DNC recap

Nothing to fear but Trump himself 

So everyone and their brother will want to compare and contrast the two conventions. My guess is that most (if not all) will agree that the Republican convention was more negative about the state of the nation, while the Democratic convention was more positive. This certainly sets up the election moving forward, where it is likely that every little thing that happens from here on out (good or bad) will be amplified like an AC/DC concert. I have a feeling, it's about to become obnoxious.

The major theme for the Democrats was to downplay the negativity of the Republicans as "fear mongering". I believe it's a dubious claim, considering the right track wrong track numbers, not to mention the news. On the same day the Democrats managed to throw up over 60 speakers without a mention of ISIS or terrorism, a priest has his throat slit by Islamic terrorists claimed by ISIS.

The larger issue, however, is that being the Party that has been in the White House for nearly eight years, they really don't have another hand to play. A Party insider like Clinton, who has been around for nearly three decades, representing the Party "in power" - is not likely to compete as a "change" candidate with a political outsider like Donald Trump. So when most people are probably feeling like this is a "change" election, the Democrats and Clinton must convince them that this is about the "need" for stability and experience and tweaking a Government fundamentally going in the right direction. They must turn this into a "stay the course" election.  An election too important to turn over to an unknown commodity. Especially an unknown commodity such as Donald Trump.

To some degree, this is a difficult argument to make, because it's almost two contrasting arguments trying to work in tandem. If the country is really doing well and things are not all that dangerous, then what's the harm in trying a political outsider? If things are so dangerous that we cannot trust a political outsider to fix it, then isn't that an indictment of the leadership of the past two Presidential terms?

On the flip side, the Republicans running with the anti-establishment candidate have an obvious challenge as well. They need to convince the public that things are doing poorly enough that we need change. But there is a danger that if the public is convinced that the world is about to explode, that they may opt for someone with more grounded experience... even if they blame a Democratic Administration for the problems.

Much of this, like it or not, is going to be on Trump's shoulders.  Depending on how Americans view the stakes, and how much they blame the incumbent Party for the mess, Trump may "only" need to offer himself as a "reasonable" alternative to the status quo of Hillary Clinton. The bar is set so low for him at this point, that anything short of putting Hillary in a headlock during the debates, might come across as him being reasonable. That being said, there is a chance that the relentless pounding of Trump by the MSM may eventually wear people down.

The Democrats, of course, will spend most of their time attempting to convince us of one of two things (or both)... that things are going well enough to stay the course, and that Donald Trump is anything but a reasonable alternative. What they didn't really do much of in this convention, and what they may do very little of in the general election, is give us a real tangible reason for voting "for" Hillary Clinton. Again, they have to play the hand that is dealt them.