believe their own rhetoric on this matter? Were they so sure that Biden could be as stubborn as Trump was in 2016 when he refused to step down after the Access Hollywood tape? Perhaps they simply did not believe that Vice President Kamala Harris could electrify Democrats as their new nominee.
Whatever the reason, given the current state of the campaign, the Republican convention turns out to be a huge missed opportunity. They could have used the convention as an opportunity to expand their tent, see if they could build up Trump’s coattails, and even reposition him as someone who is less of an insurgent and more of a responsible agent of change. But Trump’s greatest appeal to his base and his Achilles heel with swing voters are the same: He is who he is.
And that brings us to the Democrats and this convention. Like the Republicans in Milwaukee, they too are showing a frighteningly high level of trust and euphoria in Harris, something that could hardly have been imagined six weeks ago.
But if there is one obvious difference between the two conventions, it is the time Democrats have spent reassuring skeptical moderates about the direction of the party. From scrapping their promise to abolish the death penalty to voicing their support for the tough, bipartisan border security bill, Democrats have struggled to answer Republican criticism that they have become too soft on domestic security issues.
And that’s just immigration and crime. Democrats have also been trying to dispel the impression that the party has become too “woke.” The Obamas in particular both spoke to Democrats about how they should not forget that they need the votes of people who don’t always have to agree with them.
And despite the pressure some progressives wanted to put on Harris and the Democratic National Committee to give in to the Gaza protesters, they kept that debate out of the convention as much as possible, even though Harris addressed it in a large portion of her speech Thursday night. Many Republicans were convinced that Democrats would be forced to give in to the protesters’ various demands, but Democrats were disciplined and did not give in on the main demand of the few “undecided” delegates: a speaking opportunity for a sympathetic supporter.
This was a tightly controlled convention as far as speeches on the stage were concerned. In addition, the convention organizers had “minders” or “escorts” – or whatever you want to call them – for the delegations with the most “undecided” delegates, namely the protest voters from Gaza. The last thing they wanted was delegates trying to make a scene on the convention floor.
The third night in particular was clearly an attempt to speak to skeptical independents and disillusioned Republicans and convince them that a vote for Harris would not mean abandoning their conservative beliefs or somehow becoming a Democrat. This choice may be binary, but no one’s belief system should be — that was the message from people like Oprah Winfrey (who emphasized that she is a registered independent) and former Georgia Lieutenant Governor Geoff Duncan (who is still a registered Republican).
And now the other side of the coin: It might not matter.
It’s possible that the influence of this Democratic convention on the race will evaporate faster than people realize. Five of the last six elections this century were decided by 5 points or less, and it’s hard to name a convention in the last 20 years that had a major impact, positive or negative. Recent research has shown that conventions are mostly attended by people who are already Democratic supporters.
But I don’t want to rule out the possibility that Harris will be catapulted into a better position by a victory at the convention. Much of this convention reminds me of two Democratic conventions in the 20th century: Al Gore’s in 2000 and Bill Clinton’s in 1992.
In both cases, Gore and Clinton were far behind their opponents before their party conventions. Both urgently needed to reposition themselves to get back in the game.
Clinton’s 1992 convention actually bears many similarities to this one. For most of the summer before his convention and his selection of Gore as his running mate, he was in third place. The situation was so dire in the eyes of some Democrats that an influential California Democrat (Willie Brown) was publicly considering replacing Clinton as nominee with Ross Perot, the independent candidate who was in first place against both Clinton and President George HW Bush.
Clinton was under a lot of pressure to convince voters that he had the character and, most importantly, the toughness to be president. The big moment of the convention was the unveiling of the famous photograph of a young Clinton shaking hands with JFK. It conveyed the feeling that Clinton was the rightful successor to the Democratic Party.
Clinton was the first to leave the convention and never gave up the lead.
For Gore, the challenge in 2000 was to step out of Clinton’s shadow. A key factor in this was the selection of a Clinton critic, Senator Joe Lieberman, as vice president. Then Gore became much more populist in his acceptance speech, ending it with a famous kiss from his wife, Tipper – and suddenly the campaign was different. The entire convention resonated strongly. He caught up with George W. Bush in the polls, and although he lost in agonizing circumstances, the fact that the 2000 campaign ended in a virtual tie was due to Gore’s redesign of the convention.
Despite the cheerful conversation and positive mood here in Chicago, there is also a certain amount of anxiety or fear among many Democratic strategists – not just a current feeling, but a feeling that they need to look outside the box. Will this already wild campaign turn the tide? What external event could occur that could give this race a new twist?
Any high-profile government failure (such as responding to a storm) could become a problem for Democrats, since Democrats are in the White House.
Two hypothetical events that I have long believed could work against Harris and in Trump’s favor are an increase in violence in the Middle East – particularly a military confrontation between Iran and Israel – or a surprise series of bank failures triggered by a collapse in the commercial real estate market sometime before November.
But for now, Harris won the summer, and considering where the Democratic Party stood at the end of June, it’s pretty remarkable that she pulled that off. The real question is whether that’s sustainable.
Democrats have won summers before, only to lose in the fall of 1988 and 2016. Right now, Harris is getting tremendous support from her opponent. Trump is struggling to counter her. Even during this convention week, he has followed up on every attack that has been made against him, be it from the Obamas, the Clintons, or even Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro. The fact that he can’t focus on Harris, even after what happened to his lead, should really worry Republicans. An ordinary Republican would probably be much more opposed to Harris than Trump right now.
But here we are, and while I wouldn’t call Harris the favorite in this race yet, it’s fair to say she’s leading at the moment. She still has some tests to pass; her unforeseen moments in the past have been uneven. But somehow she’s taken the mantle of “change” from Trump, despite being the incumbent vice president. If she can continue to stand on the side of the “new” and the “future,” and she manages to take too much responsibility for Biden’s term, this really could be her race to lose by October.
But given the many twists and turns this campaign has already experienced, it is better to be prepared for an unknown challenge in the next 60 days.
