This is the second in a two-part series of this year’s conventions. The first part covered the Democratic Convention as that was the first one conducted chronologically. This part will focus more on the Republican Convention and the type of message the Party is putting forth in re-electing President Trump.
Before I proceed, I’ll acknowledge the fact that I haven’t adequately covered the Republican side of things with regards to the 2020 election. Given that the Party has an incumbent seeking re-election, the Republican primaries lacked serious competition. While candidates in the primary generated some noise, such as former Massachusetts governor William Weld, this didn’t translate to much when the votes were tallied; President Trump won 94 percent of the national popular vote during the primaries.
Admittedly, there’s more intrigue with the challenger in most elections than the incumbent. Incumbents are equipped with numerous advantages over their challenges, such as superior fundraising, more campaign experience, higher name recognition, and, during periods of prosperity, benefit of the doubt from voters (“things are going well for me, so why rock the boat?”) Furthermore, the party in power isn’t compelled to re-evaluate its core values the same way the out-party has to. As I’ve discussed in previous posts, primaries function as a marketplace of ideas for partisans to decide the best path forward, to ensure electoral success. In the absence of competitive primaries or a clear problem in messaging or coalition-building, the party in power tends to fade into the background until the general election.
Even so, as conventions mark the end of the nomination process and the beginning of the general election campaign, it’s fitting to start discussing the Republican Party and President Trump in more detail. For this part, I’ll adopt a similar structure to the first part, laying out the Party’s proclaimed values and goals, discussing general themes and highlights, and capping it off with ratings and the “convention bounce”.
Party Platform
Interestingly enough, the RNC decided to not adopt a new platform this year, opting instead to re-adopt its 2016 platform. The RNC claimed that it didn’t want “a small contingent of delegates [the Platform Committee] formulating a new platform without the breadth of perspectives within the ever-growing Republican movement.” The lack of an in-person convention, they claim, made it unwise to craft a full-fledged platform as it wouldn’t have represented the full Party. The Party argues that re-adopting the 2016 platform is an act of reasserting its support for President Trump and repudiating the policies of the Obama administration, which Joe Biden embodies.
There were also reports that even before the Party scrapped a new platform, the Trump administration sought to significantly condense the platform for 2020. This move was an effort to correct a mistake made in 2016, where he ceded the platform-drafting process to conservative delegates, who were mostly selected before Trump had solid control of the Party. The result was a platform that produced some embarrassing stories against Trump, such as its language signaling support for gay conversion therapy. To this end, the administration wanted to streamline the 2020 platform and cut out language designed to appeal to conservative activists, but could alienate ordinary voters.
The move was controversial, even among Republicans. On social issues, both conservatives and moderates within the Party find the 2016 platform a poor fit in 2020, where it doesn’t address new issues, such as defunding the police, and lingers on issues that have fallen out of favor, such as the platform’s opposition to same-sex marriage. And on more central issues, the platform makes no mention of the ongoing pandemic or racial tensions. Other Republicans argue that the move deprives the RNC an opportunity to celebrate President Trump’s accomplishments while in office, such as his 2017 tax cuts and the passage of the First Step Act, a bipartisan effort at criminal justice reform.
The Trump administration responded to this concern by supplementing the platform with a “second-term agenda”, released the day before the convention. This agenda is noticeably brief; however, President Trump plans to provide additional details on these policies in subsequent speeches. In regards to the pandemic, Trump promises to develop a vaccine by the end of 2020 and “return to normal” in 2021. His economic plan, which promises to create 10 million jobs in 10 months and create one million new small businesses; however, he doesn’t connect this to the pandemic recovery. No mention is made to the disparities faced by non-white Americans, but rather, Trump calls for defending the police by hiring more officers and increasing penalties for assaults on officers.
Immediately, the “platform” and stated values reflect fundamental differences in approach between the DNC and the RNC. Whereas the DNC developed a substantive platform on its issues despite the convention’s virtual format, the RNC viewed it as an excuse to forego a new platform altogether. While I mentioned earlier that the party in power typically isn’t compelled to change its approach, this contrast is more extreme than exhibited in previous election years. It demonstrates how the two parties differ not only on policy and worldview, but also on style and messaging.
