Skip to main content

Khizr Khan, whose son was killed serving in the U.S. Army, challenged Donald Trump to read his copy of the U.S. Constitution.LUCY NICHOLSON/Reuters

With the U.S. presidential election in full swing, here are some of the things we learned about the Democrats at their national convention this week.

They're strategic to a fault

The previous week's Republican gathering, with its slapped-together program and inability to stick with any theme that wasn't the evils of Hillary Clinton, set an incredibly low bar for focus in convention planning. But, even by usual standards, the Democrats clearly put an enormous amount of thought into how their convention would lay the groundwork for the fall.

Virtually every segment of each night's program had a discernible theme and strategic objective, aimed at an identifiable segment of the electorate – from Monday's efforts to unite Bernie Sanders supporters behind Ms. Clinton, to Tuesday's attempt by Bill Clinton to soften her image, to Wednesday 's pitch from former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg to moderate business conservatives, to Thursday's appearance of a retired four-star general to paint the nominee as the only safe and responsible choice.

And unflashy though it was, Ms. Clinton's speech on the convention's final night hit every note she could possibly want to hit – explicitly or implicitly naming group after group for which she will fight, from recent immigrants to working mothers to victims of violence to free-trade skeptics.

By any normal measure, all of this – presented emotionally at some points and slickly at others, with nary a false step by anyone who took the stage – made for a vastly more successful event than Donald Trump's circus.

But this has not been a normal election year, and it remains to be seen whether perfecting a normal version of politics will pay dividends or be judged too calculated.

They've moved left, unapologetically

The small but extremely vocal contingent of Sanders delegates who spent the week staging protests won't want to hear it, but the Democrats are now more overtly liberal than they have been in a very long time.

After their disastrous lurch to the left with George McGovern as their nominee in 1972, they spent most of the subsequent four decades afraid of again being out of step with mainstream America. Even Barack Obama was wary in 2008 of being seen as too ambitious about the role of government or too liberal on social issues.

There was little such hesitation this week. Ms. Clinton and her party promised to raise the minimum wage, fight for equal pay for women, and make child care more affordable. They aligned with Black Lives Matter, hinted at liberal reform to the criminal justice system, and were unabashedly pro gun control. They were critical of Wall Street, comfortable with their environmentalism, sympathetic to undocumented immigrants and unequivocal in their support for gay rights.

Part of this can be chalked up to Ms. Clinton, who hardly has a consistent record on such issues and remains hawkish on foreign policy, being pushed by Mr. Sanders. But her domestic positioning, at least, also speaks to mounting Democratic swagger during the Obama era.

They're confident they speak for the new America

The Democrats this week aligned with the military, touted the greatness of their country and blasted as un-American anyone who questions it, and even had a few "USA!" chants – the sort of patriotic chest-thumping, long associated with the Republicans, that might at first glance appear to belie their ostensible liberalism.

But more so, it reflects that they think their version of their country – the one they were hesitant even to advocate for until recently – is winning. Demographics, with a more diverse and urbanized population, are more favourable than previously. Mr. Obama, for all the turmoil of his presidency, has built and maintained a centre-left coalition that supports his activist efforts on health care and climate change, economic interventionism and promotion of minority rights. Meanwhile, the Republicans have been in an identity crisis since George W. Bush's ignominious exit, and have taken refuge in catering to an angry segment of their country that feels left behind.

The shift from the Republicans being the party of American exceptionalism was emergent even four years ago, when Mitt Romney failed to say a word about the troops in his convention speech and the Democrats responded the following week with copious flag-waving. But Mr. Trump's nomination has hugely accelerated it, and the Democrats are trying extra hard to capitalize.

Nothing spoke to that more poignantly than the appearance by the father of Capt. Humayun Khan, a Muslim-American killed while serving the U.S. in Iraq. Brandishing a copy of the Constitution that he challenged the Islam-bashing Republican nominee to read, Khizr Khan effectively presented the Democrats as the only party in touch with how the country's founding values now apply.

They're not that worried about the old America

One voter group the Democrats didn't spend that much time on is one cast as decisive in elections past: blue-collar whites in industrial (or post-industrial) battlegrounds, such as Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan. Other than in a stirring speech by Vice-President Joe Biden, a sort of Democratic ambassador to the Rust Belt, there were mostly just passing mentions – quick shoutouts to coal miners or those who worked in traditional manufacturing – of that share of the population that has felt left behind by the Great Recession recovery.

At times, particularly as they trotted out one Hollywood celebrity or pop star after another to up the glamour quotient, the Democrats seemed to be thumbing their noses at a demographic that believes political elites are disconnected from the real world.

Ms. Clinton once campaigned against Mr. Obama as a champion of the white-working-class, but her campaign doesn't appear inclined to challenge Mr. Trump too much on that front now.

They can't replace Barack Obama, and they shouldn't try

The current President, as he served reminder on Wednesday evening, is a once-in-a-generation politician – capable of soaring above the fray, even when not at his very best.

Ms. Clinton is not so unique a talent, at least when it comes to inspiring audiences, and past attempts to match Mr. Obama's (or her husband's) performance skills have fallen very flat. This time, wisely, she opted instead to play to her strengths by presenting as a tough and serious-minded wonk who by her own admission doesn't excel at the "public" part of "public service."

It will be a challenge for her to light a fire under would-be supporters to cast ballots for her in November, the way Mr. Obama did. But staying in her comfort zone is probably the best way for her to avoid reminding those voters what they're missing.

They have a problem with bench strength

Fellow Democrats' biggest criticism of Mr. Obama tends to be that he has taken little interest in his party's infrastructure. That includes not doing much to help develop future Democratic leaders. And however much responsibility he bears for it, the absence of such people was evident this week.

Unlike the Republicans, the Democrats had nearly all hands on deck to help make their case. But with the possible exception of New Jersey Senator Cory Booker, there was nobody who leapt out as a strong presidential contender in 2020 or 2024. Certainly, there was no equivalent of Mr. Obama himself a dozen years ago.

If Ms. Clinton wins in November, they likely have eight years to figure it out. If not, the lack of obvious next best options will make the dark place in which they suddenly find themselves even darker.

Follow related authors and topics

Authors and topics you follow will be added to your personal news feed in Following.

Interact with The Globe