Michele Bachmann Fundraising versus Campaigning

Some may argue that fundraising is campaigning and I’ll agree on the intention, not on the demonstration. Online fundraising was demonstrated as viable by Howard Dean back in 2004 (see Reading Virtual Minds V1: Science and History, available on Amazon and in The NextStage KnowledgeShop) and further demonstrated as the method of choice by then candidate Barack Obama back in 2008. You fundraise so you can campaign and you don’t ask for funding the same way you ask for votes.

This post compares MicheleBachmann.com pre her announcement as a candidate — on 16 June 2011 when she was “just” fundraising” (her homepage was a request for donations) — and post her announcement as candidate — on 29 June 2011 when she was campaigning (her site has recognizable campaign components).

The major takeaway is that her site team had great confidence in her ability to raise funds and not much in her ability to win the election.

Political Messaging

Michele Bachmann's 9 Fundraising v Campaigning

The leap from Fundraising to Campaigning in the Leadership and Electability categories is minor. The leap takes real form in the Vision categories. Perhaps making a decision or having raised sufficient funds to make a decision increases one’s vision?

Also noteworthy is the decrease in the Listening categories. When Michele Bachmann was fundraising, she was both Listening and Listening to You. Now that she’s campaigning not listening as much. Not sure if that’s a good thing or not.

Last item is that while she’s more a Woman of the People when she’s campaigning, Michele Bachmann is currently less sure she can get us out of our current situation.

Confidence and BlueSky

What Does Michele Bachmann's Staff Think?

In a nutshell, Michele Bachmann’s web staff and content providers had confidence she could raise funds and no confidence she’ll win the race. In both cases, they were scrubbing the site to make sure there was no BlueSky.

Gender Persuasion

Has Michele Bachmann's Gender Appeal Shifted from Fundraising v Campaigning

Not enough to be significant. Our guess is that whoever was crafting the message before is still at it now.

Age Persuasion

What Age Groups is Michele Bachmann Going After Fundraising v Campaigning?

Here the difference between Fundraising and Campaigning is made real, and in both cases marketing is to blame — you go after markets that you know will buy your product. The quicker you want to sell the better you target. We don’t know if Michele Bachmann’s fundraising success was below, average or above, only that someone consciously or non-consciously decided her best fundraising efforts would be among Boomers and beyond, perhaps a call to the halcyon days of memories that never were.

But the voting — campaigning — market is much different, at least for Michele Bachmann. You don’t win elections by going after a single demographic (even if that demographic is large). The Campaigning Michele Bachmann is going after a much broader audience focused on youth through late fifty year olds. Perhaps this is another form of borrowing from Peter to pay Paul, fundraising with Boomers and Beyond then spending the funds raised on those who didn’t give you the money to begin with.

Or is that just government in action?

What is Michele Bachmann Really Communicating? – Every politician wants the public to believe they are the best for the job and can get things done.

However, no individual can achieve anything in elected office unless they believe certain things about themselves because without those core, personal and identifying beliefs they will not have the intellectual power, the charisma, the social awareness and sensitivity, the negotiation skills or the creativity necessary for success in public office.

Whether or not the polling stations should close is a matter for conjecture. Based on the symmetry of gender appeal and the age demographic alone, though, Michelle Bachmann would win the primaries if not the election. She appeals to a nice, inclusive demographic and the question is “Will her message and presence continue that appeal?”

In this case, Michele Bachmann:

