Why was there convention more successful than ours?

We had an inspiring Keynoter and they had a demented old rebel who was frathing at the mouth. We avoided personal attacks while they had four days of attacking Kerry. We had two nominees who gave energenic and articulate acceptance speeches. Yet George W. Bush is getting the traditional bounce out of his convention. In truth, he was gaining prior to the convention, thanks to a media which decided that a pack of lies from people who didn't even serve with JK were newsworthy. But the TIME magazine poll, which was released today gives Bush an 11-point lead. After our convention the race had barely changed though Kerry was marginally ahead and had bettered himself in several categories. It can be argued, I think, that this 11-point lead in an instant poll following a big and well viewed speech cannot possibly last--and that it will be gone as quickly as it came.

Did the Democrats, as Carville and Stan Greenberg suggest, "blow" their convention by spending so much time speaking about Kerry's military record and not enough time about the future? Or is it true that as with the negative Swiss Boat ads and a four day convention which was nothing more than a Kerry hate-fest that negativity does work?

Finally, Bush can't be underestimated. He was underestimated in 2000 and delivered for his acceptance speech that year. He was underestimated in the debates but was judged the victor by pundits and most polls. And now apparently his second acceptance speech was also a home-run--even if we--I know I don't--think so.

on edit:

I can see the title of this thread is causing negativity. I apologize for that. Obviously if you read my thread in its entirety you know I think we had a better convention--upbeat and positive. But for some reason negativity seems to work. I wonder why that is? and also two dem strategists as I point out, Carville and Greenberg have said our convention was a missed opportunity.

No, most polls show that their convention was less sucessful. One retarded poll by some unknown polling group that used the phone as their choosen medium dooesn't make squat...Keep the faith...

but I think there will be more polls, maybe not showing an 11-point Bush lead out in the next few days showing a definite bounce for Bush. There is still lots of time, but it is a shame that our convention, which was more moderate in tone than the GOP didn't have as much impact--perhaps because of it.

:wtf:

You ask a question in your title, but if you'd looked at a page or 3 of this forum you'd SEE the answer to your question.
WE don't think so. Isn't that obvious?

from a drive-by poster

I gotta guess that's the motivation for all this garbage today.

even the Freepers are embarrassed

Do you know how much it takes to embarrass a freeper! I really think they thought our convention was bad and we thought it was fine. They thought their convention was fine and we thought it was bad. No surprises here. Where did you get that idea? I'm just curious. I think the conventions were a draw overall eventhough personally ours appealed more to me.

they're all quiet as church mice, and the few that ARE scurrying about don't want to discuss the convention or Chicken George's speech at all....

quite a few. And read my post instead of criticizing me. I don't think our convention was unsuccessful but I do think the negativity of the GOP convention is having an impact and I'm wondering why. If you want to attack me for asking that fine.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

and I think I make clear that I don't think that our convention was unsuccessful but if Bush is clearly leading the race it means his convention had a bigger impact than ours. Perhaps I should have put it that way.

Nah. Just be yourself...

Rather than just the title, which I agree may not have been the best selection. But I think our convention was much better and gave examples such as keynote speakers and in terms of acceptance speeches. But it could be that by going negative that the GOP convention will give a bigger bounce to their candidate than the one we got. Why? people are supposed to dislike personal attacks but it seems to work.

the great Stephen Colbert, "Polly DON'T want that cracker."

Says it all. People are still raving about Obama.

I still want someone to ask the media why it was important for our convention not to bash Bush but ok for the RNC to bash Kerry. Why the double standard?

Anyway, I think the RNC was a bust. More negative press about how they messed up NYC than positive press. The Daily Show has Conrad Burns from Montana talking about how he would like to have his picture taken with a black person and how novel it would be. You can't make this stuff up. The purple heart bandages, generic stupidity, and stories of booze, hookers, and infidelity - the RNC wasn't successful at all. It was a blip on the radar and nothing more.

Thats just what you hear from the right wing media.

It's that darn "Liberal" media lying to you again!

