The 2020 Conventions (Part 1): Democratic Edition
Now that both conventions of the major political parties have come and gone, I think now would be a good time to discuss them. This is the first of a two-part series I’m doing about the conventions. In the first part, I’ll be covering the Democratic convention as that was the first one conducted chronologically, and in the second part, I’ll cover the Republican convention. While this part will cover the Democratic convention, I’ll mention parts of the Republican convention when necessary.
The Purpose of Party Conventions
First, let’s briefly discuss the general purpose of conventions concerning political parties and their nominees. While the official function of a convention is to nominate a ticket for president and vice-president, conventions are almost never the deciding factor of the nomination process for either major party in the modern era. Many believe this is due to the post-1968 reforms recommended by the McGovern-Fraser Commission, which saw a surge in states using primaries to allocate delegates and the emergence of a nomination process that winnowed down candidate fields and produced a clear frontrunner months before the conventions take place. The last time the nomination was seriously contested on the convention floor was in 1976, when sitting president Gerald Ford narrowly escaped defeat from Republican challenger Ronald Reagan in a 1,187–1,070 roll call vote. But even in 1976, seriously contested conventions were already a relic of the past. The 1968 Democratic Convention, despite being marred by protests and party divisions, was a foregone conclusion as Hubert Humphrey easily won on the first ballot. And 1952 was the last time a convention required more than one roll call to produce a nominee, when Adlai Stevenson secured the Democratic nomination on the third ballot. Long gone were the days of 1924, when the Democratic Party took nine days and 103 rounds of voting to produce John Davis.
While conventions no longer serve as battlegrounds between candidates for the nomination, they still serve a critical function for political parties and nominees. To put it simply, conventions are opportunities for parties to display their unity and articulate their goals to a mass audience. One can see this as a campaign event in that it can stimulate enthusiasm for the candidate heading into the general election, but it can also set the tone for how the party frames its issues and its purpose. While these purposes can come into conflict and the pressure to paper over intraparty differences can hollow out these messages, conventions remain an important point to assess the state of the two major parties and what their futures may hold.
Party Platform
First, one of the most extensive expressions of the Party’s state is its platform. This year, at 92 pages, the Democratic platform is double the length of its 2016 platform. Regarding content, there were clear overtures to appeal to the Party’s progressive wing by involving Bernie Sanders in joint task forces, where he was allowed to issue recommendations. Biden sought to avoid the missteps in 2016 that failed to unify the party, resulting in many Sanders supporters not voting for Clinton in the general election.
The result of these efforts was a platform that, while not as progressive as what some activists would have liked, is more far-reaching than previous platforms. For example, while the platform doesn’t include a single-payer “Medicare for All” healthcare program, it is more aggressive in including a public option to the Affordable Care Act than the 2016 platform. There’s a greater emphasis on racial, gender, and geographic inequities in access to medical coverage and health outcomes, tying into the Party’s response to the ongoing public health racial crises in the country. The movement to unify the Party’s progressive and moderate wings permeates its platform and convention.
Above all else, though, the platform is largely informed by the ongoing coronavirus pandemic and its effects. In the preamble and throughout, the Party argues that more than creating new challenges for the United States, the pandemic has exposed and exacerbated existing problems, such as the economy’s fragility, increased income inequality, and political polarization’s crippling effect on the government’s ability to respond to such crises. Indeed, the pandemic is a critical lens the Democratic Party employs to not only justify its policies, but also build its case against President Trump. I’ll be discussing this in more detail in the following section.
Speakers and General Themes
From here, I’ll go over some observations about the different speakers across the four nights. I went back and forth about how to go about this. I considered dividing each night into its section, but I decided against it. Going over each individual speaker would make this article needlessly long and tedious (besides, I want both these articles to come out fairly soon). So instead, I’ll lay out the broad themes developed across the entire convention and I’ll highlight specific speakers as I go along.
First, it’s important to acknowledge how the DNC utilized the virtual format. Unlike conventions from past years and the following week’s RNC (which we’ll discuss in the second part), the DNC embraced the new format and used it to create a different stylistic viewing experience. Each night was hosted by a different celebrity emcee, who performed from a central hub location while most of the speeches were recorded elsewhere. I personally didn’t mind these celebrities in that their primary purpose was simply to segue from speaker to speaker to the occasional musical performance; however, their inclusion solidifies the mainstream entertainment industry as uniformly against President Trump (and weaves itself into a criticism against the DNC in next week’s RNC).
