Conventional Thinking
I realize foreign policy events are the subject of the day, but you'll have to excuse me because I'm running about a half a week behind. Last week I attended the Democratic National Convention, but unfortunately fell ill during the event (something about wandering around in pouring rain and then walking into frigid air conditioning, perhaps). Which is why I'm running behind this week.
But an important question arose during the convention season, which I do feel is worth exploring. It was phrased many ways but can be boiled down to: have national nominating conventions outlived their usefulness? Like all philosophical questions, the answer depends on your definition of terms, but it's one at least worth asking. Put another way, the chatter among the pundit class kept coming back to the question of whether future conventions might be condensed into a single-day event, rather than multi-day extravaganzas.
Part of this thinking ("conventional thinking" one might call it, if one were looking for a cheap laugh) most likely stems from the fact that professional pundits (those on expense accounts, in other words) were visibly worn out in Charlotte. The Republican National Convention and the Democratic National Convention appeared on each others' heels this year, with absolutely no break between the two. This wasn't a problem for the partisans on either side, but it was indeed exhausting for the professional journalists covering both events. I spoke to very conservative and very liberal "A-list" media folks who all said almost exactly the same thing: "The last two weeks have been such a blur, it's hard to keep it all straight in my mind." Which leads to wondering if the media won't eventually pull back on their own coverage -- further than they already have, that is.
Media sleep deprivation aside, though, many have already commented how the national nominating conventions have morphed over time to become nothing more than protracted infomercials for each party. 'Twasn't always thus, however. The first public national party conventions took place in Andrew Jackson's time, and up until roughly the last half of the twentieth century, the conventions actually had a purpose -- fighting over who would win the party's nomination for president and vice president. It wasn't until the 1970s that party primaries and state caucuses would completely overtake the older method of making the decision at the convention itself.
In the early days, the conventions were raucous events. The intrepid H.L. Mencken wrote about the 1932 Democratic National Convention which first nominated F.D.R. as if reporting on a city under siege:
The all-night session was a horrible affair and by the time the light of dawn began to dim the spotlights, a great many delegates had gone back to their hotels or escaped to the neighboring speakeasies. When the balloting began shortly after 5 a.m. scores of them were missing and the fact explained some of the worst delays in the voting....
The way the tide of battle was going was revealed dramatically by the attitude of the leaders on the two sides. All during the infernal night session the Roosevelt men had been trying to wear out and beat down the opposition, and to push on to a showdown. They opposed every motion to adjourn, and refused every other sort of truce. They wanted to get through with the speeches as soon as possible, but they were confident enough to be still willing to match speech with speech, and they did so until daylight.
The pageantry back then wasn't quite as scripted as today. It was equally zealous, though, if not more so. This was because each candidate had to stage their own shows of strength, rather than presenting a unified face of the "party as a whole" to the public:
[A]ll of the nine candidates had to be put in nomination, and when they had been put in nomination all of them had to be seconded, not once, but two, four, six or a dozen times. Worse, their customers had to parade obscenely every time one of them was launched and some of the parades ran to nearly an hour.
Here, one gang helped another. The Texans, who had a band, lent it to every other outfit that had a candidate, and it brayed and boomed for Ritchie, Byrd, Reed and Al Smith quite as cruelly as it performed for Garner. This politeness, of course, had to be repaid by its beneficiaries, and with interest. The Byrd band, clad in uniforms fit for Arctic exploration, did not let up for hours on end. And while it played one tune, the band of the Texans played another, and the official band in the gallery a third, and the elephantine pipe-organ a fourth. At one stage in the uproar a male chorus also appeared, but what it sang I can't tell you, nor which candidate it whooped and gargled for.
There is one constant from the 1930s to today's conventions: sheer exhaustion. Although our partisan forebears seem to have had a lot more stamina than what we see today, it must be admitted. Mencken reported on the next day's events:
The actual nomination of Roosevelt after the turmoils of the all-night session went off very quietly. The delegates appeared in the hall all washed up, with clean collars, pressed suits and palpable auras of witch hazel and bay rum. The scavengers of the stadium had swept up the place, the weather had turned cool and there was the general letting down that always follows a hard battle. No one had had quite enough sleep, but everyone had had at least some.
But, back then, they had actual battles to fight. There are no such battles today, or at least there haven't been for quite some time. The press always tries to gin up a good floor fight (pushing the story that Hillary Clinton or Ron Paul will surely cause an enormous fracas), but these never seem to materialize, or fizzle at best. Surprising moments still happen at modern conventions (say, an old man talking to an empty chair...), but there are no surprises left when it comes to the actual nominations.
