Joe Biden Personal Health Fraud: Why the DNC Delegates Should be Able to Vote For Whomever They Want (Because they were misled)

 

Right now the only way Joe Biden will not be the Democratic Party nominee for president will be if he makes the decision himself to leave the race and free up the delegates to vote their conscience. The reason is a party rule. A rule decided by party leaders and attendees, requiring delegates to cast their vote on the first ballot for the person they are pledged to support. 

            Assuming this to be the case, Biden would get the nomination despite the fact that more than 60% of Democrats say he should step aside from the race.  This is at the same time when increasingly many party leaders are suggesting he do the same. But consider a different option. What if pledged delegates simply refuse to  vote for Biden claiming they were misled. What would happen?

            The core of the fight between Biden and perhaps the rank and file Democrats is a question about who the political party is.  Legally the courts have been confused over this question. Is the party its elected leaders or nominees such as Joe Biden here? Is it the leadership? Is it the primary voters? Is it those who identify with the party right now?

            It  seems to be the first two are viewing themselves as the party into a conflict with the latter two, with them increasingly saying Biden should not be the nominee.

            But consider a different way of thinking about the party and thinking about the choices that voters in the primaries or caucuses made and the delegates who were selected. What if we think of the party not as the leadership but as the broader membership? Should they not have a say in the direction of their party, especially based upon information that is more recent about Biden and the state of presidential race.

            Recently I had a conversation with a  Biden delegates  to the national convention and with primary voters. I asked them what they thought about Biden's debate performance, his interview with George Stephanopoulos, and what they're seeing in terms of Biden now.   They said had they known back then when they pledged as delegates or voted for him what Biden's mental and physical conditions or acuity were they might have made different choices. Moreover, they argued that things appear to have changed in the several months since the Minnesota primary and they should now be free now to cast a ballot based not upon being bound in pledged to vote for Biden according to the rules, but based upon what they know now and whom they believe would be the best candidate to leave their party. They insisted that they were the party and  neither Biden, nor the leadership.

            These comments were interesting and that they suggested that these delegates and voters wanted to make their decisions based upon information at hand now.  What has become clear is not simply that Biden's mental acuity has declined, but that stories indicate there were efforts to cover this up and to protect Biden and conceal his condition from the public.

            His real  health status, borrowing from the field of law, is a material fact that a voter or delegate would have wanted to  know.  One could argue that when voters cast their ballots across the country for Biden, or delegates pledged for him, they did so under false pretenses. It was not just that they didn't know information about his health but they were actually misinformed or misled.

            In law this is the concepts both fraud and detrimental reliance. We act or make decisions based upon information that we are given.  Detrimental reliance can be the basis of forming contracts in the law.

         But the concept of detrimental reliance also addresses the question of honesty. What if individuals are lied to  in order to induce them to enter into a contract.  Courts will invalidate such contracts because of fraud.

            Think of a decision of a voter to cast a ballot as a form of a contract. Or conversely, think of the same when it comes to a delegate. They voted or pledged for a candidate based upon information at hand. But what if they were lied to? What if fraud were committed? Should they nonetheless be still bound by that candidate  or by their pledge?  There should there be grounds to argue that their pledge or vote was made under false pretenses and the delegates should not be bound to their pledge according to party rules.

            What if then, the delegates simply chose not to support Biden. Is there a moral and legal argument to support them? Clearly Yes.

            If they were to choose not to support him what would happen next? Would the courts intervene and forced the delegates to adhere to the party rules? Unlikely. The Supreme Court has said that internal party matters are protected by the First Amendment and that generally, the court should not interfere in what happens. Were the delegates to the DNC simply to say they are no longer going to support Biden because of either change circumstances that makes supporting him no longer seem tenable or because they pledged for him under false pretenses, it does not appear that anything would prevent them from doing that.

            They delegate should be considered the party and should be free to do what they think they should be done in the best interest of the party and in furtherance of putting forward a candidate who they best believe can compete in November.

The Coming Clinton Post-Convention Bump and the Election of Fear

The DNC was a far better infomercial than the RNC and the reward should be a Clinton bump that erases the RNC Trump bump.    But hold on–much in the same way that the polls this week after the RNC gave a distorted picture of the race the same will be true next week.    The real election begins about August 8, and it will be an election about fear.

