We are now officially in the 2020 general election, with the national conventions for the Republicans and Democrats come and gone. The usual masses of party faithful packed like sardines into an arena to shout and crow over party differences and cheer for the rising stars of their party were nowhere to be found amidst the coronavirus pandemic, making this bizarre year even more history-making with mostly virtual conventions. In many ways, I saw the transition to virtual conventions as largely beneficial for the parties. Modern conventions had already devolved into overly long and loud coronations of the presidential and vice-presidential nominees. Long gone are the days when party conventions truly mattered for the choice of presidential nomination. The prospect of removing the uncertainty of a rowdy crowd and replacing it with a highly choreographed four-day marketing campaign for the party nominee seemed to me like a no-brainer, even without a pandemic. Apparently, the Republicans and Democrats felt the same way, as both conventions turned out to be very slickly produced infomercials for Trump and Biden, respectively.
Neither convention was perfect, obviously, but the two parties definitely capitalized on their increased ability to drive home a cohesive narrative. The main question is not regarding the quality of the two parties’ videography. I would say they both produced very high quality virtual conventions. The question, rather, is whether the narratives and strategies they put forward in their conventions will sufficiently help (or hurt) them in this election. First, let me go over the pros and cons of each convention (in my opinion), then I will try to break down what I perceived to be each party’s strategy and how helpful I believe that strategy will be.
**********
Democratic Convention Pros:
There was a bit for everybody, ideologically-speaking. While that may sound like a waffling negative, the reality was more of a unifying message. At the same convention we saw John Kasich, a former Republican Governor and Congressman from Ohio who built a reputation in the House as a staunch fiscal conservative, and Bernie Sanders, a self-identified democratic socialist Senator from Vermont who has dramatically brought previously fringe left-wing policy views into the national mainstream discourse, both offer their solid endorsement for Joe Biden. I cannot stress enough how bizarre that is in modern politics, defined by stark political divides and party tribalism. Having such a broad ideological representation ensured that a solid majority of Americans could find something to like at the convention.
Though it got off to an uncertain start, Joe Biden’s acceptance speech at the DNC was actually quite good, in my opinion. Many pundits have gone so far as to say that it was the best speech Biden has ever given. I would say that it is at the very least one of the best he has given during his 2020 presidential run. A strategic blunder, in my view, that the Trump campaign has done is furiously allege senility on the part of Biden, a bar so low as to effectively set up the Democratic nominee for easy success by that metric. Biden’s speech proved this, as he not only displayed himself to be of fine mental acuity, but also to be quite cognizant of the issues facing everyday Americans at present.
The general tone of the convention was largely positive and hopeful, despite the dark year 2020 has proven to be thus far. Of course, pot shots were taken at the GOP and Trump, as both parties are always expected to do. However, I was struck by the convention’s emphasis on building up Biden as a candidate who can bring civility and hope back to America (fascinating in its similarity to Ronald Reagan’s appeals in 1980). This narrative appeared effective, and should generate greater excitement for Biden’s candidacy, an area in which the Democrats have struggled so far.
The campaign did not shy away from discussing and drawing attention to the most pertinent and pressing issues facing American right now. From the coronavirus pandemic to police brutality-induced protests and rioting to severe economic hardship to even postal delivery slowdown, the Democrats very conspicuously tried to stay atop all the foremost issues in the minds of most Americans, suggesting that they feel they have an electoral edge regarding these issues.
Democratic Convention Cons:
The Democrats for a while now have had a severe problem that they seem to be in continual denial about, and that is an overwhelming sense of elitism. The public relations issue born out of this is that Democrats are often associated with wealth, fame, and generally being out of touch with the average American. While the convention did focus greatly on pertinent issues, as I stated above, the convention was also hosted by Hollywood actors and sprinkled with musical performances by well-known artists. Perhaps I am too harsh on this point, as I must confess that I have long been biased against what I see as pointless musical concerts and celebrity endorsements at both Democratic and Republican conventions. However, a significant reason why Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election was because white blue-collar workers across America felt that she and the Democratic Party at large did not understand or care to understand the problems they were going through. Parading out youthful celebrities does nothing to change that white working-class disappointment. In fact, I daresay it only reinforces their suspicions.