Speakers and General Themes
Similar to the DNC, the RNC also implemented a virtual format; however, they were more committed to recreating the visuals and feeling of a traditional in-person convention. The Party was more reluctant than the Democratic Party to switch to a virtual format in the preceding months. Originally scheduled to take place in Charlotte, North Carolina, President Trump and the RNC found themselves in a quandary when the state’s Democratic governor Roy Cooper announced that the convention needed to be scaled down pursuant to public health orders. From there, while it planned to still hold official proceedings in Charlotte, the RNC attempted to find another host city that would be more hospitable to an in-person primetime program (including Trump’s acceptance speech). In June, the Party settled on Jacksonville, Florida as the location. Bearing in mind social distancing precautions, the Party attempted to spread out its program across multiple venues in Jacksonville rather than one large arena; however, even this plan fell through in mid-July as Florida experienced a massive surge in new cases. Whereas the DNC had downsized its convention starting in June, the RNC remained committed to an in-person convention for longer, only backing down after exhausting several options.
But even the virtual format wasn’t entirely virtual. Whereas the DNC left its guests to speak from their offices or homes, the RNC had most of its speakers deliver their addresses at the Andrew W. Mellon Auditorium in Washington DC. The cavernous venue, lined with American flags and domineering columns, not only resembles the grand scale of a convention hall, but presents a strong backdrop showcasing patriotism and America’s long history of greatness. While there were no spectators present, the venue still conveys the appearance of a traditional convention. Not to mention the fact that the speakers are given a podium and that many of their performances resemble those exhibited at a traditional convention (minus the applause) as they’re speaking to the rafters.
The most prominent example, of course, is the speeches by Melania Trump, Mike Pence, and President Trump, who each speak at outdoor venues with a live audience. Each of these speeches re-familiarized us of the applause and human connection seen in traditional conventions, as well as how the audience drags out the runtime; whereas Biden’s acceptance speech is only 25 minutes, President Trump’s speech lasts an hour. Similarly, the large crowds at these addresses, along with the apparent lack of social distancing, highlights the RNC’s view of the coronavirus pandemic as an inconvenience that can be quickly brushed aside rather than a deep-cutting crisis that currently permeates all aspects of daily living. I’ll discuss that more in a bit.
But for now, I’ll emphasize that the RNC very clearly wanted a traditional in-person convention. This is seen both through their reluctance to switch to a virtual format and their efforts to incorporate the fix-ins of a traditional convention even within that virtual format. One reason for this is the Party’s desperation for a significant polling bounce in light of President Trump’s deficit. The belief is that a virtual format would minimize the convention’s visibility, thus precluding any potential improvement in the polls. Whether this tactic was successful will be discussed later.
But the other reason for this hybrid style, I believe, is to take attention away from the pandemic’s impact on daily life. I can’t entirely blame them for this impulse. Obviously, President Trump’s handling of the crisis has been heavily derided, making the issue an electoral liability. But beyond the death toll and unemployment figures, the RNC understands that the pandemic is an inescapable reality for most people. There are constant reminders of the stark contrast between “pre-COVID living” and “post-COVID living”, between people wearing masks in public, sports events happening in empty arenas, shuttered businesses lining the street, and the seemingly endless barrage of news coverage painting a gloomy outlook of the future. Of course, there is a necessity for people to remain aware of the ongoing threat and diligent in helping the cause; however, the distance people have to their “normal lives” is an isolating experience and efforts to bridge that gap can be welcoming. To that end, the RNC is presenting a program that takes them away from this alien landscape, rejects the mainstream media’s mission to bog Americans down with a hopeless tomorrow (a common refrain in the Republican Party), and reconnects them with the great America they know and love. While this sounds more like an emotional play than a nuts and bolts policy argument, emotional and national pride remain powerful undercurrents in American politics.