From beginning to end the DNC was a better made-for-TV event than the RNC.  And ratings prove it.  While all the results are not in, the DNC for its first two nights attracted about 4-5 million more viewers than the RNC.  I suspect the same will be for night three that featured Obama, Bill Clinton, and Biden, and also for the last night where millions (especially women) watched a historic night  on television.  Simply having more people watch the DNC than the RNC should translate into a larger potential bump.

But there are other reasons to think the bump might be stronger for Clinton than it was for Trump.  The DNC had better speakers and despite stories of some disgruntled Sanders people, all the Democrats came to the convention whereas many Republicans stayed away from the RNC.  Both the Republicans and Democrats are divided parties, yet by comparison the Republicans were and remain more divided.  Democrats did a better job constructing a positive narrative for America and generally  optimism plays better than pessimism, although they too did use fear–fear of Trump–as a major theme.  They did a great job criticizing Trump, making the case to why he should not be elected (Clinton herself was especially good on this).  Simply put, the Democrats messaged better and that should reap  benefits in terms of a post convention bump.

Purely guessing at this point, Clinton should be able to negate almost all of Trump’s bump, placing the election and polls about where they where prior to the two conventions–a race where Clinton is probably slightly ahead and still favored to win, although it will be close.  She still has the fund raising and organizational advantages she had before, and now perhaps with a slightly more unified party she perhaps is even a little stronger than she was before the conventions.  I will give her a 55-60% chance of winning.

But having said that, there are still reasons to think she can lose and there are opportunities that were missed at the convention.  First, for most Democrats the Wasserman-Schultz DNC email has passed.  But not for many critical Sanders voters and supporters.  Yes I have seen claims that 90% of the Sanders people are with Clinton now but many are young voters and I am still not sure they will actually turnout for her.

Second, indicative of Clinton’s worries about the liberal base turning out was her speech.  It was a speech to unify the party and not one that spoke to the general public and more particularly the swing or undecided voters who switched dramatically to Trump after the RNC.   The battle for the presidency is among the swing voters in the swing states and it is here that Clinton still has core problems.  Third, the speech was powerful in criticizing Trump but thin in offering her narrative about her vision for her presidency.  She offered a few brief micro-narratives about what she wants to do, but like Trump’s speech it too was thin on policy specifics.  It had some policy ideas but not details.  This is course has been the problem with her campaign all along–no grand narrative but a promise of incrementalism that is hard to excite anyone.  Fourth, it is also not clear that selling incrementalism and tinkering with the status quo sells in a year when so many people want change and anti-establishment is the theme of 2016.

Fifth, it is not clear her speech addressed the core trinity of problems with her personally–like-ability,  trustworthiness, and the passion gap.  Her speech seemed more to say I am better trusted to steer the country than Trump, but that of course assumes one likes the status quo and two that criticizing him is enough to move voters behind her.  In effect, Clinton too used fear as a basis of why people should voter for her.  For Trump it is fear of crime and terrorism, for Clinton it is fear of Trump and his finger on the nuclear code.   I am waiting for Clinton to update and rerun the famous 1964 LBJ Daisy  ad that was used so effectively against Goldwater.

My simple points are first that yes the DNC and Clinton had a good week and they will get a bump, but there are still underlying structural issues that Clinton faces that the convention and her speech did not resolve.   Second, whatever the polls say come Monday ignore them for a week and let’s look at what they say around August 8, to give us a real picture of what the race is like.  My sense is that this is an election about fear, with it being used to motivate both Trump and Clinton as reasons to  vote, but in slightly different ways.

Trump’s Bump–Why Nate Silver Finally Agrees with Me!

Time now for some shameless self-promotion.

For over a year I have said that Trump has a chance of winning the presidency and have said for at least two months that Clinton has a 55% chance of winning the presidency and Trump a 45% chance.  I also said last week anticipate a possible 3-6% convention bump for Trump after the RNC. It’s great to see that Nate Silver–the guru of data-driven political forecasting–finally agrees with me, and my prediction in the Bump was accurate.