So are conventions even necessary any more? Wouldn't a single night serve the same basic purpose? Perhaps that's where we're heading. Modern conventions have built the tradition of a four-day event. This year, however, both conventions essentially lasted three days. The Republicans had planned on four days, but in the end were forced (for the second straight time in a row) to cancel the first day of their convention schedule due to a hurricane. The Democrats only planned on three days from the beginning, explaining that since they had an unopposed incumbent, there wasn't a whole lot of reason to stretch it out to the full four days.
The news networks have cut back drastically on their coverage of the national conventions, and may in fact be encouraging the parties behind the scenes to tighten things up to make for better television. The broadcast television networks used to cover every minute of both national conventions -- "gavel to gavel" -- but have left this sort of obsessive coverage to cable television for years now. Instead, the networks now broadcast a single hour per night. It'd be pretty easy to imagine the network executives sitting down with the Republican and Democratic convention planners and say "we're cutting you down to three nights' coverage"... or two... or even one (the West Wing television show had an episode which predicted this years ago, I should mention).
After all, what is really left to cover as "news" at the conventions? Floor fights over a platform document nobody will read and no politician will take seriously? Mitt Romney may have set a record this year by disavowing portions of his party's platform almost before it came out. Did anyone care, or even notice? Democrats had a minor fracas over their platform, but again, the public largely yawned over the hype in the media.
The nominees are already chosen by the time the conventions roll around. The platforms are all but ignored. What this leaves is hour upon hour of speeches by partisans -- an extended campaign commercial, and nothing more. The news media is already getting tired of this (both figuratively and literally), especially when it happens back-to-back.
Now, personally, I don't mean to sound ungrateful. This was my first political convention, and the first time I've been given official press access to such important political events. Both were more than a little overwhelming, I must admit. It was, without a shadow of a doubt, the biggest party I've ever attended in my life, and (full disclosure, as it were) it was a wildly enjoyable experience. The only other conventions I've ever previously attended were three years of Netroots Nation (the yearly blogger shindig formerly known as "Yearly Kos"). But 3,000 bloggers, politicians, lobbyists, and other assorted schmoozers isn't quite the same thing as tens of thousands of Democrats and media descending upon a city for a week. There were reportedly 15,000 members of the media inside the convention center -- a stunning number, you have to admit. For every delegate, there were three or four media to interview them. Mind-boggling.
The parties were legendary, most of them held privately out of the view of the public. Drinking went on until the wee hours every single night. Money flowed into the economy of Charlotte. A good time was (mostly) had by all. Contacts were made, networking happened, friendships and alliances were struck or renewed all around. This, it seems, is the true purpose of the convention -- a gathering of the partisan tribe, to plan strategies which will reach into the next four years. And it's hard to see all of this sort of activity crammed into a single night, just because of the sheer volume of backslapping and gladhandling.
But I could easily see that while the weeklong party seems self-sustaining, at some point the national news media may declare that they've had enough. A red line may be drawn in future where only three days will get nationwide network television coverage... and then two... and then perhaps one. It is conceivable that the public will begin to see less and less of the conventions, unless they actively seek such coverage out in the more obscure media outlets.
Even if this does come to pass, however, I'd be willing to bet that the conventioneers themselves aren't going to accept such a foreshortened schedule. No matter how long the official convention is scheduled for, my guess is that the politicos, the partisan precinct-walkers, the powerbrokers, and the peddlers of influence will still drink till dawn for days on end. Even if the pundits in the press cut back their coverage, the party will still roll on for a full week's time.
After all, Rome wasn't bought in a day. So to speak.
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at Business Insider
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
CW
I don't believe your illness for a second - there was no rain at the DNC last week - this is just your attempts to continue the liberal media conspiracy cover-up that Obama couldn't fill a stadium ;)
Conventions are, of course, massive infomercials. I think this year they seemed more pointless than years gone by because the amount of money involved in the election is much greater than ever before - so because of this the candidates have had considerable media exposure already.
But they still served a purpose in introducing Ryan to the media/public (didn't go so well) as well as Ann Romney. In addition to this lesser figures in the party try to make a name for themselves in front of a national audience (particularly those looking to run in 2016). Wasn't it the DNC 2004 where Mr Obama himself made his name?
I don't know ... I like the conventions. Wouldn't want to be at one, though.