From there, most of the speakers delivered their remarks remotely, often in their offices or homes. These environments give a lot of these speeches a more intimate feeling, allowing the speakers to employ a more natural and conversational tone than the emphatic, disjointed rhythm that’s often required in large convention halls packed with applause-happy spectators. Despite already being a strong public speaker, Michelle Obama benefited the most from this new format. Her dark, scathing indictment of the Trump administration allowed each word and idea time to breathe without being stifled by intrusive cheering. In fact, the silence morphed the atmosphere from one of moral outrage and enthusiasm for change to one of ominous gloom and a sober reminder to fulfill a civic duty. To this end, the virtual format presented new opportunities for speakers to express their ideas and messages in a way that was limited in previous years to the occasional pre-recorded film segment.
With that said, however, the documentary-style approach does have limitations. While it is impressive that the program lacked technical difficulties or major gaffes, I think such moments give live events their character. To that end, the convention felt a bit too polished at points. Granted, this is a trend that has been going on for several decades now, where the parties’ interest in promoting unity and producing a clean product outweighs the entertainment value of conflict, but I think this contributed to the sense that this year’s convention didn’t feel like that of year’s past. On the whole, though, I think the virtual format went about as well as one could have hoped for.
Another interesting trend is that rather than having one speaker deliver the keynote address, the DNC decided to split the duty between seventeen “rising stars” within the Party. The Party stated that this approach would “offer a diversity of different ideas and perspectives on how to move America forward”. I can understand the thought process behind this approach. The seventeen people the Party picked created a diverse lineup, in terms of gender, race, and geography: seven women, eleven were non-white or Hispanic, and thirteen were from states that Trump won in 2016. As much as possible, the Party seeks to expand its electoral map while celebrating the different backgrounds its members come from. And in theory, it doesn’t hurt to not put all your eggs in one basket when communicating the Party’s core message.
But even understanding where the Party was coming from, I feel like it was a mistake to not have one keynote speaker. A critical reason why the keynote address is an effective platform for “rising stars” is that it gives the speaker the opportunity to not only articulate the party’s central message going into the election, but also introduce themselves to the nation by weaving that central message and the party’s value into their own biography. Take Barack Obama’s 2004 keynote address. While I realize that this particular example has been overplayed by pundits and overstated in its impact on Obama’s rise to the presidency, it’s a great speech nonetheless because Obama is given the time to tell his life story and how he embodies the American Dream. By the end, Obama was no longer just a “skinny kid with a funny name”; the audience knew about and could relate to his upbringing, his shortcomings, and the simple dreams that his parents and grandparents had of achieving a better life in America.
Unfortunately, the seventeen speakers in this year’s address were barely given any time to introduce themselves to a national audience. While they’re given occasional lines about their home states, their function, for the most part, was to recite boilerplate talking points in a pretty generic speech. In trying to paint a mosaic of the country’s diversity, I feel like the DNC missed a critical opportunity to put a face on what that diversity looks like and what it can mean for America’s future. Stacey Abrams closed out the address with a pretty lengthy, uninterrupted segment. She rounded out a lot of the points laid forth by the other speakers, summing up President Trump’s shortcomings and making a general case for Joe Biden. And while this was a decent nod to the relatively successful 2018 Georgia Senate candidate, I can’t help but wonder why the DNC didn’t simply select Abrams to deliver the keynote address. Considering that she was shortlisted for the running mate position, the keynote address could have been a decent consolation prize that would allow her to remain a critical force in the general election. As it was, though, hardly anyone outside Abrams truly stood out and it made for a pretty unmemorable segment.
Next, there’s the handling of Biden’s primary opponents during the nomination process. Almost all of them participated to some extent, but there are a few moments to break down. First, there was Bernie Sanders, who gave his speech on the first night right before Michelle Obama’s marquee address. Unlike 2016, where he was far less willing to boost the Clinton ticket, Sanders went all in this year to urge his supporters to vote for Biden in the general election. He mainly stuck to policy by suggesting that Biden is more conducive to adopting progressive policies than he lets on. While Biden has demonstrated some willingness to do so (especially given how the pandemic has increased the salience of healthcare reform), it also lends some credence to the “Trojan Horse” argument that will emerge at the following week’s RNC.
