How do you judge between the Republican and Democratic Presidential Conventions? By what standards? Is it how many times the crowd breaks out in chants of "USA! USA! USA!" Is it based on how many zingers are brought against the opposing party's candidate? I will watch both conventions minute by minute and give a review and comparison of each. While it may be difficult to use crowd response as a measure, since we expect the supporters to hoop and cheer for their choice; if the crowd is clearly subdued compared to the opposite party convention, we can use it. But I suspect aspects that will be obvious are things like; pro-American statements, citation of actual experience that will assist the next president, citation of actual policies that will be put forward in the next administration, and general classiness.
If either convention descends into rants against America or even violence perpetrated by the party supporters themselves, this will not bode well for that party. That party will be seen as negative and not a positive force for the future of America.
The advantages of the RNC conducting their convention first include everything from how the stage is designed to the selection of the speakers to the tone of the convention itself. This advantage could also be a disadvantage, since it would allow their opponents to mimic or attempt to outshine them in all these areas. The RNC podium structure seemed to be copied by the DNC, with the flanking side panels, the lectern rising out of the floor among other things. However, the DNC was criticized by Republicans and Democrats alike for not having that many (or none at first) American flags on the stage and for having speakers like Michelle Obama talk about "not building walls to keep people out", while there was a visible wall around the DNC stage on day one but was replaced on day two.
Donald Trump's first entrance on the stage was an over the top back lit, fog circulating "we are the champions" spectacle which was mocked at the DNC when actress Elizabeth Banks entered the DNC stage the same way. But a stark change in who usually speaks at these political conventions was obvious at the RNC when missing were many Republican Party elites who refused to support Trump, especially the former primary candidates like Jeb Bush; despite breaking a pledge to support Trump. The RNC had more common-person speakers along with Trump's family. It was a refreshing alternative to the typical politician trotted out. The DNC speakers were typical politicians, actors and even illegal immigrants. Supposedly, the mothers' of many of the criminals killed in the police action shootings were invited to speak at the DNC.
All eyes were on the RNC as Ted Cruz spoke and anticlimactically ended with no endorsement. The RNC critics quickly seized on this as "chaos". Various Democrats tried to point out that "if Trump can't unify his own party, how will he unify the country" but little did those Democrats realize that by the time their convention was held, real chaos would hit them. DNC Chairperson; Debbie Wasserman Schultz was caught up in leaked/hacked emails that showed she biasedly supported Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders. Wasserman Schultz had to resign and was booed at a speech. She was not allowed to open the chair the convention like Reince Priebus did for the RNC convention.
While some in the media tried to depict the RNC convention as "dark", the reality is that the RNC speakers constantly spoke about making America great again, safe again, rich again, positive again. Whereas the DNC convention had implied if not overt complaints or appeals for revenge veiled as "justice". Many of the people who spoke at the DNC wanted us to see first; their race, their gender, or some other "class" BEFORE we saw their humanity or even their Americanism. While it is fine to highlight your differences to some degree, it seems to be at odds with a party that claims it is for unifying people. You don't unify people by constantly pitting them against each other and constantly highlighting their differences.
The ironic juxtaposition is that the Democrats have been saying only "uneducated" people are supporting Trump yet at the same time they try to paint him as an out of touch elitist when in reality it was the DNC convention that had more elitists speaking at the podium. Further, it is difficult for the DNC to portray an environment needing change, since Obama was supposed to have fixed everything over the last 8 years. This is why it was strange to hear one of the speaker's talk about the "forgotten middle class". Does this mean it was Obama who forgot them? If the Democrat candidate wins, it will be a return to the 1990s and typical establishment party control; whereas the Sanders' supporters AND the Trump supporters were and are part of a phenomenon that culminated in a Republican candidate who barely spent any money yet defeated all of his primary candidates. Whereas Clinton would represent an establishment candidate who is suspect of cheating to overtake her primary opponent.
Lastly, it was odd to hear the REAL dark, dystopian speeches by the DNC speakers that made it sound like women are being raped in the streets of Obama's America. If Americans are to unify, it must be around a positive message; a message supportive of Americans. Flying flags of foreign nations or speaking languages not common of Americans or implying illegal acts are acceptable -- such as illegal immigration, or killing cops, or resisting arrest for committing crimes and then getting shot -- this is not unifying Americans. In many nations, what the Democratic Party has done would be enough to not only disqualify them from fielding a candidate in any election, but quite possibly cause the party leaders to be arrested for corruption.
Obviously I am BIASED, I admit it fully. I tried to present a fair review but in the end, the Democratic Party is clearly un-American if we define American as being supportive of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence; of the rights of the individual over the entitlements of "classes". There is a reason Lady Justice is always depicted as blind-folded and holding weighing scales. This is suppose to emulate the American idea of being blind to classes; race, gender, and socioeconomic status and being fair to all. Instead, the Democrat Party wants us to constantly see the differences (they call it "diversity") over the UNITY which makes us all Americans.