In regards to the Convention itself, there are several themes to discuss. One of which is the merging of the presidency with political actions. To be fair, this theme also emerges in the DNC with former president Barack Obama denouncing President Trump in his address. Granted, Obama isn’t the first former president to criticize his successor; however, such acts nonetheless have presidents (or former presidents) exercising the prestige of the office for political purposes. President Trump, however, engages in various unprecedented actions during the convention.
During the RNC, President Trump completes two acts of public business. One is that he issues a pardon for Jon Ponder, a black ex-felon that has since founded a nonprofit dedicated to helping former prisoners re-enter society. The move was designed to showcase President Trump’s strong ties with the black community through a commitment to criminal justice reform. President Trump also oversaw a naturalization ceremony during the convention, another use of the White House. Another example is Secretary of State Mike Pompeo delivering remarks from Jerusalem while on official business at the RNC, which drew significant backlash for his break from a tradition of sitting Cabinet members not engaging in overt campaign activities while on official business. But perhaps the most egregious example is President Trump delivering his acceptance speech from the South Lawn of the White House, using the building as a backdrop before a packed crowd.
Each of these examples demonstrate the Trump administration leveraging the office of the presidency to demonstrate strength and highlight policy goals. Obviously, sitting presidents have been involved in campaign activities for decades with regards to their own re-election, but President Trump’s use of the office and conducting of official business during the RNC are an aggressive pivot not seen in previous conventions. Some have also questioned the legality of these actions, arguing that they violate the Hatch Act (a 1939 law that prohibits federal employees and Senate-approved appointees from engaging in most political activities while on duty). While such violations can be investigated by House committees and other bodies, it’s unlikely that any officials will face reprimand before the election. In any case, these acts demonstrate President Trump’s willingness to use the prestige of the office to aid in his re-election.
Next, let’s discuss the “rising stars” of the Republican Party and their role at the convention. First, there was Donald Trump Jr, the oldest of President Trump’s three children. Speaking on the first night, Trump Jr hit multiple bases, ranging from praise for his father’s handling of the pandemic to condemnation of “cancel culture” instituted by the left. His visceral tone and pointed assaults, especially those pertaining to cancel culture, are similar to those seen in his two books, Triggered: How the Left Thrives on Hate and Wants to Silence Us and Liberal Privilege: Joe Biden and the Democrats’ Defense of the Indefensible. While Trump Jr thus far has brushed aside speculation of a possible 2024 presidential run, this speech doesn’t do much to extinguish these rumors. Trump Jr is strongly positioning himself as a cultural warrior fighting off the cancel culture and the liberal encroachment of American values. Whereas President Trump is speaking more towards expanding America’s greatness on the world stage with his regular attacks on China and on illegal immigration, Trump Jr is focusing more on the greatness of American values (particularly those of social conservatism). Regardless of whether President Trump wins re-election this year, Trump Jr is jockeying to take the family mantle in future elections.
Another speaker I wanted to mention was Nikki Haley, Trump’s former UN ambassador. Also viewed as a potential 2024 candidate, Haley painted a strong picture to voters. She weaved together her UN experience with her story as the daughter of immigrants. Through this, she argues that as a non-white woman, she doesn’t believe America is racist and she has the leadership needed to uphold America’s prestige on the world stage. While her speech included plenty of pointed rhetoric against Biden, it was tempered by optimism in America’s future and a calm, steady demeanor that exudes quiet confidence rather than emotional outrage. This contrasts with Trump Jr and should these two be competing against each other in 2024, it’ll make for an interesting contest.
The final rising star I wanted to mention is Tim Scott, a black Republican senator from South Carolina. As a black Republican, Scott stands in a uniquely powerful position at the RNC to garner non-white support, a demographic that the Democratic Party has dominated for decades. Similar to Haley, Scott successfully introduced himself as a man from humble origins, growing up with a single mother and grandparents, struggled to keep his grades up in high school, and had mentors that believed in his potential. From there, Scott railed against “cancel culture” while claiming that America’s historical arc bends towards fairness and equality rather than oppression and disparity. Overall, Scott presented a version of the Republican Party that caters towards black Americans, that doesn’t take their votes for granted, and encourages them to think freely. Scott makes no mention of Black Lives Matter or the protests that have taken hold in recent months. In any case, the speech deservedly won praise and fueled speculation that Scott could make a future presidential run in his own right. Still, whether this overture towards black voters will be effective remains to be seen.