  • Fundraising, 16 Jun 2011 – Believes they have a good shot for elected office or staying in their current office (if midterm, etc).
  • Fundraising, 16 Jun 2011 and Campaigning, 29 Jun 2011 – Has an idea of where their town/city/county/state/country needs to be but doesn’t know if they’re instrumental in making that vision a reality.
  • Campaigning, 29 Jun 2011 – Has an idea of where their town/city/county/state/country needs to be and does not believe they’ll be part of the leadership that takes it there.
  • Fundraising, 16 Jun 2011 and Campaigning, 29 Jun 2011 – Has a sense of destiny for both themselves and the town/city/county/state/country and aren’t convinced anybody — including themselves — knows how to make it happen.
  • Fundraising, 16 Jun 2011 and Campaigning, 29 Jun 2011 – Has a sense of destiny for both themselves and the town/city/county/state/country and believes they are the only individual who can make it happen.
  • Fundraising, 16 Jun 2011 and Campaigning, 29 Jun 2011 – Is convinced they know how to improve the current situation.
    • Fundraising, 16 Jun 2011 and Campaigning, 29 Jun 2011 – But does not believe they will be able to act upon it.
  • Fundraising, 16 Jun 2011 – Is communicating very well to both male and female audiences.
  • Fundraising, 16 Jun 2011 – Is going after Boomers.
    • Fundraising, 16 Jun 2011 – But not strongly enough to stand out/win/be recognized as leading the pack.
  • Campaigning, 29 Jun 2011 – Is targeting a reasonable demographic.
    • Campaigning, 29 Jun 2011 – And should be considered a leader in this demographic.
  • Campaigning, 29 Jun 2011 – Close the voting stations, you’ve got a winner.

Here we learn something about one’s belief in their champion; Michele Bachmann may be able to raise money but they don’t believe she should be voted into office. Perhaps her best function in a winnowing field is to become a running mate, focus point or spokesperson for her cause. It will be interesting to learn how this plays out. Currently the two most notable women in the political arena are Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin, Palin claiming she’s not a candidate and Bachmann claiming she definitely is. Palin’s play for candidacy is rapidly passing although she could be a queen or king maker based on whether or not her presence gains formidability. There’s also the aspect that Sarah Palin’s RichPersonae indicates a personality that likes to be asked rather than likes to offer, the bride rather than the groom, so she could be waiting for someone to ask her to dance rather than venturing alone onto the floor.

Regarding the real author of this material:

  • Fundraising, 16 Jun 2011 – They think the candidate is ready for elected office and needs grooming.
  • Campaigning, 29 Jun 2011 – They don’t think this candidate has a real chance of winning anything.
  • Fundraising, 16 Jun 2011 and Campaigning, 29 Jun 2011 – They really worked this to remove any BS before publishing.

NH Republican Debates 13 June 2011 Analysis (And a little on Partnering)

Candidates gathering together to answer the same questions provides a good research opportunity to study any number of variables. Here we look at similarities and differences in messaging by analyzing their comments during the NH Republican Debates held on 13 June 2011.

Political Messaging

What the Candidates Were Saying - NH Republican Debates 13 June 2011

Nothing interesting or excitable here. They were all onstage, all being candidates, all saying what you’d expect and saying it the way you’d expect.

Candidate Self-Confidence and Self-Aware BlueSkyness

What the Candidates Were Thinking About What They Were Saying - NH Republican Debates 13 June 2011

Here things do get interesting. None of the candidates felt much self-confidence, possibly due to knowing it’s early in the game, possibly due to being onstage and knowing they were being evaluated along side others, possibly due to not knowing their audience appeal and what was going to happen. Least confident (although not by much) was Cain, the one candidate with no political background. Perhaps he knows he’s the longest shot of the bunch?

What’s most interesting here is Representative Ron Paul’s fairly high BlueSky value. Was he disbelieving what he was saying? What others were saying? Whatever, he was the most “imaginative” candidate on the stage and it’s worth noting that imagination can be a good thing.

NextStage's BlueSky MeterThe BlueSky part of the Political Analysis report uses elements of NextStage’s BlueSky Meter. NextStage’s BlueSky Meter only measures how much imagineering is going on, not its purpose or intent.

Gender Persuasion

NH Republican Debates 13 June 2011 - Gender Appeal

Again, nothing terribly interesting. All the candidates are doing a reasonable job of appealing to a gender neutral audience, something to be expected at this point in the race. It’s worth noting that Romney continues his female-audience orientation (see Mitt Romney’s www.mittromney.com HomePage Analyzed 9 June 2011 and Mitt Romney’s 2011 CPAC Speech Analyzed).