Wasn't it the DNC 2004 where Mr Obama himself made his name?
Indeed it was.
And ya'all don't find it strange even the SLIGHTEST bit strange that a guy went from being a complete unknown to POTUS in four years??
I realize it's futile to ask ya'all to really ponder about Oh Great And Powerful Barack The First...
But it sure would be nice to see some really unbiased comments about Obama...
{sssiiiiiggggggghhhhhhhh}
CW,
You asked me before about the GOP convention and whether I was miffed or not about no mention of the troops..
I have to say now, though, that I would MUCH prefer no mention of the troops than to see a "tribute" to the troops with much fanfare about the Russian Black Sea fleet! :D
{cue indignant howls from the peanut gallery}
:D
Michale.....
Michale
One thing is for sure: Obama has an amazing election record. There is definitely some variance in there and he is on a hot streak - this is his 2nd Presidential election against an extremely weak ticket. I would definitely like him to pick my lottery numbers as I don't think he could've imagined his opponents being this bad in a Presidential election - never mind being this bad two Presidential elections in a row!
2008 - 'I can see Russia from my door!'
2012 - 'Russia is our no.1 geo-political foe'
Must be tough to deal with opponents this bad!
Must be tough to deal with opponents this bad!
If what you say is true then Obama should be wiping the floor with Romney..
Rasmussen has Romney in the lead right now...
So, either Obama is not as good as you claim or Romney is not as bad as you claim..
Either way, yer claim is crap...
Michale.....
RCP
Obama +3.5
4 years ago:
McCain +2.3
The Romney/Ryan is actually performing worse than the McCain/Palin ticket. Conservatives are already starting to abandon him (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81132.html)
Rasmussen has Romney up over Obama..
And since you swear by single polls (at least when they say what you want to hear) we'll go with Rasmussen... :D
Those who live by the sword get's whacked in the arse by the sword... :D
Conservatives are already starting to abandon him
Yea, you keep thinking that.. It'll make the look on your face on 7 Nov so much funnier.. :D
Michale....
If you can find one time where on Romney vs Obama national poll numbers I have sworn by one single poll and not the RCP average I will from now until the entire election post only pro-Romney comments on here lol ;) ESPECIALLY where I've referred to a Rasmussen report. Here is a little clue about how Rasmussen reports:
Rasmussen Reads that Romney RecoRded a 1 point PResidential lead
Again: if you're a betting man Romney is now 35% on In-Trade. Down from his high point of 42% (lol) a couple of weeks back... Your edge is now a whopping 51%!! That's basically FREE MONEY!
Wow at what the Fed just did. ABOUT TIME.
http://www.chrisweigant.com/2012/09/10/romneys-new-health-care-plan/#comment-26719
Comment #11
You had a tingle going up your leg because of ONE poll.. A CNN poll...
Do you want me to give you your Pro Romney posts?? Or can you handle that on your own...
Now, go ahead and spin it away... :D
Michale.....
Yes I did reference one poll on THE ECONOMY. Notice the part where THE ECONOMY is in bold? And I quoted THE ECONOMY poll numbers not the Obama vs Romney poll numbers. Lol amazing.
The problem is you don't know or understand how polls work.
Here I'll reference a Rasmussen poll just to counter myself for you Michale. Rasmussen just polled Missouri at +3. Which, given Rasmussen's over-polling of Republicans, means it might be a very tight State.
Could Obama potentially win EVEN MORE States than against McCain? We need more data from Missouri to be sure, but we shall see!
The Economy = The Election
You quoted a poll that favored Obama over Romney re: the election and used THAT poll to indicate that Obama will win..
Ergo, you used it as a poll FOR the election..
But, as I said, I expected you to spin it away.. I guess I was expecting much better spin.. :D
The problem is you don't know or understand how polls work.
"Hello!!! McFly!!!!"
Polls DON'T work!!!
Duuuuhhhhhhhhh
Michale.....
Could Obama potentially win EVEN MORE States than against McCain? We need more data from Missouri to be sure, but we shall see!
WOW.. You got that leg-tingle BAD, don'tcha... :D
Michale.....
I said If you can find one time where on Romney vs Obama national poll numbers and you then quoted Obama v Romney economy numbers from within a national poll. But then if you don't like polls (thus don't understand them) this makes sense!