According to the most recent CNN poll taken after the RNC Trump received a six point bump in the polls and now leads Clinton in the national population vote.  This poll reveals an even stronger bump than the CBS one released on Sunday.  Where the bump occurred, no surprise, was among swing or independent voters who had not yet made up their minds.   The CNN poll revealed a significant switch in support in swing voters from Clinton to Trump.  Of course there will be a convention bump for Clinton and therefore it makes sense to see where the polls are in the first or second week of August to assess where the race really is.

More significantly Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight has changed his election prediction model.  Prior to the RNC he gave Clinton approximately an 80% chance of winning.  Now he says that if the election were held today he would give Trump a 57.5% chance of winning.  More importantly, in terms of predicting the November 8 results, his “‘polls-only’ model shows the former secretary of state winning 53.7 percent to 46.2 percent, and the group's ‘polls-plus’ forecast, which predicts the outcome on Nov. 8 based on the economy, current polling data and historical trends, showed her winning 58.2 percent to 41.7.  All of this is a far cry from Silver and the media once saying Trump had a zero percent chance of winning.

None of this is good news for Clinton.  Yes the CNN poll and Silver prediction was made after the RNC and before the DNC, and certainly thinks can change.  But this poll and prediction also does not reflect the impact that the Wasserman-Schultz DNC-Clinton e-mail story will have.  Some of her supporters will argue that this e-mail story will fade in impotence and importance.  Wrong.  It has a long term corrosive impact on Clinton’s honesty and image much in the same way that the State Department e-mail story did.  It feeds in to the Trump narrative that Clinton is a liar and now a cheater. And with Clinton now asking Wasserman-Schultz to be a co-chair of her campaign it looks like a collusive quid pro quo political arrangement.

Ok so now the self promotion.  As early as July 2015 I suggested Trump could win the nomination.  I was very clear about that in December 2015 at a Minnesota School Board Association talk when I said it would be Trump and Clinton as the nominees.  And while I do not have it in print, for at least two months I have pegged the race as having Clinton with a 55% chance of winning.  I see her as having fund raising and organizational advantages, what I also factor into my predictions is something that Nate Silver and the pure data-driven predictors forget–candidate quality, narratives, and the mood of the country.  Clinton is a weak candidate with huge credibility like-ability issues, she lacks a real narrative for why she wants to be president, and she is the face of the establishment in a year where anti-establishment is the American Weltanschauung for many this year.
Clinton should win but I can see lots of reasons why she will not.  It is thus interesting to see how Nate Silver and the mainstream media and political pundits are finally agreeing with me.

The Unconventional and Conventional: Thoughts on the Republican National Convention

It was an unconventional convention.  By all traditional accounts the RNC was a failure .  US Today, Politco, FiveThirtyeight, Roll Call, and other media sources all question whether Trump will get a traditional post-convention bounce.  Of course we need to wait for survey data to answer that question.  But let’s consider the reasons to think why there might not be a bounce.

Since the time conventions were broadcast on television presidential candidates have received bounces.  The bounces are the product of several factors.  The first is simply intense media coverage of the convention where lots of people watch the convention.  Conventions are advertising or education for the public and they get to see the candidate, often times for the first time.  Second, conventions traditionally received significant ratings or viewership, and they presented a  positive, upbeat, and optimistic message that people liked.  Finally, they also were visually appealing with flags, balloons, and pageantry, and all this looks terrific on television.

The size of the bounce generally has fluctuated over time.  Polls suggest that Carter and Clinton received double-digit bounces, Obama and McCain received modest single-digit bounces in 2008 and the same was true for Obama and Romney in 2012.  Possible reasons for this is the declining  audience for political conventions and a hardening of partisanship and the declining percentage of the electorate whom one can describe as swing voters.  Thus, as fewer people watch conventions overall and with fewer voters who are subject to switching their votes conventions may matter less and therefore there is a smaller potential bounce.  Assume all this is correct, perhaps one might guess that Trump and the RNC should have produced perhaps a 3-5 point bounce.

