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

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

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.

The 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

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

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

Bachmann and Pawlenty Compatibility

• 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