Missouri being anywhere close to in play, assuming this Ras poll isn't an outlier (like I said, need more data) this is really bad news for Romney. But then the election is looking considerably more clear-cut over the last 2 weeks, Romney is dropping fast and if his donors abandon him it's game over (hence why Ras has to bring out a poll to try and stem the flow!).
I bet below the end of the day he will be <35% on In-Trade.
The Romney/Ryan is actually performing worse than the McCain/Palin ticket
Further evidence. McCain responds diplomatically and Presidentially about the Libyan incident: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/power-players-abc-news/sen-john-mccain-praises-ambassador-killed-libya-refuses-111254340.html
Further evidence. McCain responds diplomatically and Presidentially about the Libyan incident:
Much better than Obama did in 2008....
Barack Obama Used Troop Deaths To Ding Bush, McCain Support For Iraq In 2008
http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/barack-obama-used-troop-deaths-to-ding-bush-mccai
Michale.....
Lol Michale you are utterly clueless. Criticising deaths in Iraq (after they have happened) is very different that politicising the death of a US ambassador and criticising the embassy WHILE THEY ARE UNDER ATTACK. It's always the same with you, you attempt to find some nonsensical, non-comparable thing to say 'look the left are just as bad'!
Lol Michale you are utterly clueless. Criticising deaths in Iraq (after they have happened) is very different that politicising the death of a US ambassador and criticising the embassy WHILE THEY ARE UNDER ATTACK. It's always the same with you, you attempt to find some nonsensical, non-comparable thing to say 'look the left are just as bad'!
Yes, Michty... You are always right. Democrats are always right. Obama is always right.
I am always wrong. Republicans are always wrong. Obama is never wrong..
There, there.. It's OK.. Enjoy your fantasy world... :D
Seek help, dood.. Yer losing it...
Michale...
I'm not saying I'm right. I'm saying Romney's comments were wrong. Very, very, very, very wrong. Ridculously wrong. To try and introduce his campaign rhetoric and propaganda ('Obama is apologising for America) at the time he did, whilst American embassies were still under attack, was unbelievably stupid and ill-timed. Fortunately for him, you are the other Rush-Limbaugh-bots are rallying behind him (now).
To try and introduce his campaign rhetoric and propaganda
The same way that Obama did in 2008...
Your weak justification that Obama waited until AFTER so that makes it OK is laughable and simply illustrates how far up Obama's ass you really are... :D
Michale.....
If you can point out a day where Americans were killed in a terrorist attack and Obama, instead of condemning the attack and giving his sympathies to the family, completely politicised the entire attack to further his own campaign, using rhetoric from his campaign, then I'll concede the point. Off you go. Good luck.
Once again, you change the subject when you find yourself in an untenable and unjustifiable position..
You attack Romney because he used the death of Americans in a campaign ad.
Obama did the EXACT same thing in 2008 and you don't have a problem with that...
That's hypocrisy, pure and simple...
Michale.....
You attack Romney because he used the death of Americans in a campaign ad.
What? Where? Lol you are incapable of reading! What on earth has campaign ads got to do with anything?? We are talking about politicising your response to a terrorist attack ON THE DAY of the terrorist attack, WHILE THE TERRORIST ATTACK IS STILL HAPPENING. I've no idea where you got campaign ad from lol.
Again: If you can point out a day where Americans were killed in a terrorist attack and Obama, instead of condemning the attack and giving his sympathies to the family, completely politicised the entire attack to further his own campaign, using rhetoric from his campaign, then I'll concede the point. Have at it.
Again, what would be the point? I have proved you wrong the last 3 times you asked this of me.. And you refuse to accept it..
Ergo....
"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me four times, what a frak'in idiot I am!"
-Scotty (paraphrased)
:D
Michale.....
Michale
'Debating' you is like 'debating' a 12 year old: not much substance but pretty funny to see what you'll come up with next...
'Debating' you is like 'debating' a 12 year old: not much substance but pretty funny to see what you'll come up with next.
Pretty funny coming from a guy who I probably have a couple decades on. :D
The problem is you THINK you're right.. I *know* yer not.. :D
But, in about 50 days, we'll know for sure..
Like I said, I hope you stick around for the aftermath... It's gonna be a blast!!!! :D
When Obama loses, the beers are on me!
Michale
Lemme ask ya something, michty..
Is there one issue, where the Democrats are on one side and the Republicans are on the other, that you support the Republicans over the Democrats???
Michale.....
Is there one issue, where the Democrats are on one side and the Republicans are on the other, that you support the Republicans over the Democrats???
Didn't think so.... :D
Michale.....