So why might Trump not even receive this modest bump?  By all accounts the RNC was a disaster.  Conventions have become predicable and boring infomercials over time (which is perhaps why in part viewership has declined) where the goal is to present party unity, an optimistic forward-looking message, and to begin to speak beyond the base and speak to the broader public, especially the swing voters.  The RNC did none of that.  It presented a dark scary view of the world every night, especially with Trump’s speech.  The best conventions over time have been bright and optimistic–1984 Reagan’s “It’s morning in America”; 1992 Clinton’s “Don’t stop thinking about tomorrow’; 2008 Obama’ “Hope and change” and “yes we can.”  All this as absent last week.

The unity was not there either (except to oppose Clinton), and in many ways the party and Trump continued to talk to the base and bring party unity.  Pence was selected as VP to bring party unity, the speeches all seemed directed at appealing to Trump supporters and not to the swing voters.

In terms of choreography and scripting Trump’s speech was a mess.  It was too long and started too late.  The best speeches are ones that begin about 10:05 Eastern time.  They go 40 minutes.  That leaves 15 minutes for flag waving and balloons to drop.  There is then a five minute news wrap up and then the 11 PM news comes on and it is all repeated.  Trump who normally knows how to master the news cycle blew it.  Trump had better ratings that Romney in 2012 but it was lower than McCain in 2008.  I suspect viewership dropped dramatically after 11 PM eastern and the number of people watching the late news also was less than it could have been.  Finally, in terms of messaging, overshadowing Trump was news of his wife’s plagiarized speech and Cruz’s Brutus or Marc Anthony appearance.

Given the above, convention wisdom suggests a modest or perhaps no or even negative post-convention bounce for Trump.  But hold on, there are still reasons to think why longer term Trump may not be hurt by what happened.

First consider the message.  As noted political messages are historically positive not negative. Trump appealed not to our better natures (JFK’s inaugural line “Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country” or George H.W. Bush’s call for a “kinder and gentler America” seem quaint by comparison) but to base emotions and fear might still work.  The brilliance of his speech was to instill fear in Americans and then propose they only he can address those fears.  It was an appeal to the most basic Maslowian level of needs–address security–or an appeal to the most simple Freudian or Hobbesian concerns about fear and security.  In addition, Trump stole a page out of marketing and advertising–both of which often appeal to our sense of fear, anxiety, or dread.  Trump preyed upon the anxieties of an America (or a slice of it) fearing terrorism, police shootings, immigrants, and who knows what.  Fear and prejudice are powerful forces, and he tapped into them much in the same way Nixon did in 1968.

Don’t count out Trump yet.  Yes Democrats look at the RNC and the polls and are giddy.  Clinton  is a certainty.  Again don’t bet on it.  Clinton’s close up is coming this week.  She is banking on the  conventional to win it for her.  She picked an unexciting Tim Kaine as running mate, signaling both that she is assuming he helps with swing state Virginia and swing voters.  Her selection indicates she will run right to her party and that she assumes that the Sanders wing has no where to go and will vote for her out of fear of Trump.  Her convention will be tightly scripted and boring, following the playbook for conventions for the last generation or two.  Maybe boring and unexciting will win the day.

But Clinton needs to do several things next week.  She still lacks an narrative and explanation for why she should be president.  Her speech needs to articulate that.  She needs to address her honestly, credibility, like-ability, and lack of enthusiasm for her problems.  The e-mail controversy damaged her, and her negatives in the high 50s are a liability.  She needs to provide a reason why voters should show up and vote for her and not simply stay home and not vote for either her or Trump.  Maybe she too will use fear of Trump to motivate voters, and maybe that will be enough, yet Clinton does seem to be counting on the fact that playing conventional politics will triumph over Trump’s  unconventional in a year when the conventional seems under assault.