Age Persuasion

NH Republican Debates 13 June 2011 - Age Appeal

This, as they say, is where the money is. While Bachmann and Pawlenty are obviously going after a younger audience (and targeting too closely), Gingrich and Romney are both doing an good job of targeting a more general audience (although neither strongly enough to win anything). The race goes to the candidate(s) appealing to the largest voting blocks, so the question is “Which age group puts more voters in the booths?”

Only Paul, of all the other candidates, is doing a recognizably good job appealing to a large enough age spread to be considered seriously.

Santorum (and based only on this chart) must have been doing a good job talking serious policy — his age appeal numbers score towards the high end, an indication he was talking in (we hope) political jargon when he got the mike. Any kind of jargon is good when that’s what the audience wants and expects. It’s especially good when you’re on stage with your competitors and you need to demonstrate your knowledge and experience, but only when doing so demonstrates leadership. Talking jargon when your competitors aren’t can separate you from the pack and usually in a negative way with all but a few audiences.

What Are the Candidates Really Communicating? – Every politician wants the public to believe they are the best for the job and can get things done.

However, no individual can achieve anything in elected office unless they believe certain things about themselves because without those core, personal and identifying beliefs they will not have the intellectual power, the charisma, the social awareness and sensitivity, the negotiation skills or the creativity necessary for success in public office.

In this case and by candidate:

The final analysis shows two standouts — Paul and Romney. Romney because he believes his leadership will be based more on his staff than himself and Paul because he’s actually appealing to a broad enough demographic to be considered a leader if not a winner. Not sure if that means you come off better if you don’t take yourself too seriously (his BlueSky value).

  • Romney – Believes their leadership will only be as good as the staff they can bring with them.
  • Has an idea of where their town/city/county/state/country needs to be but doesn’t know if they’re instrumental in making that vision a reality.
    • Bachmann
    • Cain
    • Gingrich
    • Paul
    • Pawlenty
    • Romney
    • Santorum
  • Has a sense of destiny for both themselves and the town/city/county/state/country and believes they are the only individual who can make it happen.
    • Bachmann
    • Cain
    • Gingrich
    • Paul
    • Pawlenty
    • Romney
    • Santorum
  • Is communicating very well to both male and female audiences.
    • Bachmann
    • Cain
    • Gingrich
    • Paul
    • Pawlenty
    • Romney
    • Santorum
  • Is strongly targeting younger voters.
    • May be focusing too narrowly on this demographic.
      • Bachmann
      • Pawlenty
  • Is targeting a reasonable demographic.
    • But not strongly enough to stand out/win/be recognized as leading the pack.
      • Cain
      • Gingrich
      • Romney
    • Paul – And should be considered a leader in this demographic.
    • Santorum – Is going after Boomers.
      • Santorum – But not strongly enough to stand out/win/be recognized as leading the pack.
  • Paul – Close the voting stations, you’ve got a winner.

Of interest here is that right now none of the candidates envisions themselves to be a obvious winner. That datum considered with the fact that six of the seven consider themselves to be on the level (two were careful in their answers) causes me to wonder if their real goal right now is to enter some ideas/concepts/agendas into the debate. They’re objective isn’t the Presidency so much as it is shaping the next President.

Regarding the real author of this material:

  • They don’t think this candidate has a real chance of winning anything.
    • Bachmann
    • Cain
    • Gingrich
    • Paul
    • Pawlenty
    • Romney
    • Santorum
  • They believe the candidate is on the level.
    • Bachmann
    • Cain
    • Pawlenty
  • They really worked this to remove any BS before publishing.
    • Gingrich
    • Santorum
  • Paul – They don’t think any amount of fact-checking will be good
  • Romney – They believe the candidate is on the level most of the time.

The Age Capture Chart is often a good indicator of who might be partnering with whom and based on that we did some Compatibility tests (see Are Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney Getting Closer to Saying “I do”? and Sarah Palin and Ron Paul Won’t Be Heading to the Altar Any Time Soon) among like grouped candidates.

Here we determined the compatibility of

  • Gingrich and Romney
  • Cain and Gingrich

  • Cain and Romney
  • Bachmann and Pawlenty

Cognitive compatibility is what one would expect from a field of republicans this early in the race. Note that Cain will understand neither Gingrich or Romney on major discussion points, possibly due to his lack of a political background.

