Which convention was more "successful?"

[sg0508]

And "success" can be however you define it (whether it be securing votes, having a clearer message, more optimism, etc, etc)

[5280/East California]

Where's the LNC option?

[Clinton 2016]

The DNC. no racist peanut attacks,no interurpted by a hurricane. the
mood at the RNC seemed
hateful and there was nothing but old white dudes there.

[patrick1]

The DNC and it isn't close.

[Lief]

Obviously, the DNC was objectively just a much better produced, organized and performed convention. Too early to tell which was most successful though.

[patrick1]

Obviously, the DNC was objectively just a much better produced, organized and performed convention. Too early to tell which was most successful though.

Well, if Romney wins it certainly won't have anything to do with the RNC.

[Pacific Justice IBDD]

DNC

[Lief]

Obviously, the DNC was objectively just a much better produced, organized and performed convention. Too early to tell which was most successful though.

Well, if Romney wins it certainly won't have anything to do with the RNC.

Good point.

[Progressive Realist]

The DNC had serious criticisms of the Republican Party featured prominently, but more importantly, the record of the Democratic Party and President Obama was laid out clearly. The facts are on their side.

The RNC? Not so much. Ryan's speech alone far exceeded the Lie Limit.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

The DNC was much more energetic than the RNC. It was probably better produced, too. But the only thing that might have had an impact on the race this week was Bill Clinton's speech.

The RNC showed us a different Romney. He needed that. It helped him. The Tampa Convention was more successful because it achieved more for the candidate, and I think that's pretty clear. Yes, Romney was coming from behind so it was easier for him to make ground... but I really think the RNC made the Republicans look friendly and practical.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The DNC had serious criticisms of the Republican Party featured prominently, but more importantly, the record of the Democratic Party and President Obama was laid out clearly. The facts are on their side.

The RNC? Not so much. Ryan's speech alone far exceeded the Lie Limit.

You know it's pretty obvious which side did better when the hacks in "the media" decided to mention Monica Lewinsky as proof that Clinton lies instead of referencing his speech.

[King]

We'll see in the polls this weekend.

[J. J.]

The DNC. no racist peanut attacks,no interurpted by a hurricane. the
mood at the RNC seemed
hateful and there was nothing but old white dudes there.

No, just booing God.  

And I never knew Condi was a white dude.

It was almost even.  The framing of the DNC was a little bit better than I though it would be.  Both conventions lacked even the specifics of the 2000 conventions.

It's the economy stupid.  The RNC was marginally better at that, but not greatly better.

[Likely Voter]

The goal of the RNC was to humanize Romney and they succeeded.

The goal of the DNC was to fire up the base and it appears to have done that.

but DNC was better produced and had higher ratings so it gets my vote

[ShadowOfTheWave]

For me, the dem one, because it changed my vote as of now. Then again most voters are probably more informed than I am, I don't usually pay much attention to the details of legislation so I learned alot from the convention about what Obama has done and it's effects.

[Progressive Realist]

Anyone who says that the RNC was more successful, as of now, is being a dishonest hack.

[All life is a blur of Republicans and meat.]

DNC, no contest. The voice vote thing sucked though.

[LINCOLN REPUBLICAN]

The RNC certainly.

No RNC delegate threatened to kill their oppponent.

[後援会]

What convention was "better"? Probably the DNC. Generally stronger primetime speeches.

Which convention was more "successful"? Probably the RNC. Because Romney needed a successful RNC a lot more than Obama did. Thus is the nature of being a challenger.

[yourelection]

I should have posted here. I just added a link to a blog article I just wrote about the conventions that goes better with this post. So inspite of this looking like spam I'll post it here as well.

To sum things up I would say neither convention was much better than the other. The democrats, though, seem to orchestrate things better and the speakers also did a better job.

The direct comparison Biden vs. Ryan : Ryan on top, Obama vs. Romney : Obama much better

For those interested here is my blog article
http://www.yourelection.net/2012/09/the-presidential-nominating-conventions/

[Yank2133]

What convention was "better"? Probably the DNC. Generally stronger primetime speeches.

Which convention was more "successful"? Probably the RNC. Because Romney needed a successful RNC a lot more than Obama did. Thus is the nature of being a challenger.

How the hell was the RNC a success?

The only thing people remember from is an old man talking to a chair.

[I Can't Get That Sound You Make, Out Of My Head]

Both worked but the DNC was better.

[President Marokai]

In terms of what benefitted the candidate more, it's too early to tell because it'll take a few more days for polling to start reflecting anything, but as Lief said, it's basically impossible to argue that the Democratic convention didn't have better speeches, better speakers, better production, better stagecraft, and a more unified and pointed direction of their message. And if the response from the fact-checkers on Bill Clinton's speech (or rather, the lack thereof) is any example, the truth is simply on the Democrats' side.

[True Federalist]

That the DNC was able to garner more eyeballs than the RNC, despite having to contend with the NFL season opener, is the clearest indication that it was more successful.

[J. J.]

That the DNC was able to garner more eyeballs than the RNC, despite having to contend with the NFL season opener, is the clearest indication that it was more successful.

I'll add this a corollary to J. J.'s Second Rule of Elections.