Convention(al) Wisdom: Why Political Convention Locations Don't Matter

Conventional wisdom pervades presidential politics, even in 2016.  Among widely held  tales by politicians and pundits is that a political party's placement of a national convention in swing states such as Ohio for the Republicans or Pennsylvania for the  Democrats this year  can affect presidential voting, flipping it to its presidential candidate or ensuring that it will be held by them. Second, that the selection of a vice-presidential candidate from a specific state as a favorite son (or daughter) will deliver its electoral votes to a presidential ticket.   Both beliefs are wrong.
As Republicans and Democrats selected a convention site for the 2016 presidential election, each certainly considered location as a major factor, as demonstrated by the selection of Philadelphia by the Democrats and Cleveland by the Republicans.  In 2012 during the general election, Pennsylvania was seen as a battleground state, one of the few states that at least one of the presidential candidates visited after the general election.  Pennsylvania, with its 20 electoral votes, is a state Democrats want to hold in 2016, thereby endorsing the wisdom of holding their national convention, the DNC, there.
Ohio is the critical swing state to the electoral success of presidential candidates.  Obama won it in 2008 and 2012, Bush in 2000 and 2004, and Clinton in 1992 and 1996.  If the convention location thesis is correct, then locating the Republican National Convention in Cleveland makes sense.
If convention location matters, the perfect example is the placement of the 2008 DNC in Colorado.  Democrats went from losing the state in 2004 by 4.7 percent of the popular vote to winning it with Barack Obama in 2008 by a margin of 8.95 percent– a pickup of 13.65 percent.  Yet Obama’s 2008 victory in Colorado seems to be the exception.  For the most part, there is no location benefit.  Look to the 2008 RNC in St. Paul, Minnesota.  Republicans, including Minnesota’s then-governor Tim Pawlenty, thought Minnesota was a purple state and that holding the convention there might turn it red.  It did just the opposite.  In 2004 Kerry won Minnesota by 3.5 percent, Obama then won it by 10.24 percent.  The Republicans did 6.75 percent worse in Minnesota by holding a convention there.
Since 1948, there have been 17 presidential elections with 34 national conventions for the Democrats and the Republicans.  Of those 34, there was no change in who won the state compared to the previous election in 23, or about two thirds, of the situations. There are only five instances of apparent lifts producing a flip.  In 1976 and 2008 the Democrats held conventions in New York and Colorado, both of which flipped from the previous election cycle when they had gone GOP. In 1948, 1952, and 1968 Republicans held conventions in Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Florida, which flipped from the previous election cycle when they had voted for the Democratic candidate.
Conversely, there were six times when convention locations seemingly hurt a party’s prospects in the state.  In 1948, 1952, 1980, and 2012, Democrats held conventions in North Pennsylvania, Illinois, New York and North Carolina but lost those states even though they had won them the previous election cycle. In 1960 and 1964, Republicans held conventions in Illinois and California and lost them even though they had won the last time. Five states flipped, six states counter-flipped, and 23 states saw no change..  If anything, there is a slightly better chance of a party losing the state by hosting presidential convention than by not doing so.
A second myth is that Clinton or Trump should select as their vice-president someone from a critical swing state such as Florida, Ohio, Virginia, or Colorado, believing that such a candidate will help them deliver their home state for the presidential ticket. There is potential evidence suggesting vice-presidential candidates might help this way.  Bill Clinton did win Tennessee in 1992 and 1996 with Gore on the ticket after Bush won the state in 1988.  However, Paul Ryan did not deliver Wisconsin for Romney in 2012. Since 1948, the party of the vice-president won 24 or 70.5% of the home state contests and lost 10.   Yet look at the flip factor--did the party of the vice-president change the results from the previous election--then there are only six examples of flips (17.6%).  These are in 1952, 1956, 1960, 1976, 1980, and 1992 where the presence of favorite sons appeared to flip the state's popular vote from the previous election. There was also one counterflip, in 1960 where the presence of Henry Cabot Lodge's appearance as the Republican vice-presidential nominee for Richard Nixon did not produce a Massachusetts win.   Six examples of flips and one counterflip provide flimsy evidence of a favorite son factor.
Perhaps winning a state does not tell the whole story.  One needs to consider the selection of the vice-presidents or convention locations  as making the state more competitive, forcing the opposing party to devote more  resources there to hold it.  The evidence does not support that support this claim.
Convention locations and favorite son or daughter vice-presidential candidates do not matter. Shouldn't advisors and pundits stop making political decisions based on myths and start making them on what matters -- the amenities of the host city and the qualifications of the running mate to serve as vice-president, and, if disaster strikes, as president of the United States?