Emotive compatibility will probably change as things progress. Right now the candidates have to remain on good terms until the market (the voters) decide who to favor.

The money here is in Behavioral compatibility. How the candidates present themselves differs enough to throw some monkey wrenches into the works with the exception of a Cain-Gingrich partnering. Cain and Gingrich are behaviorally neutral to each other right now and this is also worth watching, especially should one or the other leave the race with enough support to hand their voters over to someone else. Should that be the case be prepared for neutrality to go bye-bye.

Gingrich and Romney, Cain and Gingrich, Cain and Romney Compatibility

Gingrich&Romney, Cain&Gingrich or Cain&Romney would make excellent Running Mates

Bachmann and Pawlenty Compatibility

Bachmann and Pawlenty would make good Running Mates
  • 100%
    • Gingrich and Romney
    • Cain and Gingrich
    • Cain and Romney
  • 83.36% – Bachmann and Pawlenty
  • RichPersona V13
    • Bachmann
    • Cain
    • Gingrich
    • Pawlenty
    • Romney
  • Cognitive Factors
    • These two sources will understand each other on major discussion points
      • Gingrich and Romney
      • Bachmann and Pawlenty
    • These two sources will probably get along quite well and be able to overcome any confusions with a laugh
      • Cain and Gingrich
      • Cain and Romney
      • Gingrich and Romney
      • Bachmann and Pawlenty
    • These two sources will probably get along well socially and in small-talk
      • Cain and Gingrich
      • Cain and Romney
      • Gingrich and Romney
      • Bachmann and Pawlenty
    • Given time, these two sources could become friends
      • Very good friends, in fact
        • Cain and Gingrich
        • Cain and Romney
        • Gingrich and Romney
        • Bachmann and Pawlenty

  • Emotive Factors
    • Stay back, there’s probably love in the air
      • Cain and Gingrich
      • Cain and Romney
      • Gingrich and Romney
      • Bachmann and Pawlenty
  • Behavioral Factors
    • Gingrich and Romney
      • At some point Gingrich will consider Romney as a mentor
      • Romney will have to be reminded to let Gingrich talk from time to time
    • Bachmann and Pawlenty
      • It’s quite possible Bachmann will feel insecure during the discussions
      • It’s quite likely Bachmann will consider Pawlenty assertive to the point of being aggressive
      • There will be clash of wills or agendas at some point and probably early in the discussion/negotiation
    • Cain and Gingrich
      • Nothing to add here
    • Cain and Romney
      • At some point Cain will mention that they feel Romney is a little too manipulative
      • Romney will attempt to control the conversation at some point

Sarah Palin and Ron Paul Won’t Be Heading to the Altar Any Time Soon

Along with the request for Newt Gingrich’s Staff Quit – So What’s Changed? came a request for a Are Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney Getting Closer to Saying “I do” style analysis with Sarah Palin and Ron Paul. That analysis is provided here.

To recap: NextStage demonstrated the ability to determine who would partner with whom in 2004 (see Reading Virtual Minds), the question was moot in 2008 and we’re taking a look again here in 2011.

NextStage Compatibility GaugeThis time we’re using NextStage’s Compatibility Gauge (NSCG), a tool being used by clients to help them create online communities for testing purposes, populating work and study groups, determining who’ll be good incoming management for existing teams, etc. We’re hoping that tool will become public in a few months and are premiering it here because it’s nice to see who’ll get along with whom, don’t you think?

From the NSCG website, “This gauge indicates how compatible two things are …based on what you analyzed. Accuracy increases the more samples you test, so if you don’t like these results, send through a few more things. If the results stay low, maybe you should rethink your involvement. On the other hand, if the results improve, particularly if they improve over time, perhaps this is a match.

NextStage Compatibility GaugeFinal note: NSCG makes use of Rich Personae in its determinations. You can learn more about Rich Personae in The NextStage KnowledgeShop or at The NextStage PersonaScope.

How Compatible are Sarah Palin and Ron Paul today (13 June 2011, 4:32pmET)?

