After the Republican and Democratic conventions, the stage is set for a 100-day mad dash to the November presidential election. There were telling differences between the two events.
The conventions revealed the state of play within each party. Both Republicans and Democrats confronted insurgencies with dramatically different outcomes. On the Republican side, one of the insurgent candidates, Donald Trump, vanquished the establishment leaving the party in some disarray. Many GOP leaders boycotted the convention and refused to endorse Mr Trump.
Those who endorsed him did so either because they felt they had no choice or because they retained a vague hope that should he win, their congressional leaders would be able to limit the damage that might occur in an unrestrained Trump presidency. Adding to the fractiousness of the GOP's situation, significant components of another insurgent group, prominent leaders of the religious right, also refused to endorse the nominee, creating negative press with a walkout on the first day followed by a prime-time rejection by Ted Cruz on day three.
The Democrats fared somewhat better since their establishment candidate, Hillary Clinton, won. Because Mrs Clinton embraced a good number of her opponent's progressive proposals, Bernie Sanders felt comfortable enough to give her an endorsement on the convention's opening night. This display of unity appeared to be enough to mollify many of Mr Sanders’ supporters, though a number of movement activists left the convention unsatisfied. Nevertheless, the Democrats concluded their four-day meeting with the appearance of greater unity than had been found at the GOP gathering.
There was another key difference between the two parties’ quadrennial events. Modern conventions have been largely stripped of their political functions, reducing them to overproduced infomercials. While Mr Trump had promised a blockbuster, the Republican convention was a lacklustre affair, bringing together a strange collection of minor celebrities, and drew headlines for a series of unforced errors.
On the first day, there was a contentious rules fight leading to a mass walkout. This opening sour note was later eclipsed by revelations that the initially well-reviewed speech by Mr Trump's wife had been, in part, plagiarised from a speech given by Michelle Obama eight years earlier.
On the next night, Mr Trump inexplicably decided to call into one of the networks to complain about an unrelated issue in the midst of an emotional speech by the mother of a victim of the embassy attack in Benghazi. Then, of course, there was the payback speech by Ted Cruz. With most GOP luminaries not in attendance, the key Trump endorsement speeches were given by his children.
In contrast, the Democrats’ event was well-produced and, despite moments of tension and controversy, was a nearly flawless affair. Mrs Clinton was able to receive validation and support from president Barack Obama, first lady Michelle Obama, vice president Joe Biden, her main opponent senator Sanders, leading progressive senator Elizabeth Warren, and most of the Democratic party's senators and members of Congress.
The Sanders and Clinton campaigns did compromise on the party platform with Mrs Clinton accepting progressive positions that had been put forward by Mr Sanders. Nevertheless, some movement activists who had embraced the Sanders campaign remained unsettled by concerns such as: the absence of strong and clear opposition to unfair trade agreements; commitments to no more war and universal health care for all; and a firmer position in defence of Palestinian rights.
A major difference between the two conventions were in the themes they conveyed. Mr Trump’s insurgency has been predicated on the personality of Mr Trump, hatred of all things Clinton, and the frustration, fear and anger of those who have felt they are losing ground in today's economy and changing world. They fear crime, terrorism, loss of American power and prestige, and changes in the world and society that have them feeling left out and adrift. Sensing this, Mr Trump and his convention preyed on this anger and fear – focusing it on the person of Hillary Clinton.
Their convention was an angry affair with former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani ranting about crime and New Jersey governor Chris Christie leading a shocking anti-Clinton floor chant of “lock her up”. For his part, Mr Trump's acceptance speech was well-crafted. But it was an anger-filled dark litany of the nation’s ills. It was a far-reaching indictment of all that is wrong with America with his solution being to elect him with the vague assurance that he alone knows how to get it right.
Mrs Clinton, on the other hand, developed a more positive message. She acknowledged that problems exist, to be sure, but she proposed specific fixes that involved bipartisan compromise, and communities working together with government to create and expand opportunities and improve the quality of life for all. It was an upbeat message also conveyed not only by Mrs Clinton but by a stream of speakers – citizens from every walk of life who told of their struggles and how action had been too taken to address their needs.
As political and policy events, the Democratic convention had the clear advantage. Both parties spent considerable time in attacking the other’s nominee. But Democrats were better at telling their story, presenting their candidate and their programmes, and creating optimism that they had made progress in the last eight years and would continue to make positive change in the years to come.
The two conventions established that just as the primary season has been raucous and contentious, the general election promises more of the same. It will be an election like no other.
Dr James Zogby is the president of the Arab American Institute
On Twitter: @aaiusa