Outside what the future may hold for the Party, one theme that jumped out across the various speeches was the sheer extent of negative campaigning against Joe Biden and the “radical left”. Again, none of this is new. One would expect a key component of a campaign message to be why the other candidate shouldn’t win. After all, President Lyndon Johnson was able to secure a landslide re-election in large part due to negative ads against his opponent. But it still surprised me how much energy the speakers dedicated to denouncing the “radical left” even though their own Party is in power. Kimberly Guilfoyle was the most notable example of this, where occasional nods to President Trump’s achievements were overshadowed by proclamations that the “radical left” would destroy jobs, raise taxes, and silence conservative voices. One could tell that many of these speakers wished that Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren were the Democratic nominee instead, as they attempted to tack the socialist label onto the Biden-Harris ticket.
The prevailing argument isn’t that Biden himself is too far to the left, but rather that his inability to get things done on his own (despite his extensive Washington experience) makes him an ideal puppet for the establishment and progressives, such as Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Bernie Sanders, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. While this isn’t as easy to demonstrate as claiming that Biden is progressive himself, this argument intends to not only peg Biden with extreme policies, but also contrast him with President Trump’s relative position of strength.
Even so, I had the sense that the RNC was deeply uncomfortable with the current political landscape and was trying to win by trying to recapture its old arguments on socialism and the liberal elite. One example of this is the comparisons of the “socialism” that Democrats want to institute in America to the “socialism” enacted in other countries, such as China, Cuba, and Venezuela. While other speakers reference the dysfunction in these countries in passing, the RNC set aside several speakers that dedicated their entire remarks to the dangers of “socialism” with these other countries as framing devices. Maximo Alvarez is a Cuban exile that described his story of how he got to live the American Dream, away from a communist regime that deprives its people despite pitching promises of equality. Such testimony is emotionally gripping as it conflates increased government regulation with an extreme form of authoritarianism and insinuates that such policies would allow foreign influence to creep into American life, thus weakening the country. On the other hand, such comparisons can also be dismissed as ridiculous and cherry-picked. After all, while conservatives can expound the shortcomings of “socialism” in Cuba and Venezuela, liberals can easily point to the successes of extensive social programs in Scandinavia, Italy, and the United Kingdom. To this end, while such arguments could serve to mobilize the Republican base, they don’t deviate enough from arguments in previous years to significantly sway swing voters or moderates.
But this discomfort is also indicated in how the RNC discusses the two main election issues: the pandemic and ongoing racial tensions. First, whereas the DNC placed the pandemic front and center, the RNC mostly treated it as a minor obstacle that’s already under control. Multiple speakers argue that President Trump was swift to respond to the pandemic by closing down travel to China and by getting essential equipment out to front line healthcare workers. Aside from fact checkers labeling such claims as overstated, the pandemic itself was not among the top issues for the RNC. Speakers tout the immense economic gains exhibited during the Trump administration, noting historic low unemployment and growing wages. Although these figures predate the pandemic, the RNC exudes confidence that these indicators reflect essentially sound economic policies and that a second term would ensure that similar success would continue. The pandemic is treated as little more than a temporary roadblock that President Trump was already well on his way to solving.