Compatibility of Sarah Palin's and Ron Paul's Thinking 13 June 2011, 4:32pmET

Ms. Palin and Representative Paul are 29.18% compatible. They won’t pick fights with each other on the playground but they definitely won’t run into each other’s arms, either.

Again we see (below) that they’ll get along intellectually but will get into a love/hate relationship emotionally that results in bad behaviors both early and down the road.

Another interesting note is that while one might assume Sarah Palin and Ron Paul would be close or on good terms based on the relative proximities of the RichPersonae, note that how their inner workings are demonstrated is what will probably keep them apart (that 29.18% mentioned earlier).

SarahPac.com (on 13 June 2011, 4:32pmET)’s RichPersona is V11, RonPaul2012.com‘s RichPersona is V10.

  • Cognitive Factors
    • These two sources will understand each other on major discussion points
    • These two sources will probably get along quite well and be able to overcome any confusions with a laugh
    • These two sources will probably get along well socially and in small-talk
    • Given time, these two sources could become friends
    • Very good friends, in fact
  • Emotive Factors
    • Stay back, there’s probably love in the air
    • Just give them boxing gloves and close the door
  • Behavioral Factors
    • Dominance games will break out at some point in time, probably instigated by
      Ron Paul
    • It’s quite likely Sarah Palin will consider Ron Paul assertive to the point of being aggressive
    • There will be clash of wills or agendas at some point and probably early in the discussion/negotiation

Newt Gingrich’s Staff Quit – So What’s Changed?

One of our NextStageologists asked if Newt Gingrich’s staff quitting en masse showed up on his Newt Gingrich 2012 site. That question is pretty much a “Through the Ages” question we answer here.

We took our previous Changes by the hour to www_newt_org_newt-direct (morning and afternoonET, Friday, 4 Mar 11) post, analyzed a snapshot of Newt Gingrich 2012 taken about 4:36pmET, Thursday, 6 June 2011 (the day the story came out, I think) and analyzed Newt Gingrich 2012 today, Monday, 13 June 2011 at 11:30amET to determine if there were recognizable shifts and there were a few, so let’s have at it.

One point worth making is that a look at Newt Gingrich’s site a few minutes ago (3:20pmET, 13 June 2011) showed that his previous homepages have been replaced with a donation request, something we demonstrated in both 2004 and 2008 doesn’t work with people curious and on the fence. It works fine, I’m sure, with true believers and in a political field with diverse you want people quickly and decisively off the fence.

Political Messaging

How Have Newt Gingrich's 9 Political Messages Changed Since his Staff Resigned?

The messages worth noting are I’m Electable, I Have a Vision for This Country and I Can Lead Us to a Better Place (circled in red from left to right). We don’t know if the changes between March and June 2011 were gradual, simply that they’re demonstrated here far more than with the other messages, hence are worthy of investigation.

What stands out is that mid-day to his staff leaving, Newt Gingrich is communicating “more loudly than before or after” that he’s electable. Ditto for the Vision message. What is called into question the day his staff resigned is whether or not he can lead the country to a better place.

Also note in the above and remaining charts that there’s no metrics change from 9:22pmET, 9 Jun 2011 to today’s read. I don’t know if his site has been updated or not. The extreme similarities of all metrics tends to indicate either no change or a team with extremely tight messaging.

Confidence and BlueSky

What were Newt Gingrich's staff thinking when they resigned?

While confidence increased somewhat from March to June 2011, the shift from 4:40pmET to 9:22pmET is where the obvious shift occurs. Our guess is that somewhere in the late afternoon to early evening Newt Gingrich and/or his team regrouped and got reenergized.

Gender Persuasion

Has Newt Gingrich's Gender Appeal Shifted Since his Staff Resigned?

Well, yes, it has, from a male oriented to a gender neutral appeal. No idea who’s influence this is, only that this early in the race is probably a good marketing move.

Age Persuasion

What Age Groups is Newt Gingrich Going After Since his Staff Resigned?

Here we discover that Newt Gingrich (at least his website) has moved from a reasonably good cross age appeal focusing on 55-59 year olds to focusing quite strongly on younger voters, focusing on 25-34 year olds. This may or may not be a good marketing move depending on where the majority of people get their information and the sizes of voting blocks by age.

