Remember that bounce that Donald Trump got from the Republican National Convention?

After the Democrats brought out four days worth of speakers ranging from Lena Dunham to Barack Obama, who can say why Trump decided to zero in on a pair of Gold Star parents for criticism? Was it because Khizr Khan called him out personally with his pocket Constitution?

Trump is known for hitting back hard, but the Democrats and the media hit back harder, and the results are displayed in a graph created by the Washington Post.

That’s probably overstating the case; Democrats were certain to enjoy their own bump from the convention in Philadelphia, and by going second, they were able to directly refute points made in Cleveland the week before.

But the Khan debacle didn’t help, nor did attempts by the Trump campaign and surrogates to shift attention to Sen. Hillary Clinton’s support of the Iraq War. Even the VFW and Medal of Honor recipient Dakota Meyer shamed Trump for his comments.

Did the media provide more than their share of aid to the Democrats over the Khan flap? Of course; just consider the coverage given to Trump’s interview with ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos, and the attention paid to Hillary Clinton’s interview with Fox News’ Chris Wallace that aired the same day, in which she doubled down on her claim that the Benghazi families maybe didn’t fully recall “everything that was or wasn’t said” to them.

Would that have made a dent in Clinton’s approval had her comment been publicized as much? Or has the nation pretty much agreed that dude, Benghazi was four years ago? What difference, at this point, does it make?