This approach once again reflects the fundamental differences between the DNC and RNC in terms of which policies require substantive action along with which issues are necessary to ensure electoral victory. To them, the pandemic is an issue that can and ought to be minimized to promote their campaign message. That message being that America is already great in its ability to promote freedom and economic opportunity and that its destiny need not be defined by calamity, but its people’s ability to move on. Unfortunately, I do not believe this is an effective strategy. While I can understand the empowerment that conservative rhetoric can fill in people, this approach fails to adequately address the concerns of those that cannot escape the pandemic’s effects on life. Whether the RNC wants to admit it or not, the pandemic will be on voters’ minds in the election. On Night 1 of the RNC, 68.5 percent of Americans reported being somewhat or very concerned that they or someone they know will become infected with the coronavirus and 87 percent reported being somewhat or very concerned about the pandemic’s effect on the economy. Both these figures have remained steadily high for months and, unfortunately, have worked against President Trump. On Night 1, 58.4 percent of Americans disapproved of President Trump’s response to the pandemic. And considering the decision to not adopt a new platform, the RNC is creating the perception that President Trump and the Republican Party lack a substantive policy plan for addressing the pandemic beyond what has already been done.
Normally, when a candidate is weak on a given issue, his campaign has two options: divert voters’ attention away from the sore spot and onto an issue more suitable to the candidate’s strength or attempt to shore up weaknesses on that original issue to have more equal footing with the opponent. It’s clear by this point that President Trump and the RNC are taking the first option by shifting attention towards the race-related protests that have taken hold in recent months, the election’s second major issue.
More specifically, President Trump has argued that such protests have generated more violence and lawlessness than peaceful demonstration and respectful discourse. This was co-opted into the RNC’s message of supporting police officers (and labeling Biden’s agenda as “defunding the police”) and promoting “law and order”, a buzzword that has held potency in American politics since the 1960s and was extremely effective during the now heavily criticized “War on Drugs”. Indeed, multiple speakers characterized the Black Lives Matter protests as excessively violent and the Democrats as eager to gut law enforcement of any resources needed to quell this lawlessness. The biggest difference in approach between the DNC and RNC on this issue is that while the DNC argues that the focus should lie more on the underlying causes of the protests (i.e. police brutality and racial disparities in the criminal justice system), the RNC argues that the results of the protests create new problems that threaten the livelihoods of Americans residing in protest-ridden cities. The RNC is also quick to note that many of the cities affected by protests have Democratic mayors and extrapolate from this observation that electing a Democratic president would produce similarly destructive outcomes to all corners of the country.
None of this is to say that the RNC didn’t attempt to expand its base to include more black and non-white voters. In addition to Tim Scott, the Party included multiple non-white and Hispanic speakers. Some of them made a clear pitch for how the Republican Party is open to the interests and freedom of black people, citing its advocacy of school choice programs and economic opportunity zones. Others, such as former NFL running back Herschel Walker, talked about their personal relationships with the President, painting him as a compassionate leader that looks out for his family and listens to the concerns of people from different backgrounds. Through this, the RNC sought to soften the blow of its “law and order” rhetoric, claiming that it sympathizes with the intent of BLM’s message while disagreeing with its activities.
Overall, the RNC wants voters to focus more on these protests than the pandemic as the protests are a framing device for the apocalyptic dystopia that Joe Biden would bring upon America; a country whose greatness, quality of life, and stability are all behind it. But based on the evidence presented, this strategy doesn’t seem to be improving Trump’s re-election chances. In the weeks following the George Floyd killing, BLM enjoyed high support across multiple racial and ethnic groups while giving low marks for President Trump’s handling of the situation. And although that support for BLM has decreased over time, voters still favor Biden in his ability to handle public safety and manage race relations. As of now, voters are not buying the argument that President Trump is better suited for the interests of non-white Americans than Joe Biden. For them, Trump has been inflaming the racial tensions through his decision to send troops into the cities with protests. And based on his current strategy for handling race relations, it’s unlikely that Trump will change course anytime soon. Overall, the RNC and President Trump have shown an interest in making “law and order” the top issue in the election; however, they’ll be hard-pressed to win over moderates with their confused messaging.
