Is It Better To Have Our Convention Before or After The Republicans Do?

[arwalden]

Does the last held convention get the longer-lasting bounce? Or does the first held convention get the advantage of being able to "draw first blood" and fire the opening shot (as it were)?

I wonder if it would work to have them both at the same time.

-- Allen

[Dookus]

1. Do you mean convention?

[arwalden]

2. Good Catch... That's Exactly What I Meant

It's corrected now.

-- Allen

[still_one]

4. so which one is first?

[mlawson]

5. 'Challenger' party always goes first.

It's just another way to prop up the incumbent.

[methinks2]

3. their's will be sooo boring

After a good time dem party no one will remember what the repubs had in their party! :party:

[democracyindanger]

6. Maybe the actual convention

But what goes on outside in NYC should be extremely interesting.

[mlawson]

7. "After" is certainly better.

Think of the millions who are most influenced by the last person with whom they have spoken.

[Bucky]

8. Conventional Wisdom

The tradition is that the incumbent gets the later convention altho I'm not sure if that's just considered perks of the office or it's modeled on the legal theory that the party challenging the status quo speaks first (in most states the prosecutor always leads off in a criminal trial and the defense, arguing the status quo of innocent till proved otherwise, speaks last).

But in 2000 the Republicans were very effective in using their earlier convention to define the terms of the fall debate. Up to the very end the fight was on Republican issues (culture war, need for change, personal morality, class distinctions, "honesty" and the ever present character issue). The Democratic grounds for debate (prosperity, guarding the interests of the disadvantaged) never gelled with the public, altho that may be a function of having an inadequate messenger. The Republicans almost won legitimately based on their earlier positioning. If they'd run McCain instead, they probably would've beat our socks off.

So the conventional wisdom is not set in stone. An early lead off can allow us to define the debate, if we use it effectively and can use the convention for presenting a disciplined message. For Democrats, of course, that's a goddamn big "if."

[arwalden]

9. Yep! Framing the debate, setting the agenda, putting them on the defensive

are all positive things. I hope we're able to take advantage of it.

-- Allen

[Maddy McCall]

11. That's my take, too, Bucky.

Defining the debate, putting them on defensive. Always good.

[Piperay]

12. I believe that the reasoning

is to give the "outs" a longer time to campaign, suppose to equalize it abit. I think though that the one who has the last word has the advantage. :-(

[MurikanDemocrat]

10. My first instinct is to say after, so that's what I voted

but there are some good arguments here for going first and setting the terms of the debate.

If Edwards can continue his success in the primary, a longer primary will also help by keeping the guns focused against Bush longer as well.

I'd also like to see more debates that include Sharpton and Kucinich because it's a free forum that, again, focuses the debate against Bush and defines the terms of the debate.

[DrFunkenstein]

13. Definitely Before And Here's Why

The GOP convention is going to be a nightmare. It was a HUGE mistake to have it in NYC around Sept. 11. That crap would have made sense two years ago, but it is going to bite them in the ass.

We will already have had our convention and won't give them a chance to retaliate.

[Josh]

14. Yes, plus we'll ABSOLUTELY need the cash -

General Election matching funds are available only after the party's convention. If it's Kerry, he'll be raising hard dollars ONLY before then, and if it's Edwards, he'll be limited to $45million anyway. We need an early convention just to get our hands on that much-needed money.

[calimary]

15. I'd rather WE went last. The last impression left with the voters

from either big circus.