I understand that the Democrats hoped to replace the usual applause of an in-person crowd with screens of clapping delegates on Zoom, but the spectacle blared awkwardness. In numerous instances, a Zoom screen was chosen in which the delegate was not even clapping (sometimes not even smiling). I recall a moment when a delegate was holding her pet until, realizing that her screen was being displayed nationally, swiftly dropped the pet to the floor in order to smile and clap for the camera. The motivation for desiring an adoring crowd was understandable, but the execution was too often cringe-worthy.
Much was made by progressives of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s mere one minute allotment at the convention. The short segment was seen as a slight by the Democratic left-wing, and I must say I found the move rather peculiar. In the end, it seems that the issue has blown over since the RNC began shortly after. However, I was further puzzled that former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg was given a relatively notable speaking slot at the convention. I saw little to no benefit for Bloomberg to have had a greater role than AOC. In the end, I do not believe this issue will amount too much in the November election, but the decision-making here by convention planners was certainly poor.
Republican Convention Pros:
Something I was genuinely surprised at was the concerted effort over the RNC’s four days to combat charges of racism against President Trump. There were numerous African-American speakers throughout the convention, all of whom made charges that Biden was actually more racist than a definitively non-racist Trump. I felt that the high point for this argument was Sen. Tim Scott’s speech on the first night of the convention, which I believe was the best single speech of the RNC.
Say what you will about whether the large quantity of U.S. flags at the convention was overkill; the patriotic theme was quite consistent throughout the four day RNC. The intent of this was clear, to stoke feelings of national pride and American exceptionalism in the viewer. These sorts of appeals, when done right, are usually successful, and I suspect that the RNC’s overtly patriotic displays and overtures will give Trump at least a slight boost amongst Republicans who are on the fence about him.
This is an interesting one, if only because I find it to be personally abhorrent. However, I believe that for the general public this will be received positively. Throughout the convention, President Trump explicitly used the power of his office for campaign material at the RNC. For one thing, that White House grounds were used for numerous speeches of the convention, breaking a tradition to not use government buildings for explicit campaign purposes dating back to the founding. Furthermore, Trump issued a pardon for a reformed bank robber in one convention segment aimed at reaching out to evangelicals and Black voters. In another segment, Trump was presided over a naturalization ceremony for American immigrants in a clear bid to soften public perception of him as tough on immigrants. For me, these actions were infuriating as obvious abuses of power (no one but the President of the United States could make these things campaign tools). That being said, there is a reason that these things are an abuse of power: they give the President an unfair advantage that any possible political challenger cannot replicate. These segments at the RNC were tailored to ease the minds of Republican voters who are wavering as to whether they should vote for Trump again, and since abuse of power is rarely a potent political issue these days, I think that tactic will be effective. (I intend to write more fully on this topic of abuse of power in a future post.)
Republican Convention Cons:
Let’s start with the elephant in the room: that Kimberly Guilfoyle speech was bizarre. If the convention was a normal one, with a mass of boisterous party faithful, then the tone and volume of Guilfoyle’s speech would not have been quite so peculiar (even then, I believe it would be seen as over the top). But given that she was speaking to a camera in an echoey chamber made this moment befuddling and cringeworthy. Guilfoyle’s speech even spawned a meme known as the #GuilfoyleChallenge in which someone will speak the last line of the speech (“The best is yet to come!”) as loudly as one can possibly manage. That’s not the kind of story you want going around from a convention speech, especially considering that this speech arguably got the most public notice and staying power from the entire convention. It brings to mind Howard Dean’s infamous scream in his ill-fated 2004 presidential bid. Guilfoyle’s speech is 2020’s Dean scream.
