Why is it a "tradition" for the incumbent party to hold their convention

[Ignacio Upton]

first?

I found out yesterday that the GOP is holding their convention after us AGAIN, this time around Labor Day weekend! I thought that by having our convention at the end of August instead of the end of July, that we could avoid a month of ad blackouts and vulnerability to Swiftboating. Unfortunately, by having their convention just four days after us, they will be able to neutralize our candidate's bounce, unless our convention is spectacularly better than their's, or our candidate makes a much better speech. Did Dean anticipate that Republicans would hold their convention after us again, in order to enforce this stupid "tradition?" Or did he purposely schedule it at the end of August to keep a balance between maintaining the tradition while patching the fundraising gap in the loss of being able to get direct donations?

[Zen Democrat]

1. Incumbent Party always goes last. Challengers first.

Actually, I think the back to back conventions will be to our benefit. People will be just plain tired of speechifying.

[Ignacio Upton]

2. There's nothing legally obligating this

I do know that this has been done for a long time, but does the FEC have a rule stating this? I don't think that Democrats are breaking the law if they decide to hold their convention last. You are right that back to back conventions would have some benefits. At least we won't have to conserve our money as much, because the RNC will start only four days after our candidate's acceptance speech, and that will prevent Swiftboating our candidate while he or she is a sitting duck. Unfortunately, I also think that by having their convention a few days after us, that they will be able to neutralize our bounce, and if they pull off a "good" convention (the Mainstream Media will spin their convention relentlessly unless if something clearly disastrous happens) then they will come out of the week and a half period with highter poll numbers. I think that ultimately having the convention last helps parties extend their leads or come back after losing. Bush Sr. started erasing a 17 point deficit against Dukakis after his nomination, and Gore managed to come from behind a double digit gap, to a narrow lead. Had Gore gone first in 2000, I think that Bush would have won and would not have had to rely on the Supreme Court.