Finally, as I did in the first part, I wanted to discuss the acceptance speeches of Vice President Mike Pence and President Trump. I find it interesting that Pence didn’t speak from the White House as both First Lady Melania and President Trump did, but rather from Fort McHenry in Baltimore. And as mentioned earlier, there was a small, but noticeable in-person crowd at the site. Similar to the Mellon Auditorium, it was an interesting set piece. Fort McHenry was the site of a battle during the War of 1812 that inspired Francis Scott Key to write “The Star-Spangled Banner”. Such a scene made for an interesting (albeit dark) metaphor comparing the British bombardment that struck the Fort in 1814 to the attacks on the Trump administration (and on American values) during the previous week’s DNC. A lot of Pence’s speech treads the same ground already covered by other speakers, such as arguing that President Trump rapidly expanded the economy, that he responded quickly to the pandemic, and that a President Trump would fundamentally alter America for the worse. The one interesting note I wanted to add was Pence’s claim that the Democratic agenda assumes that people are driven by envy rather than aspiration, and that such envy undermines confidence in the private sector to the point where people turn to the government to solve all their problems. Towards the end of the speech, Pence expresses confidence that Americans are capable of using their freedom to form communities and create opportunities even through crises like the pandemic. While this optimism is somewhat undercut by the visceral attacks on Biden, I do think Pence was able to deliver an uplifting speech for his base.
And then President Trump closed out the convention with an hour-long acceptance speech at the White House (followed by a fireworks display). In a lot of ways, this felt like a State of the Union Address, between Trump calling out his various honored guests both at the beginning and the middle of the speech. But on the whole, this didn’t deviate too much from President Trump’s typical speeches. He successfully generated energy from the crowd and his voter base, landed multiple attacks on Biden and the “far left”, and kept the fact checkers busy with misleading, exaggerated, or inaccurate proclamations. On the whole, this speech was par for the course for President Trump.
On the whole, it was very interesting to watch this year’s RNC. In a lot of ways, it presented a version of Trump, Biden, and America that’s world apart from the version we just last week at the DNC. I mentioned this earlier, but I want to reiterate how negative the tone of this convention was, especially considering that the Republicans are the party in power and have an incumbent’s record to celebrate. And while the convention made a case for why President Trump’s first term was successful, I felt it was overshadowed by the gloomy forecast they have for a Biden administration. Similar to the DNC, the RNC claims that the election is a battle for the soul of America, between an America where freedom and opportunity are cherished and an America where poverty and decline are imminent. This framing isn’t new and one’s eyes can roll when the “once in a lifetime, turning point” election seems to be four years. Still, this year saw a shocking uptick in the negative campaigning and posturing of “generational” leaders. I’m not sure how effective the RNC’s messaging will matter on the general election, but I think it at least did an effective job at prepping its existing base to turn out and vote.
Ratings and the “Convention Bounce”
Similar to the DNC, viewership for the RNC was down from its 2016 counterpart. Night 1 averaged 17 million viewers across the Nielsen networks, lower than the 19.7 million viewers from the previous week’s DNC and a 26 percent decrease from the 2016 RNC. But similar to the DNC, the RNC saw a general increase in viewership as the nights went on, culminating with 23.8 million viewers tuning into the final night.
When broken down by network, however, things get a bit more interesting. For the DNC, two networks were the clear favorites (MSNBC and CNN), but generally speaking, the distribution across the six major networks (ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox, MSNBC, NBC) was more level. For the RNC, however, viewership was much more centrally concentrated on one station (Fox). Figure 1 shows the differences in the average per station viewership for each night of the conventions. The figure in the parenthesis is the standard deviation. As shown below, not only is the average per station viewership lower for the RNC across every night, but the standard deviation is significantly higher across every night. Because the RNC’s viewership was more centralized on Fox, this lowers the viewership for other stations, thus lowering the average for the RNC. It also means that the viewership for Fox is significantly higher than (and further away from) the average across all six stations, resulting in a higher standard deviation.
Figure 1. Average Viewership per Station and Standard Deviation (in millions)
Night/Convention DNC RNC
Night 1 3.138 (1.333) 2.642 (1.987)
Night 2 3.076 (1.284) 3.003 (2.213)
Night 3 3.578 (1.839) 2.617 (1.998)
Night 4 3.630 (1.625) 3.309 (2.640)
What does this finding demonstrate? This finding is a microcosm of a broader trend in how Democrats and Republicans receive political news coverage. It’s well known by this point that Fox News has a conservative tilt, thus making it more palatable for Republicans to absorb. It’s also well known that conservatives distrust “mainstream media”, viewing it as an institution biased against their leanings and serving to “indoctrinate” Americans into blindly supporting government regulation and discouraging free thought. This distrust of “mainstream media” outlets is a critical component of Fox News’s appeal.