On some level, it seems that Sanders has learned a lesson and become more willing to play ball with the Party to build a serious coalition. This is through Sanders’s rise in national prominence and his transition from a party outsider to someone that holds serious clout from within. Even so, I think the Party was still afraid of the possibility that Sanders may sow disunity among the ranks, which could explain why he was scheduled right before Obama. In effect, Sanders became overshadowed by Michelle Obama; the audience was allowed to listen to Sanders’s remarks, but barely given enough time to absorb them before being entranced by Obama’s impassioned address denouncing the Trump administration. The virtual format also contributed to this, where the lack of applause and time needed to move off and onto a large stage means that the convention can close that break where the audience has time to linger on the previous speaker’s words before moving onto the next one. Still, the Party did what it could to acknowledge Sanders’s impact on the primaries and to hold him to his pledge to play ball.
Next, there’s Elizabeth Warren, who spoke on the third night from a childcare education center in Springfield, Massachusetts. The bulk of her speech focused on Biden’s plans to expand access to childcare and to support working families. She described this as building an “infrastructure” for families, not unlike highways and public transportation. The speech felt fairly narrow in focus, using childcare as its primary lens for describing the merits of Biden while deriding the Trump administration. I immediately wondered whether Warren is jockeying for a Cabinet position.
On one hand, that does seem like the most logical step for her at this stage in her career. She’s already been in the Senate for eight years and it’s unlikely that additional time there would increase her national profile. If she plans to run in 2024 (assuming Biden only serves one term), Warren needs a more direct platform to enact policies, which a Cabinet position could provide. But on the other hand, this childcare approach to her DNC speech gives the impression that she sees herself as Secretary of Education. While she certainly has the background of a special education teacher and a law professor, this seems like a weird pivot for a potential 2024 bid. Education Secretaries aren’t particularly household names and for Warren, such a move would be a step downward. State Secretaries have a better track record with presidential bids (Hillary Clinton in 2016), but this too isn’t a strong fit for Warren. Her most relevant experience is her four-year tenure on the Senate Armed Services Committee and even then, she isn’t well-known for her foreign policy accomplishments.
Given her reputation as an anti-Wall Street fighter, I’d say her best fit would be Attorney General or possibly Treasury Secretary. I think either of these positions would be sufficiently in the public spotlight to keep her relevant, but also connect her closely with the Biden administration and give her a record that she could run in if Biden chooses to step down after 2024. But for now, I’m left wondering why Warren was placed in a childcare and education setting.
I also wanted to discuss Pete Buttigieg’s speech, who spoke during the final night. In my primary retrospective, I speculated that Buttigieg sees his best path forward by improving the Party’s electoral fortunes, particularly in conservative states like Indiana. And after watching his speech, I still feel pretty confident in that assessment. His speech reprises a lot of the themes he has expressed in his campaign and through his super PAC Win the Era, such as expanding America’s sense of belonging to people living on the margins and to dedicate the Party’s resources towards roping in “future former Republicans”. Buttigieg must also feel heartened to see the DNC’s emphasis of former Republican officials and voters that have turned on President Trump (John Kasich being the most prominent). Not to mention the fact that during the roll call vote on the second night, Buttigieg got to speak on behalf of the Indiana delegation. All of this leads me to believe that Buttigieg will dedicate the next few years staying in Indiana and trying to strengthen Democratic footholds there. This is the optimal move for Buttigieg as it not only makes him an asset to the national Democratic Party, but could also set him up for a Governor or Senate run, which can give him the experience he needs to potentially mount a future presidential campaign. On the whole, I found Buttigieg impressive at the convention.
Finally on this subject of primary opponents, I should discuss the segment on the final night where all of the major primary opponents met together in a Zoom call to “share war stories”. Although it’s been months since the primary campaign concluded, I still found it funny seeing each of these candidates scrapping together anecdotes on how great Joe Biden is. Mix in some awkward chuckling and the result was a five-minute segment built to reinforce party unity. Cory Booker moderated the discussion and I found it interesting that he was given charge of this particular segment. On the whole, there isn’t too much to say about this segment other than I found it amusing.
