Perhaps the most unusual aspect of this year’s Presidential election campaign is that one candidate earned a ticket-leading role by prior performance in high office, while the other is essentially positioned by late-breaking default. That reality necessitates intensive journalistic vetting for assistance in a belated public marketing effort following an undistinguished federal backup role. The problem of time compression is particularly acute when there is need to disassociate certain forward party policy from present observed shortcomings. The unanticipated and belated change in candidates requires revised messaging and a voter outreach blitz in the final two months, a tall order. Whatever the voting outcome, historians will find much material for analysis and discussion in two respects – campaign strategy and procedure, and voter reaction to an unusually generalized policy platform unencumbered by contentious detail. This promises to be a supreme test of the power of party branding. Phil Osifer