This finding reinforces this trend, while offering deeper insight into how Democrats as well as Republicans receive their news. On one hand, Fox News has become such a staple in Republican politics that its base almost uniformly uses it to understand current events and inform their views. They have grown attached to the various personalities that have programs on the station, such as Tucker Carlson, Laura Ingraham, and Sean Hannity. And as a result, Fox has become both a primary news source and a home, a dual role that other stations simply can’t fill for these viewers. But on the other hand, the more dispersed viewing experience across multiple networks for the DNC suggests that the “mainstream media” is a more complicated and decentralized institution than the hegemonic monolith that conservatives make it out to be. The “mainstream media” isn’t just one source, but multiple networks that each garner comparable ratings alongside each other. Indeed, liberals tend to rely on a greater number of news sources than conservatives and are less unified in their media loyalty. Although many conservatives claim that all these networks merely peddle the same message, the difference in media habits between them and liberals is reflected in the convention viewership.
Finally, I should discuss the convention bounce. I explained this topic in greater detail in the first part, but recent years have indicated that the bounce is shrinking and waning faster than it has historically. And I concluded that while the DNC ran a decent program that garnered significant attention, it failed to produce a meaningful increase to Joe Biden’s polling numbers.
For the RNC, I’m going to use the same methodology as I did in the first part, where I compare President Trump’s polling numbers and his margin relative to Biden across four separate time periods. The results are shown in Figure 2 below.
Figure 2. National Polling
August 17 (one week before RNC)- 42.8 (-8.4) 42.5 (-7.7)
August 24 (Night 1 of RNC)- 42.0 (-9.3) 42.3 (-7.8)
August 27 (Night 4 of RNC)- 42.2 (-8.4) 42.5 (-7.1)
September 3 (one week after RNC)- 42.9 (-7.3) 42.4 (-7.2)
As shown in the table, President Trump also didn’t make much of a dent in his national polling figures. Unlike Biden, where most of the week following the DNC was muddled by the RNC’s coverage, Trump had the last word in his acceptance speech and the week following the RNC didn’t have a counter-message of similar gravity. Even so, the RNC’s efforts at recreating the magic of traditional conventions failed to improve Trump’s standing nationally.
State polls, however, saw a slightly different story. While for the most part, the dynamics of the state races remained unaltered, a few swing states saw President Trump’s improve, even if only temporarily. In Florida, Trump’s FiveThirtyEight polling average increased from 44.7 percent to 45.4 percent in the observed period, which appears modest, but sagging support from Biden caused Trump’s deficit to decrease from 5.3 points to 3.3 points. Such a trend was also found in Pennsylvania, where Trump’s support increased from 44 percent to 45.3 percent and his deficit was slashed from 6.4 points to just 4.1 points. In an election where a handful of close states can decide the outcome, these movements aren’t nothing. Whether President Trump can keep these swing states competitive will be critical for his re-election. And while bounces are shrinking and fading, these shifts could generate momentum that can be instrumental in President Trump mounting another electoral upset.
Conclusion
Similar to the DNC, I found the RNC a worthwhile piece of television (even though I technically watched it on my phone). The RNC demonstrated its vastly different interpretations of the pandemic and race relations from those of the DNC, which correlate to the yawning gap between the two parties not only in what policies they support, but the way they view the world around them. It’s sobering to realize that unifying voters from different parties is more than just arguing the merits of policy proposals, but breaking through structural barriers in how they even view policy issues to begin with. At the end of the day, conventions are meant to mobilize one’s base while introducing swing voters to the types of arguments they can expect to hear during the general election campaign.
Now, that I’m done discussing the conventions, I’ll be spending the next two months following the general election. In the coming weeks, I plan to dive deeper into the swing states that will decide the election in November.