Speaking of poor speeches, let’s talk about Donald Trump. The President’s acceptance speech can be described in one word: boring. In an overly long speech that offered no new messaging to the campaign, the capstone of the Republican convention was fantastically dull. I found this unusual given Pres. Trump’s propensity for newsworthy flare and excitability. The reason for Trump’s uncharacteristically sleepy delivery, I believe, was that he was glued too tightly to the teleprompter. All politicians read from teleprompters these days (except for Trump at most rallies), but most politicians that rise to the top develop their skill at making the speech sound natural and unread. This is typically done by rehearsing and memorizing the speech meticulously beforehand, so that the teleprompter proves to be more of an aide than a crutch. In this case, the President was clearly just reading from the teleprompter, as evidenced by his awkward emphases on particular words and lack of tonal dynamism that betrayed an unpreparedness to deliver the speech. His teleprompter-dependency also resulted in a few unfortunate gaffes. At one point, Trump, while touting his administration’s pandemic response, bragged about the quantity of medicine, ventilators, and (he pauses) “personal” they sent to hospitals. Either he was referring to PPE (personal protective equipment), which I find unlikely since he should have been able to read the other two words (teleprompters tend to scroll rather slowly), or he misread “personnel” which would make more sense in the context of the sentence. At another moment, amidst his same touting of the covid response, Trump stated that his administration has “pioneered the fatality rate.” This flub did not go unnoticed on social media for its irony.
Usually, a political party’s national convention is not just about hyping up the presidential ticket (though that has become the prime purposes of these meetings); it is also about building the message of the party as a whole, touting downballot rising stars and building a narrative around political and philosophical ideas and concepts. In the Reagan era, the GOP adopted the philosophy that the government gets in the way of economic development and the prosperity of the average American. Under Obama, the Democratic Party began its modern leftward trend towards an expansion of government involvement in healthcare and socio-cultural issues. At this convention, much of that building of the party around a cohesive political philosophy was missing, a common complaint of the Trump administration as a whole. While young stars like Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron or House nominee from North Carolina Madison Cawthorn were given speaking slots, the convention offered more of an attack on bad things that could happen if Democrats are elected (and touting achievements of the Trump administration before the coronavirus) than it offered a political vision for the future of the country. In effect, the convention was all about Trump the person rather than the Republican Party or conservative ideals. This could be a problem for the Trump campaign if they hope to broaden their appeal beyond the hardcore base.
As I alluded to above, the convention had a strong tendency to focus on Trump achievements of the past and a nightmarish vision of a Democrat-controlled future. In other words, the only timeframe the convention often did not bring attention to was the present. Perhaps this is understandable, since President Trump has been consistently polling rather poorly on questions of his handling of the coronavirus and racial tensions, two of the most pressing issues for Americans right now. Even the President’s numbers on the economy have been slipping slightly in recent days, an area in which he had enjoyed a sizable advantage over Biden previously. From that standpoint, it makes sense why the Trump campaign would be loath to bring even more focus to one of their greatest vulnerabilities, but they also run the risk of appearing out of touch to the average American voter. Whenever the pandemic was brought up, it was often spoken of almost as if it is over, as if the pandemic was an event which occurred in the past but now America is rebuilding in the aftermath of. The perception of an out-of-touch President is arguably what got George H. W. Bush ousted in 1992, and if the Trump campaign continues to keep a distance from the foremost issues on Americans’ minds, then President Trump may face the same fate.