In terms of policy content, the Convention largely focused on the two big issues one would expect: the ongoing pandemic and race relations. First, there’s the pandemic and its effects, both on public health and on the economy. This makes sense, given that politically, it most clearly demonstrates President Trump’s shortcomings as a leader and as a president. Particularly, they stress that Trump was too slow to take the pandemic seriously, let alone lead a organized response. Even afterwards, Trump dumped the responsibility unto the states and refused to cooperate with the international response (such as his decision to withdraw from the World Health Organization). In an effort to manage the virus without hurting the economy, the DNC argues that Trump’s actions gave America the worst of both worlds: a high case count and death toll, along with widespread unemployment and GDP loss. This is most clearly articulated in Michelle Obama’s speech, where she quoted Trump’s assessment of the high death toll as “it is what it is”.
The pandemic also opens a clear opportunity for the Party to discuss the fragility of people’s access to healthcare and a decent standard of living, how it’s not only morally wrong to deny people without a full-time job health insurance, but also dangerous as these same people risk suffering from and spreading the coronavirus. This focus on healthcare can be seen through Ady Barkan, an activist diagnosed with ALS that fought the 2017 effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act. And while the DNC doesn’t go all in on a single-payer healthcare system, they argue that the pandemic has revealed the necessity to expand access the health insurance by including a public option. Through this, the DNC is able to capitalize on the crisis with a plan of their own. And now that the American public has witnessed both the 2017 repeal effort and the pandemic, public support for such aggressive action may be high.
And secondly, there’s the ongoing race relations crisis. Sparked by the May 25 police killing of George Floyd, the country has seen a prolonged wave of national protests in multiple cities and a heightened attention to Black Lives Matter and race-related issues. While the Democratic Party has historically been invested in courting the support of non-white voters, the Trump presidency has escalated the salience of race issues and expanded diversity. This can be seen through the 2020 primary’s highly diverse candidate field, but these protests have skyrocketed BLM to a new level of relevancy. I’d say that outside the virtual format, the overtures towards racial solidarity were the most prominent feature at the DNC. While BLM activists weren’t given their own speaking slot, the DNC made a concerted effort to weave BLM themes throughout the entire convention, thus making it part of its broad narrative. There were multiple video clips and references to the ongoing protests, comparisons of the current reckoning to that exhibited during the Civil Rights Movement, and calls to address racial disparities across all aspects of society.
Admittedly, a lot of these nods were stylistic or visual, such as “B-L-M” spelled out in block letters during Warren’s speech, the “Rise Up” bumper that played repeatedly between segments, the tribute to the late Civil Rights Movement activist and House Rep. John Lewis, or John Legend and Common performing “Glory” (the Academy Award-winning song featured in the film Selma, which documents the 1965 Selma to Montgomery march). Even so, some effort was dedicated to offering policy proposals to address racial disparities. Both the platform and the convention call for criminal justice reform, going beyond the First Step Act and seeking to crack down on police officers’ ability to use excessive force and to strengthen the use of community-based solutions for poverty and crime. It should be noted, however, that the platform makes no mention of “defunding the police”, a popular call within some progressive circles and a go-to weapon by the RNC. Furthermore, the convention emphasizes the need to enact policies that close racial disparities across different aspects, such as access to healthcare, access to affordable housing, and being targeted by the criminal justice system. Overall, while these policies weren’t as prominent as the overtures to the ongoing protests, racial injustice still played a critical role within the convention.
Finally, I should spend a little time discussing Harris’s and Biden’s acceptance speeches. Both of them were effective performances and I’ll admit it was interesting to have them be delivered in a quasi-convention hall with a lectern and jumbo-trons. While the office/home format worked for the other speakers, I think it was necessary to have the main ticket candidates deliver their addresses in this more traditional, formal setting as it demonstrates that these candidates meet the gravitas and seriousness of the President and Vice President. Such credibility is important to establish in the general election stage.