What is Newt Gingrich Really Communicating? – Every politician wants the public to believe they are the best for the job and can get things done.

However, no individual can achieve anything in elected office unless they believe certain things about themselves because without those core, personal and identifying beliefs they will not have the intellectual power, the charisma, the social awareness and sensitivity, the negotiation skills or the creativity necessary for success in public office.

In this case, Newt Gingrich:

Newt Gingrich’s previous staff had him reaching out to a broader demographic age-wise and he was listening to them more than he was listening to voters. But also note that something about his content when listening to that previous staff had him coming off as to the Left. What’s amusing is that he wasn’t sure he’d be able to act on his convictions with his previous staff and that same sentiment is manifesting today.

  • 9 Jun 2011, 4:22pmET – Believes they have a good shot for elected office or staying in their current office (if midterm, etc).
  • Mar 2011 – Has an idea of where their town/city/county/state/country needs to be but doesn’t know if they’re instrumental in making that vision a reality.
  • 9 Jun 2011, 4:22pmET – Has an idea of where their town/city/county/state/country needs to be but doesn’t know if they’re instrumental in making that vision a reality.
  • 13 Jun 2011, 11:22amET – Has an idea of where their town/city/county/state/country needs to be but doesn’t know if they’re instrumental in making that vision a reality.
  • Mar 2011 – Has a sense of destiny for both themselves and the town/city/county/state/country and are aren’t convinced anybody — including themselves — knows how to make it happen.
  • 9 Jun 2011, 4:22pmET – Has a sense of destiny for both themselves and the town/city/county/state/country and aren’t convinced anybody — including themselves — knows how to make it happen.
  • 13 Jun 2011, 11:22amET – Has a sense of destiny for both themselves and the town/city/county/state/country and believes they are the only individual who can make it happen.
  • Mar 2011 – Has a sense of destiny for both themselves and the town/city/county/state/country and believes they are the only individual who can make it happen.
  • 9 Jun 2011, 4:22pmET – Has a sense of destiny for both themselves and the town/city/county/state/country and believes they are the only individual who can make it happen.
  • Mar 2011 – Is convinced they know how to improve the current situation.
    • Mar 2011 – But does not believe they will be able to act upon it.
  • 13 Jun 2011, 11:22amET – Is convinced they know how to improve the current situation.
    • 13 Jun 2011, 11:22amET – But does not believe they will be able to act upon it.
  • Mar 2011 – They are paying close attention/are sensitive to public opinion.
  • 9 Jun 2011, 4:22pmET – They are paying close attention/are sensitive to public opinion.
  • Mar 2011 – They’re paying more attention to their advisors than to the public.
  • Mar 2011 – May be considered politically towards the Left by their audience.
  • 13 Jun 2011, 11:22amET – Is communicating very well to both male and female audiences.
  • Mar 2011 – Is targeting a reasonable demographic.
    • Mar 2011 – But not strongly enough to stand out/win/be recognized as leading the pack.
  • 9 Jun 2011, 4:22pmET – Is strongly targeting younger voters.
    • 9 Jun 2011, 4:22pmET – May be focusing too narrowly on this demographic.
  • 13 Jun 2011, 11:22amET – Is strongly targeting younger voters.
    • 13 Jun 2011, 11:22amET – May be focusing too narrowly on this demographic.

    First note is that if you look at Changes by the hour to www_newt_org_newt-direct (morning and afternoonET, Friday, 4 Mar 11) you’ll see that we’re using the more forgiving set of data points here. Second, while the consensus is that no amount of fact-checking will be good, at least his new staff believes he’s electable (with a little work).

    Regarding the real author of this material:

    • Mar 2011 – They don’t think this candidate has a real chance of winning the race.
    • 9 Jun 2011, 4:22pmET – They don’t think this candidate has a real chance of winning the race.
    • 13 Jun 2011, 11:22amET – They think the candidate is ready for elected office and needs grooming.
    • Mar 2011 – They don’t think any amount of fact-checking will be good
    • 9 Jun 2011, 4:22pmET – They don’t think any amount of fact-checking will be good.
    • 13 Jun 2011, 11:22amET – They don’t think any amount of fact-checking will be good.

