I watched the first half and have the rest recorded.
I thought most of what I watched was very compelling and moving. It seemed like we did see a new Donald for at least some of this. But others are suggesting that the old Donald may have started to emerge as the speech went on.
I have no issues with Trump comparing what he did with what the Biden administration did. You can cite these sorts of things without being divisive. I suppose critics were expecting he would not say anything bad about anyone.
My issue might come up in the second half of the speech as it would seem that 90 minutes plus is a little long. I could gather that even those who loved the speech were looking for it to end earlier than it did. The buzz was that he kept going off script with stories and such. That is typical Donald.
But even analysts on CNN were calling this a compelling and successful convention. Van Jones compared it to 2008 when the Democrats nominated Barack Obama. I am sure MSNBC (who had Rachel Maddow on the panel) must have hated it, but otherwise I think it was universally seen as successful.
On this day in history, July 19, 1969, former Kennedy aide killed in 'Chappaquiddick incident'
Spitfire on X: "To the people complaining Trump’s speech was too long….. His last speech was cut short. Get some perspective." / X
I watched it too as well as about an hour before it. I agree it was too long for my taste, but Trump usually knows what he is doing. I remember a politician from Arkansas that gave way too long a speech at a DNC convention then won the presidency a few years later. Maybe the first part is designed for the casual followers who stop watching midway and the last part for the base? I think having all his kids/grandkids (except Baron) around and a delayed start time gave those tuning in for just Trump's speech a humanized view of him and was very effective. Maybe even encouraged people to only watch the start then switch channels... Intentio…