What are the Lasting Effects of One Good Convention Speech?

One of the important questions from 2004 is how much a good speech at a convention lasts. This is the chart comparing Google searches for both John Kerry and Barack Obama in 2004. Note that Obama fell off dramatically as the convention faded.

Now, Sarah Palin is different: she was more of a phenomenon before her speech, and she’ll be on the ticket after. Those are important differences. But I think the relelvant analysis here is how far not Palin will go, but how far her speech will: That’s a significant difference. The speech will resonate for a time in the general public conscience, and be forgotten when the next big thing happens. The media tends to cover things like there never will be a next big thing, but it’s inevitable, especially with 4 big debate looming.

I think the bigger comparison is the content. See James Fallows:

To return to the main theme: both Reagan in 1964 and Obama in 2004 were effective because, apart from their personal skills, they added something to their party’s constituency that had not been there before. Reagan began recruiting the “Reagan Democrats,” starting with white Southerners. Obama tried to recruit people tired of divisive partisanship.

Sarah Palin, at least tonight, did not seem interested in bringing anyone new into the fold. A speech that was great in the convention hall. We’ll see how it affects the electoral lineup.

What Obama did in essence was to redefine what Democrats did in such a way that could appeal to independents and some Republicans. Reagan did something similar. Palin made some passing references to reform and fighting corruption, but the speech was not about that. That’s not to say that it was not good. I just think more is needed. Could McCain spell out the rest tonight? It’s certainly possible, but if that happens, the spotlight is again off of Palin. Which was the entire point of this post…

The better lasting effect, of course, is a bit further in the future.