But first, let’s talk about Harris’s speech. In her twenty-minute address, Harris aligned herself with the historical struggles of black women to attain suffrage and equal rights, a move she has made throughout her long career. She illustrated an effective biography, speaking with reverence about her parents’ emigration from India and Jamaica in pursuit of the American Dream. She outlined each step of her life, from childhood where her mother instilled in her the values of family and heritage, to her public career as a district attorney, California Attorney General, and U.S. Senator. From this, she was effectively able to introduce herself to many voters that didn’t pay her much attention during the primaries. While she also dug into President Trump’s shortcomings, a lot of her points were already laid out by other speakers. In the end, I believe that was her main duty in the speech, to present herself as the embodiment of diversity and a commitment to expanding opportunity. And I think she succeeded at this, demonstrating her potential value to the ticket. And although she may risk attacks in the general campaign for her record as Attorney General, her speech demonstrated her ability to tell an effective story and garner people’s sympathy.
And finally, we get to Joe Biden’s acceptance speech. Never renowned for his public speaking ability, Biden did what he needed to do in this address. While I wasn’t blown away by his speech, he avoided gaffes and demonstrated enough energy when he had to. I think he was most effective when he drilled into President Trump’s record, where he cited all the public health and economic figures that had already been stated by others. Even so, these attacks gave him credibility, as the grownup in the room finally speaking his mind. And he was able to build off these attacks with a clear set of policies to address the issues, particularly by expanding testing for the coronavirus and working with Congress to rebuild the economy. In the end, the speech went about as well as one could hope for, considering Joe Biden is the party’s nominee.
On the whole, the DNC largely went off without a hitch. While there were some moments of awkward pauses and some weird incorporation of viewers watching through Zoom, I think the DNC was effective at promoting its message in a virtual format.
Ratings and the “Convention Bounce”
Overall, viewership for both conventions were down from 2016; however, it appears that the DNC enjoyed higher ratings than the RNC on average. Night 1 averaged 19.7 million viewers across the Nielsen networks, which is higher than the 17 million for Night 1 of the RNC, but still down 24 percent from the 2016 DNC. While Night 2 dipped down to 19.2 million, the DNC bounced back for the final two nights, culminating with 24.6 million viewers tuning into the final night.
Broken down by network, MSNBC and CNN were the clear favorites among convention watchers, with MSNBC being the overall favorite while CNN was favored by viewers in the 25–54 age group. While CNN’s high ratings aren’t new given its long history of being well-known, MSNBC’s rise in popularity is more recent. Compared to 2016, MSNBC is the only major news network to increase its viewership in 2020 despite overall ratings being down. Reasons for this include the emergence of Rachel Maddow as a favorite among liberals, coupled with MSNBC’s fairly extensive coverage of the Convention compared to other networks, that limited their coverage to primetime. This distribution of coverage demonstrates the Democratic base’s reliance of “mainstream” media outlets (that CNN embodies above others) and its increasing comfort with MSNBC, which has signaled itself in recent years as a more “nonpartisan” outlet despite functioning as a liberal counterpart to Fox News.
Despite the lower TV ratings, there’s evidence that the Convention was viewed more broadly online through streaming services. I personally watched the DNC through the Party’s Youtube livestream and, as of writing, Night 1 has over 816,000 views on that platform. Unfortunately, data on online streaming isn’t as consolidated or longitudinal as TV viewership data, so it’s difficult to calculate how many people tuned into the DNC through these platforms or to compare those figures to conventions from previous years. Even so, this emerging trend indicates that while TV ratings may be declining for both parties, that doesn’t necessarily correlate with declining interest in the candidates or the upcoming election.
Finally, on a similar subject, it’s important to mention the “convention bounce”. This bounce refers to a sharp increase in a candidate’s polling numbers immediately following his (or her) party’s convention. Historically, there have been notable bounces, especially for candidates of the out-party. In 1976, political unknown Jimmy Carter enjoyed a 9-point bounce in his polling numbers between the week before the DNC and the week immediately after. Four years later, President Carter got a 10-point bounce following his convention; however, it was mostly neutralized by challenger Ronald Reagan’s 8-point bounce following his party’s convention. But perhaps the largest bounce came in 1992, when Bill Clinton’s polling numbers spiked by 16 points in the week following his convention. These convention bounces have worked their way into campaign folklore, where the old guard cling to a neutered convention system while entrenched underdogs rally the troops to prop up their candidate as the new “comeback kid”.
But these bounces have noticeably shrunk in recent years. Using the one week before to one week after metric, the average convention bounce has only been 2.1 points since 2004. In fact, in two instances (John Kerry in 2004 and Mitt Romney in 2012), candidates lost ground in the week following their party’s convention. And if we look at the most recent completed election, Hillary Clinton only gained 2 points in her polling while Donald Trump gained only 3 points. This evidence indicates that the convention bounce is increasingly becoming less significant in the outcome of elections.