**********
As far as strategy goes, both parties seem to recognize the same thing: Biden has the edge right now. The Democratic convention worked really hard to build a broad ideological coalition to support Biden based around a sense of restoring American civility in politics (of course, American civility in politics has been dead long before Trump came along). The emphasis on building up Biden’s character seemed to be aimed at improving Biden’s approval and rate at which voters support him by his own merits rather than simply to oust Trump. This strategy is a good one, as bolstering Biden’s brand could make his lead more durable as the election inevitably narrows (indeed, as it already has in the past couple weeks). Setting up Biden as not only a good person morally but also as a unifier who can bring democratic socialists like Bernie Sanders and fiscally conservative Republicans like John Kasich together will provide license for disaffected moderate Republicans and centrist Independents to vote for Biden in November. The convention seemed geared at building a broad national coalition rather than specifically targeting any particular demographics, which has its own pros and cons. On the positive side, this could portray Biden as presidential and unifying and worthy of one’s vote even in typically red states like Arizona and Georgia. On the negative side, this strategy runs the risk of stretching the campaign too thin and ultimately losing enough battleground by narrow margins to lose the entire election.
In national polling as well as polling in numerous swing states, a concern for the Trump campaign has been that Biden is not only leading in polling, but hovering around or even above 50%. If such Biden numbers hold, then it does not matter how much Trump bolsters his own support, because Biden has already captured a majority of the vote to win. Therefore, while Trump’s image certainly need to be bolstered to raise his ceiling of support from where it is presently, the more pressing goal of Trump’s reelection effort is to bring Biden’s numbers down below 50% in key swing states. This was evidenced by the consistent negative overtones of the RNC, in which much of Trump’s case for reelection was predicated on a horrifying future America under a Biden presidency. It was also evidenced in the attempts by Republicans to make Biden out to be the true racist in the contest rather than Trump, an attempt to peel away at Black and moderate Republican support for the Democratic nominee in crucial battlegrounds like Georgia and Michigan. The RNC further made a noticeable effort to play up their 2016 strategy of appealing to white voters, both suburban and working-class. This was largely done by raising the stakes of the culture wars and painting recent protests and rioting over police killings of unarmed Blacks as Democratic-spurred attempts to erase American culture and values. The video of the McCloskey couple really drove this messaging home, as they reiterated Trump’s allegations that Democrats like Biden are seeking to “abolish the suburbs” by inviting an invasion of low-income families into middle-class and relatively affluent neighborhoods. The conspicuous inclusion of a photo of entirely African-American BLM protesters in seemingly threatening poses over against the McCloskeys’ speech gave the segment an unsettling (at least to me) reminder of George Wallace-era warnings against desegregation because of a supposed invasion of African Americans into white neighborhoods. It seems that the strategy is fear-mongering towards white suburban and working-class families. For the former, this means the threat of losing their relatively comfortable status quo of suburban life. For the latter, this means the threat of losing work to cheap foreign labor and immigrants who are willing to work at lower pay rates. It was partially on these appeals, though more the latter, that carried the Rust Belt for Trump in 2016. This time around, the strategy seems to be employed in order to hatchet away at Biden’s support by portraying him as too extreme for the country.
In many ways, the Republican strategy displayed at the RNC was more comprehensive and surgically precise than the Democratic one put forward at the DNC. Though Biden’s months-long basement strategy is now officially over, it seems that the Democrats have not yet given up the idea of keeping Biden above the fray as a unifying, if indistinct, alternative to President Trump, who they would very much like to keep in the public eye amidst America’s numerous current crises. Republicans, on the other hand, are employing a meticulous strategy aimed at the specific demographics they believe to be key to winning an electoral college victory in November (a popular vote victory will almost certainly go to Biden at this point in the race). The greater complexity of the Republican plan is likely born out of necessity, since it is they who are facing an uphill climb to achieve Trump’s reelection.
Whether Trump can pull off an incredible comeback to win another upset again in 2020 is too early to say. But as far as strategy goes, I would say that the conventions displayed a Republican Party with a more detailed sense of what they need to do to win, while the Democrats are trying to play it safe and distant, hoping to ride out Trump’s unpopularity through November. The Democratic strategy, though it has worked very well up to this point, is without a doubt the riskier of the two, as it essentially leaves much of the narrative-shaping to the Republican side. Democrats will need to be more forceful in defining the current moment in American history, as Trump so successfully did against Hillary Clinton in 2016, if they want to win the White House this time around. So far, Trump is still the one defining what this race is all about.
Comments