Are Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney Getting Closer to Saying “I do”?

Another aspect of understanding online political content is that it allows you to determine how well two individuals will get along politically. We demonstrated the ability to determine who would partner with whom in 2004 (see Reading Virtual Minds), the question was moot in 2008 and we’re taking a look again here in 2011.

NextStage Compatibility GaugeThis time we’re using NextStage’s Compatibility Gauge (NSCG), a tool being used by clients to help them create online communities for testing purposes, populating work and study groups, determining who’ll be good incoming management for existing teams, researching brands and fans, developing brand persona to match consumer persona, etc. We’re hoping that tool will become public in a few months and are premiering it here because it’s nice to see who’ll get along with whom, don’t you think?

From the NSCG website, “This gauge indicates how compatible two things are …based on what you analyzed. Accuracy increases the more samples you test, so if you don’t like these results, send through a few more things. If the results stay low, maybe you should rethink your involvement. On the other hand, if the results improve, particularly if they improve over time, perhaps this is a match.

NextStage Compatibility GaugeFinal note: NSCG makes use of Rich Personae in its determinations. You can learn more about Rich Personae in The NextStage KnowledgeShop or at The NextStage PersonaScope.

How Compatible was Romney in Jan 2011 to Palin today (10 June 2011)

Compatibility of Romney's Thinking in Jan 2011 with Palin's Thinking on 10 June 2011

While closer than some, 37.52% doesn’t make for good political bedfellows. Note that NSCG didn’t make any statements about emotional compatibility between Romney in Jan 2011 and Palin today, an indication that these two wouldn’t have gotten along at a very primitive level.

SarahPac.com (on 10 June 2011, 9:35amET)’s RichPersona is K11, Mitt Romney’s CPAC 2011 Speech’s RichPersona is V13.

  • Cognitive Factors
    • These two sources will probably have some initial confusions
    • It’s doubtful there will be any show stoppers so long as they both maintain a positive attitude
    • And they will agree at a ‘core’ level
    • These two sources will probably have initially be unsure of each other and ask for repeated clarifications
    • It is suggested there be an informal meeting where they get to know each other casually before a formal meeting where work needs to get done
    • These two sources will probably get along well socially and in small-talk
    • They can be left alone together but neither would especially like it
    • But don’t expect anything useful to be accomplished, even in that small-talk
  • Behavioral Factors
    • Dominance games will break out at some point in time, probably instigated by Sarah Palin
    • At some point Mitt Romney will mention that they feel Sarah Palin is a little too manipulative
    • Sarah Palin will attempt to control the conversation at some point

How Compatible are Romney and Palin today (10 June 2011)

Compatibility of Romney's Thinking with Palin's Thinking on 10 June 2011

Compatibility is 45.85% this time out, an indication these two are getting closer and further evidenced by NSCG recognizing some emotional factors in its analysis.

SarahPac.com (on 10 June 2011, 9:35amET)’s RichPersona is K11, MittRomney.com (on 10 June 2011, 9:35amET)’s RichPersona is K16.

  • Cognitive Factors
    • These two sources will understand each other on major discussion points
    • These two sources will probably get along quite well and be able to overcome any confusions with a laugh
    • These two sources will probably get along well socially and in small-talk
    • Given time, these two sources could become friends
    • Very good friends, in fact
  • Emotive Factors
    • Stay back, there’s probably love in the air
    • Just give them boxing gloves and close the door
  • Behavioral Factors
    • It’s quite likely Sarah Palin will consider Mitt Romney assertive to the point of being aggressive
    • There will be clash of wills or agendas at some point and probably early in the discussion/negotiation

Shown here is an attitude shift — their thoughts on things are coming together. At least in public. Where Romney might have felt Palin was manipulative now she may feel Romney is too aggressive. In any case, two strong wills will be demonstrated in any closed door conversations.

Note that NSCG’s emotional factors for this analysis are of a love-hate relationship. These two may love each other but they’ll have some knock-down drag-outs, too.