Trump's speech

This week, I watched CNN’s late-night convention coverage for two reasons. First, I wanted to see whether its battalion of Republican haters — David Axelrod, Kaitlin Collins, Abby Phillip, Van Jones, Mike Wallace, etc. — would acknowledge how successful the convention was. Second, I wanted to see, whether these commentators openly acknowledged reality or not, how morose they were becoming.

To CNN’s credit, the Trump haters did acknowledge the success of the Monday-Wednesday sessions. And they were somber, if not morose.

Last night, that changed. After Trump’s endless speech, the CNN crew was almost giddy. As one member (David Axelrod, I think) said, Trump dodged a bullet in Pennsylvania and, thanks to Trump’s speech, the Democrats dodged one in Milwaukee. (Oh, those violent figures of speech.)

No one on the panel claimed that the Democrats were in good shape or that the Republican Convention wasn’t a success on the whole. Nor did anyone deny the power of the opening half hour (or so) of Trump’s speech in which he recounted the attempt to assassinate him.

However, the panelists agreed that a better, more conciliatory speech would have delivered another blow to the Democrats — perhaps a fatal one. By not given that speech, the CNN panelists said, Trump had perhaps kept the Dems in the game.

Is this analysis correct?