The DNC v. Sanders: Why Bernie is in Trouble

Sanders is in trouble.  And it is not simply the problem with staffers hacking Clinton’s voter database.  The problem runs deeper, much of which has little to do with Sanders, per se.  Instead,  the forces that are perhaps beginning to do Sanders in are entirely predictable and resident in the nature of leftist politics in America and its relationship with the Democratic Party.

The Party v. Sanders
Democrats have a long history of animosity with socialist candidates.  Yes many were elected at the local level in Minnesota and Wisconsin in the 1920s and 1930s, but one should also remember how fiercely Democrats and Liberals often joined in the communist witch hunts of McCarthy during the 50s.  Out of fear of being red-baited or considered pinkos, Democrats were slow to condemn what he did.
But even at a less extreme level, it comes as absolutely no surprise that the Democratic National Committee (DNC), Deborah Wasserman Schultz, and the establishment Democratic Party are pressing the scales and favoring Hilary Clinton over Bernie Sanders.  Face it, two things are going on here. First, remember that Bernie is not a Democrat–he is an independent and self-described democratic socialist running within the Democratic Party.  He and his supporters are challenging the hierarchy and establishment of the Democratic Party.  He is to the Democrats as Trump is to the Republicans in so many ways.  He has not build up favors within the party, he is not married to a former president of the US who was a Democrat, and he is not beholden to the same special interests that so much of the party, including Clinton is.  The current Democratic Party is a pro-business corporate entity, this is not who Sanders is.  Given all of that, should one be surprised that the party would shun him.
Sanders is part of a long line of progressives nationally and in Minnesota taking on the Democratic Party establishment.  Think of Eugene McCarthy to Johnson, or Howard Dean v. John Kerry.  Or even consider Jesse Jackson in 1988.   He and hie delegates were shunned in Minnesota and across the country.  Party leaders and regulars are basically conservative.  They go with incumbents over challengers, old faces as opposed to new, and are loath to accept those who have not paid their dues or sworn their allegiance to party endorsements and traditions.  Political parties are insular, often unable to change, adopting a strategy that is more protective of their interests than that of what the people want.  In effect, often leaders think “they” are the party and not the people who attend caucuses or vote.  For years I have levied this criticism against the Minnesota DFL–a party still often living in the past, basking in the legacy of Humphrey, Freeman, Mondale, and Wellstone, not realizing that times have changed and that the keying to winning is developing a strategy and narrative that will be broader than one which is only good for winning in Minneapolis and St Paul.  Robert Michels classic Political Parties, published a century ago, described the oligarchical tendencies of political parties, well described this phenomena, and it still worth reading.

 War and Socialism
Sander’s other problem is his narrative.  He speaks of the problem of class politics–the gap between the rich and the poor, the power of corporations in American society. It is not a message of fear.  Contrary to Trump, he does not blame the rational perception of many that economically it is worse for them now than in the past by attacking Muslims or immigrants.    His message is one of working and middle class solidarity.  Yet the events in Paris and San Bernardino have eclipsed his theme of economic justice.  In so doing, he would not be the first progressive candidate felled by this.
The late nineteenth and early twentieth century socialist parties of Europe were derailed by World War I and nationalism that pitted workers against workers across the continent.  In the US, WW I ended Eugene Debs’ career as it did too for Norman Thomas with WW II.  War is a great way to break up progressive politics.  Find another enemy, fight another war, distract workers from their economic plight by playing on and to  their fears and prejudices.  War is a wonderful to divert peoples’ attention from domestic issues.  George Bush did that with Afghanistan and Iraq.  “You need to wait because we need to fight a war and you need to sacrifice for the war effort.”  This is what we are again hearing.  Sanders’ message of economic justice is getting eclipsed and drowned out by the drum beat of war that not only the Republicans are sounding, but so is Clinton.  No she is not saying send ground troops in yet, but there is no question that her political status is benefitted by a war.

