Presidential candidates and their political parties typically have multiple goals when planning how their nominating conventions will play out before the American viewing public. The trick lies in prioritizing those goals, and juggling the program to get the most of the time.
In very general terms, the candidates want to do four things with their conventions: fire up their activists; sell themselves; tear down their opponent; and establish the campaign playing field—the issues and themes they want voters to think about when deciding on their vote.
Hillary Clinton and the Democrats took a more ambitious approach than Donald Trump and the Republicans did last week, but I’m going to suggest that both placed that fourth goal first.
But first, understand that the task of accomplishing these goals has been complicated by today’s media landscape. Back in the 1960s and 1970, with the media dominance of three broadcast networks, there was a relatively simple divide between the portions of the convention seen by almost none of the public, and those seen by roughly 30 percent of U.S. households (according to Nielson ratings).
Today, the three broadcast networks carry an hour in prime time. The three cable news networks show other portions live, in varying amounts. CSPAN shows everything, gavel to gavel, for the junkies. Social networks provide live video and instant clips, in addition to constant updates and quotes.
A complicated landscape—but also an opportunity. Savvy planners can, for example, pile on the base-inspiring material during the early hours, when party faithful are far more likely to seek out convention programming than general voters.
That’s why you saw most of the RNC’s Benghazi wailing and immigrant bashing in the earlier hours, and the Trump family in prime time. And it’s why the DNC played hard to minority, LGBT, and labor constituencies in the earlier hours.
The Democrats were far more sophisticated with its videos, celebrities, and entertainment, which allowed them to weave its various pieces through the program. For example, they have interspersed short clips of Trump’s own words, to keep some negative messaging through stretches of otherwise positive programming.
They were also able to push material from the convention stage out to the internet—and in turn, use that to draw people from social media to the TV.
The Republicans, dealing with a virtually nonexistent Trump campaign, was ill-prepared by comparison.
That might help explain why they focused almost exclusively on just two of the four goals I listed above.
First, dominating all, Trump tried to establish the terms of the campaign. He sought to convince viewers that they need a “law-and-order” President, to face down the threats foreign and domestic—and the ones crossing the border between the two.
He also tried, with mixed success, to boost his own image with American voters. A substantial amount of the prime-time lineup was devoted to speeches from his wife, children, employees, and business partners in service to that effort.
Oh, sure, there was Hillary-bashing in there, but in surprisingly limited doses. And there was even less effort to spur grassroots Republicans into campaign activity.
Clinton has been trying to do all four—and with good reason. They urgently need to activate the party base, whose work has been a critical advantage on national campaigns. Her public image, fallen from an already perilous low since early this month, desperately needs rehabilitation. The election likely depends on convincing voters that Trump is truly too unstable and egotistic to be President.
No question, efforts have been made on all three of these goals.
But to my viewing, it has been the fourth priority that has been placed above the others this week: claiming the territory the campaign should be fought upon.
Clinton doesn’t want to fight the election on Trump’s chosen turf—the “law and order” notion that things are so bad, so worrisome, that the country must make a drastic change and take a dramatic risk.
She wants to focus attention on other issues.
Consider how many times this week you heard about Hillary Clinton’s life work for children and families—from her post-college work to S-CHIP—compared to her work as Secretary of State. Or how often someone spoke about family leave, affordable child care, college costs, and other domestic agenda items.
Those, Clinton has been saying via the convention program, are your real problems that need to be tackled; not what Republicans were trying to distract you with.
And, most of all, the program has tried to place a sunny spin, not only on the state of the world, but in the very differences and divisions that Republicans centered their worries around. Celebration of America’s diversity is a constant refrain.
It all feels pretty good in the moment. And, Clinton has the advantage of the DNC going second, so that feeling might linger.
But it’s harder to be certain that feeling can stave off the public’s worries about the terrorists and immigrants at their doorstep for three more months. The two conventions have been a mighty battle over the terms of debate for this election, but that war will continue.
