Every political convention there is a phenomenon so pervasive that it is almost a given. It's called a bump. A bump is a marked increase in polling numbers for the presidential candidate being nominated. Sometimes this bump is large. Sometime it's fleeting. Sometimes like in 1992 it provides a springboard to victory.
But why? It isn't that the speeches are THAT persuasive no matter how well written. It isn't that the pomp and circumstance are that exciting no matter how much "spontaneous" excitement it is supposed to inspire.
It's that it's the one time candidates can control and define what is being talked about.
That isn't to say that candidates always control everything that certainly isn't the case. To use this convention for example. Let's compare it to 1992. Jerry Brown's delegates were angrily screaming "Let Jerry speak" the entire convention which was only resolved when he gave his own nominating speech to address the convention. Before the convention there was doubt whether or not Paul Tsongas would even attend with rumors he might endorse Ross Perot. He did in fact endorse Bill Clinton albeit with perhaps the most tepid endorsement imaginable. At the convention Tsongas was mounting a minor platform fight over issues I'm sure barely anyone remembers.
Now the party came together. A lot of that having to do with Ross Perot dropping out people waking up and realizing that this is it. You either support the nominee or you're getting another four years of unpopular Republican policies.
But in the end it was sour grapes from those on the losing side. And myself being a Tsongas volunteer in high school I certainly felt those sour grapes. And the media treated it as such. Compare that to how they treated the Obama / Clinton tension at the 2008 convention. But also compare the discipline that was showed with the "it's the economy stupid" mantra. Even when things are not completely under your control you have to grab control.
And for the most part at a convention you control the themes. Obama ended the Democratic convention on a conversation very advantageous for Democrats. That Republican policies have hurt Americans and failed the last eight years and Obama will change them. McCain in contrast wanted to show that he was a rugged individualist/"maverick" with the experience to protect America and unlike Democrats won't back down from doing whatever he feels must be done.
Part of the reason why it is to have ones convention last is without a convention it can be difficult to dislodge a narrative and get people discussing another narrative. The most important task before Obama right now is to re-take control of the narrative quickly because controlling the conversation goes beyond conventions into the entire election.
Not controlling the conversation is part of the reason Obama's lead has shrunk though one should also keep in mind not to put too much stock in pre-labor day polls. Particularly since the Democrats have an unfortunate history of being the party of summer rather than the party of November. This is one of many diaries I meant to write but never got around to. But just look at this map from 2004. http://electoral-vote.com/...
Unfortunately besides the convention Obama has not controlled his own narrative for awhile. We haven't been discussing whether credit card companies should be allowed to raise peoples rates over 25 percent with little warning. We've been discussing whether or not we should expand drilling. The home mortgage crisis despite getting worse hasn't been a topic of discussion in a long time instead it is who has the "most" and "best" experience.
And here is where one needs to be cautious about Sarah Palin. She was chosen as an ex-factor to shake up the race. The issues she presents aren't necessarily the issues we want to be talking about. I'll use the example of Harold Ford's Senate run in 2006. Everyone remembers this ad that was widely condemned as racist.
http://www.youtube.com/...
The problem with that ad wasn't that it was racist or whether Democrats were able to convince people that it was racist. The problem was that the entire discussion wasn't one that benefited Democrats. Harold Ford who like Obama was running as a candidate who transcended didn't benefit from a discussion of whether his opponent was "racist" and whether voters were "racist" if they responded to it. It didn't matter if Ford could convince a majority of the voters the Corker ad was racist. It only mattered that Ford suffered from engaging in this conversation in the first place.
The same with Sarah Palin and experience. When Democrats are discussing the biography and experience of Sarah Palin it doesn't matter if we can prove our point. That Sarah Palin's experience is woefully inadequate for the job. All it does is have us debate an issue that McCain wants the election to be based on. It drags Obama down to the level of Palin as you start debating whether being a Governor for two years is "better" than being a Senator for four. Especially when McCain has the killer resume.
We don't want to be discussing job titles and who has done what for how many years. We want to discuss what McCain and his party have been and not been doing for the last eight years. We want to discuss whether he has ANY substantive policy differences from George W Bush. Or more pointedly whether despite his Laura Bush approved desire for "change" he actually gets it.
And this brings me to my last point. There is one key to reclaiming the conversation. While I've viewed James Carville even during the Clinton administration as a blowhard he certainly got one thing right. You're either on offense or you're on defense. Always be on offense.
The problem with John Kerry and the swiftboaters wasn't that John Kerry did or didn't respond to it. You can fault Kerry for not responding fast enough. But the real fault was that the Kerry campaign was never able to launch an effective counter-attack so Bush was explaining himself rather than vice-versa.
To go back even further in 1988 George Herbert Walker Bush was troubled by what was called "the wimp factor." He reclaimed the narrative and moved the conversation over to Dukakis. Whether Dukakis supported "flag burning" and the pledge of allegiance. Whether he looked funny behind and tank and of course Willy Horton. http://www.youtube.com/... And little to no discussion of Iran-contra.
That's the beauty of wedge issues. You change the discussion to something of interest to people that benefits you and away from something that harms you. Democrats don't need to go dive in the gutter Republican style to find our wedges. In fact issues of substance as they have in recent history overwelmingly favor us. But as we saw both Biden and Obama finally do at the tailend of the convention we need to attack and attack hard. On issues we choose and we define. And hit them where it hurts. Where they are forced to respond.
And the target must be McCain. The top of the ticket is all that matters. Period. Or else there would've been a Vice President Muskie and a Vice Pesident Bentsen.
The stakes are these. If come November people are discussing whether or not Obama is too "intellectual" or "elitist" to appeal to white working class voters or whether being a community organizer in Chicago is "better" experience than being a Mayor of a small town say hello to President McCain. It isn't enough to respond. Go on the attack and change the conversation.