The Arrogance of Power
Perhaps the only bright side for Sanders is Clinton’s continued sense of entitlement and arrogance. Clinton’s recent debate performance was strong, but she talked right past Sanders and O’Malley.  She and her supporters still act as if she is entitled to the presidency–it is her time, she is due it.    Yes Clinton has a lot to offer and she is the establishment candidate for the party, but she has yet to offer a compelling narrative to why she should be president.    She has lots of positions and views on subjects, but there is no compelling and overarching narrative for her presidency.  She needs to solve that problem.
Sanders has a narrative and an argument, but alas, it may not be enough.  With less than 45 days to the Iowa caucuses Clinton appears to be consolidating her hold there, New Hampshire, and beyond. Yes 45 days is an eternity, and yes surprises can happen during that time, but right now Sanders is in trouble, with much of his problems no surprise given what has happened in the past with really progressive candidates who take on the establishment in the US.

Reviewing the DNC: Obama’s Missed Opportunity and the Road Ahead

The two national conventions for the Republicans and Democrats are over.  Who had the better show and benefited the most form their rival performances?  The simple answer is that Obama came out better, but it was because of him.

The RNC and DNC were theaters in contrast that bore powerful similarities.  The RNC seemed less about Romney and more about its future stars Rubio, Christie, and Ryan.  The best night for the RNC was Wednesday with the VP nominee Ryan speaking.  Romney gave his best speech in a long time but it was still was far from a home run.  He ended his speech with the Reaganesque challenger of asking if we are better off now than four yers ago, forcing Obama and the Democrats to have to respond to it. 

Did Romney get a post-convention bump?  All indications are that there was little bump.  Polls suggested at most a one or so point bump.  Perhaps this was due to the fact that so few watched the convention.  Those who watched were the hardcore, those whose minds were probably already made up.  It is doubtful the undecided watched since there was little news or theater here. In fact, surveys suggest less that 5% of the public is undecided at this point, again showing that there was little potential for much bump.

The DNC had two great nights.  Ms. Obama and Mayor Castro were greater speakers for the president and for why the election mattered.  Ms. Obama did what Ms. Romney failed to do–put a more human face on her husband.  Castro rocked, clearly setting himself up for the future.  It was like watching a young Obama again.

Night two was Bill Clinton.  It was an amazing speech, even if long (as expected).  He made the clearest case again Romney and the Republicans and also seemed to give credit to his wife and perhaps help position here for 2016 should she decide to run.

Obama thus entered the third night after two previous evenings of great performances.  He merely needed to give his usual great speech to follow up and it would have been a hat trick for the DNC.  Obama failed.   The speech, in the words of Tom Brokaw, was “workmanlike.”  It was competently given but uninspiring.  Obama failed to do what he needed to do–to inspire and make the case for four more years.  He and the other Democrats made the case for why the Republicans should not be given a chance, but like the GOP and Romney, the case for electing him was not given.  Biden too was similarly flat.

Obama should thank Clinton, Castro, and his wife. Were it not for their strong performances the convention would not have helped him.  There are some indications of a small post-convention bump and some signs that his approval rating went up.  Whether this is real or merely temporary, and how the Friday unemployment numbers stunt the bump is yet to been seen.

Bottom line–the two conventions really did not change much.  Romney still has a personalty problem and Obama has a problem making the case for four more years.  Neither candidate is as inspiring as their future leaders seem to be, and both will get their bases out but not in an enthusiastic way.  Both candidates need narratives and reasons for their candidacies.  It is unlikely that either much moved swing voters.

Looking to the future, the DNC and RNC need to change to be relevant.  No one watches and they are not interesting.

Looking to the future, the number of swing states is shrinking.  Polls suggest Pennsylvania is out of reach for Romney and he seems to be pulling out his ads from there.  Ohio seems to be solid for now for Obama and this is really the state where the presidential fight is all about.  If we look at the approximately eight or so swing states in play, the two campaigns are looking to move a  few million (maybe five million or less voters).

A Reagan Redux Election?
One thing is clear about this election–it is a tale of two Reagans.  Romney is running Reagan’s 1980 campaign against Jimmy Carter–asking if we are better off now than four years ago.

Conversely, Obama is or needs to run Reagan’s 1984 campaign for re-election-declaring it’s morning in America.  He needs to look to the future and convince the voters that he has turned things around and that the country is moving in the right direction.  Given the cloudy economic news and uncertainty, this may be difficult to do.  However, “Morning in America “ is certainly a better message than “Foreward.”