There are multiple reasons why the convention bounce is shrinking. One is that the time gap between the Democratic and Republican conventions is narrowing. In the past, there was often a month-long gap between the two conventions, with the out-party going first. This gave voters several weeks to ponder on the challenger candidate and feel supportive of the out-party’s message in the absence of counter-programming. But in more recent years, this grace period has shortened. Since 2008, the two major parties have held their conventions virtually back-to-back, with only a weekend separating them. This gives the challenger only a couple days to let his/her words linger among voters before their ears get filled by the opposition’s narrative. Through this scheduling, bounces have little room to grow or develop on their own.
Another reason, and perhaps the most obvious, is increased party polarization. There are simply fewer swing voters that are open to persuasion nowadays than there were in the past. And chances are, partisans aren’t even going to bother watching the opposition’s convention, let alone resonate with its message. Only 22 percent of Republicans said they plan to watch the DNC, compared with 56 percent of Democrats and 26 percent of Independents. While this may sound obvious to many political observers, it’s still worth stating here.
One other reason is the emergence of the “perpetual campaign”. It’s an old saying that for general elections, the campaign starts on Labor Day. What’s meant by that is there’s a clear break in campaign activities between the end of the primaries and the conventions, and another reasonable break from the conventions (whenever they’re held) to September. Nowadays, though, there doesn’t seem to be a break. After a presumptive nominee emerges from the primaries, that person has already become a public figure and they manage to stay in the news throughout the entire period. The Internet, 24-hour news cycle, and fear of a competitive disadvantage pushes these candidates to continue campaigning in the months leading up to the convention. By the time the convention rolls around, more voters are already engaged (and made up their minds) in the general election campaign. In effect, the convention is little more notable than a regular campaign stop. As a result, the convention doesn’t stick out as much for voters.
Although I just spent the last few paragraphs minimizing the prospect of a significant convention bounce in 2020, I’m still interested in exploring this concept to see if the new data will follow this trend. And it’s actually one of the reasons why I waited until both conventions wrapped up before starting this two-part series, to determine whether the conventions tipped the scales (if only in the short term).
The table below shows the polling aggregates for Biden and the corresponding lead over President Trump in parentheses for FiveThrityEight and RealClearPolitics.
National Polling
Period 538 RCP
August 10 (one week before DNC)- 50.2 (+8.3) 48.9 (+6.9)
August 17 (Night 1 of DNC)- 51.2 (+8.4) 50.2 (+7.7)
August 20 (Night 4 of DNC)- 51.1 (+8.6) 49.7 (+7.4)
August 27 (one week after DNC)- 50.6 (+8.4) 49.6 (+7.1)
From these figures, Biden’s polling only increased by an average of 0.6 points and his lead only increased by 0.2 points across the two-week period. In fact, if we ignore the one week before the convention and just consider the August 17–27 period, Biden actually loses ground, with an average 0.6-point decrease in his polling (and a 0.3-point cut to his lead). While this is only national data, the polling aggregates for individual swing states reveal a similar story, where the DNC produced a fairly insignificant bounce for Biden.
Considering the aforementioned reasons for the shrinking convention bounce, these findings are expected. August 27, the one-week point after the DNC, was the same night that President Trump delivered his acceptance speech at the White House, causing a potential Biden bounce to clash with the ongoing RNC. Polarization has contributed to a fairly stagnant polling race, where both Biden and Trump’s numbers have remained fairly steady during the summer. And if the viewing patterns from the convention are to be interpreted, they suggest that fewer people perceive the DNC or RNC as worthwhile events to be open to persuasion.
Conclusion
So on the whole, the DNC was a worthwhile piece of television to tune into, even if it had little effect on the nomination process or on the state of the race. It effectively demonstrated the Democratic Party’s priorities of the pandemic and race relations. While a good chunk of the time was spent litigating the shortcomings of the Trump administration and demonstrating surface-level support for Black Lives Matter, I think it still got across the points it needed to galvanize the Party’s base and prepare voters for a long general election campaign.
In the next part, I will be discussing the RNC, how it responded to the DNC, and whether it could break through the challenges Trump faces heading into his re-election.