They just should have been as serious with cleansing the criticisms of shrub. The RNC effect will wash away quickly after people get tired of the negativity.

i'm not sure where you got the idea their convention was more successful, but i think you need to open your eyes. their convention was a MESS!!!! starting with the whole "lets have it in New York and use 911 some more" bullshit. they wholely regret that decision. even their delegates were mumbling under their breath. the protests affected them a WHOLE LOT MORE than they will ever admit to publicly. i didn't watch all of the convention but caught reruns on cspan and it looked BAD to me. the constant attacks got old and tiring. they did not have ONE good thing to say about themselves. no surprise there.

and looking at all the media attention they gave the rnc, it's not wonder everyone thinks it's "better". when will be learn that the visual medium is VERY powerful and can easily be manipulated. see it for what it is. not what they SAY it is....

That is all.

And I don't think it was, it would only be because they have NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, FAUX to spin it for them.

"Their convention was better than ours?" Guess this guy wanted Obama to challenge Brit Hume to a duel....

You give one flawed poll that much power?

The buzz on the DNC was Obama, veterans, Kerry's speach (which converted a Repub I know)

The buzz on the RNC? The purple heart Band-Aids, what a freak Zell was.

Nah, ours was way more successful.

that we had the better speakers and were more positive. But if the polls give Bush a lead (and other polls other than TIME will do this) then why was their negative convention more successful?

The people I know who are repugs that saw it had a few chuckles over Miller and the twins, but didn't seem shocked and awed at what they saw.
Excuse me for this but...FUCK THE POLLS. That is all bullshit.
The worse thing that happened at the DNC was the balloons not falling on time.

http://www.pnionline.com/dnblog/extra/

Unleash Zell

We coach Little League in the blue states and, yes, we've got some gay friends in the red states. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and there are patriots who supported the war in Iraq. We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America. -- Barrack Obama, Democratic keynote speaker, July 27, 2004.

Today, at the same time young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrats' manic obsession to bring down our commander in chief....Motivated more by partisan politics than by national security, today's Democratic leaders see America as an occupier, not a liberator.-- Zell Miller, Republican keynote speaker, Sept. 1, 2004.

Somebody call Michelle Malkin -- there's been a deliberate shooting in the foot. But it's not John Kerry in 1969. Instead it's the usual suspect, the Republican Party. Democrats beat themselves up for not being as aggressive as their GOP rivals, and much of the time they're right. The Swift boat attacks on John Kerry seemed so ridiculous at first that the Kerry campaign ignored them -- until the damage was already done.

But there's a major downside to having an extra political Y-chromosome. Remember, the president's father, George H.W. Bush still had a fighting chance in 1992 before the party confab in Houston, where speakers like Pat Buchanan spoke of "religious war" before a dumbfounded prime-time audience. Now in 2004, after two days where good-cop Republicans like Rudy Giuliani and John McCain made the best-possible case for Bush II, someone condemned to repeat history made the fatal decision to unleash the hounds.

And it's clear that Zell Miller has gone from "Yellow Dog" Democrat to simply a barking-mad dog. But this dog won't hunt -- not with the moderate voters the GOP came to New York hoping to win back. We won't repeat the whole litany of half-truths and out-and-out slanders that came from the Democratic turncoat's mouth -- Kerry defending America with spitballs after ceding authority to France and the UN (at least he didn't mention black helicopters, though it probably crossed his mind). A number of others have already done that, including this story, and this one.

But we wonder how many votes Miller lost with his over-heated and angry sounding rhetoric -- capped off by losing his cool on "Hardball." Although the Swift Boat assault on Kerry was the height of cynical political (as opposed to moral) brilliance, Karl Rove has suddenly been wearing the emperor's new clothes in Madison Square Garden. There's been the blatant politizing of the 9/11 tragedy, the inscrutable Bush twins (Rove was caught so unawares he reportedly said whoever handled the speech belongs "on a slow boat to China") and now this Category 4 Zellstorm.

After Houston in 1992, Bush 41 actually went down in the polls. It could happen to Bush 43. After Ronald Reagan passed away earlier this year, there was so much talk -- some of it, frankly, overblown -- about his optimism. The pundits, in their futile bid to fill a week of air time, said back then that the party that could bottle that positive political spirit would win the 2004 election. Go back now, and compare Barrack Obama to Zell Miller.

Obama's glass is more than half-full. And this stale, warmed-over bottle of Miller is way past half-empty.