Prime Group

Candidates themselves often reveal their brand weaknesses

John McCain would keep American troops in Iraq for 100 years. Barack Obama thinks white working class voters cling to their guns and religion out of economic frustration. Hillary Clinton thinks the 2008 Democratic nomination battle could end as horribly as the one in 1968. What do these statements have in common? First, the candidates actually said them. Second, they wish they hadn’t. Third, they each illustrate how the weakness of a candidate’s “brand” often projects the mirror image of its strength.

What McCain really meant to say about Iraq is, “Look, it’s not about how long it takes; it’s about not losing. I’m a tough guy and we should be a tough country willing to stick it out as long as it takes. Try five and a half years in a Viet Cong prison.” The problem with this is that it reinforces both the strength and the weakness of Brand McCain. He is tough – scary tough. Most Americans probably would have accepted the early release offered McCain by his Viet Cong captors. He turned it down. Is that the balance between principle and practicality we want in our next commander in chief?

What Obama really meant to say is, “I’m a smart and well-educated guy who has read The Problem With Kansas and understands the economic frustrations of those less fortunate (and less thoughtful) than myself. A little erudition in the White House might be a good thing for a change.” Unfortunately, the strength and the weakness of Brand Obama is that he is the anti-Bush – smart, thoughtful, well read… and an intellectual Ivy League elitist. Do we want our next president to analyze us or identify with us?

What Clinton really meant to say is, “Stuff happens. I’m not just talking about assassination… This guy Obama is a walking time bomb and, with luck and tenacity, I’ll still be in the race when that bomb goes off.” This also reinforces the strength and the weakness of Brand Clinton – she is tough as nails and never quits. But, do we want our next president to be capable of thinking the unthinkable – if it is her only way to win?

We want our next president to be tough, smart, and tenacious… just not too tough, too smart, or too tenacious. In their scripted moments, the candidates project the positive side of their brands while stopping short of revealing the negative flip sides. But presidential campaigns are long, grueling exercises in stamina like the dance marathons of the ’20s that left contestants clutching one another lest they both fall over and, inevitably, self-revealing mistakes are made.

Political observers often fret over the control of campaigns by pollsters, media consultants, and other “handlers.” The fact is, when we listen closely, it is usually the candidates, themselves, who tell us in their own ill-chosen words who they are, what kind of president they would be, and what make up their greatest strengths and greatest weaknesses.

Click here to view a PDF version of this article.

Remembering Hamilton Jordan

On July 4, 1826, in one of history’s more ironic twists, longtime political adversaries John Adams and Thomas Jefferson died within hours of one another.
I was reminded of that fact on Tuesday when we received news about tragedies involving two other powerful political foes. First we learned that Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., has been diagnosed with what appears to be an aggressive form of brain cancer. Then later that evening we were told of the death from cancer of former White House Chief of Staff Hamilton Jordan.
I know about the rift between Jefferson and Adams, and the coincidence of their respective deaths, by studying American history. I am familiar with the tensions between Kennedy and Jordan because I observed them at close range, in the White House and in the Carter-Mondale 1980 re-election campaign, when Kennedy challenged incumbent President Jimmy Carter for the Democratic presidential nomination.
Although his presence on the national political stage was relatively short, Hamilton Jordan left an indelible mark on American politics. A brilliant strategist, Jordan crafted the plan that led Jimmy Carter, a one-term former governor of Georgia, all the way to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
In so doing, he helped bring the South back into the mainstream of national Democratic politics, while at the same time forcing the party to adopt a moderate “center-left” approach to issues.
I first met Hamilton the day after the conclusion of the 1976 Democratic Convention in New York City, when he interviewed me for a staff position on the fall campaign.

Chief of staff
Carter went on to be elected president, and in the spring of 1977, I joined the White House Office of Congressional Liaison. In June 1979, when President Carter abandoned our “spokes of the wheel” White House management structure, Hamilton was named chief of staff, and I became one of his two deputies. Later still, Hamilton asked me to take on a key management function at the Carter-Mondale re-election campaign.
Much has been said or written about Hamilton’s keen political instincts and his stunning strategic abilities, which were very much a part of his makeup.
It is also true that Hamilton was the person who those of us on the White House and campaign staffs always looked to for leadership, and we were never disappointed. As Chris Matthews, a former White House colleague and now host of “Hardball” on MSNBC, put it Tuesday night, “Hamilton was popular with the troops.”
And very much unlike the caricature that the gossip columnists conveyed at the time we worked together, that he was some sort of boor, Hamilton Jordan was an incredibly decent and generous person, and unfailingly loyal friend.

An idealist
He was also an idealist, someone who was in politics and government for all of the right reasons. He eschewed ideology and rigid partisanship because he believed that politics should be used to make the world a better place.
Most recently, we were both involved in Unity ‘08, an independent, bipartisan movement designed to give voters a real chance of changing the direction of American politics (an effort that was ultimately superseded and eventually extinguished as Sen. Barack Obama’s candidacy caught on by offering voters something new, different and exciting).
Finally, it should be noted how Hamilton Jordan chose to use his personal experience with cancer and its resulting adversity to be truly inspirational. In the final two decades of his way-too-short life, Hamilton Jordan helped a great many people deal, fight, and live with the disease. It was an amazing contribution, and it was made almost completely out of the spotlight of public attention.
I am sad today because I have lost an old and good friend. But, I am also sad because our country has lost a colorful, vibrant, and dedicated citizen - one of the truly “good guys” to have passed our way in recent times.

Political polls aren’t perfect, but are far from meaningless

Tis the season of polls. For the next 14 months, we will be barraged with political polls that will often seem more confusing than enlightening. For example, Rudy Giuliani leads the race for the Republican nomination in three August polls, but his lead over Fred Thompson is either a whopping 13 points (Gallup and Quinnipiac) or a meager three points (Rasmussen). On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton leads the race in four August polls, but her margin over Barack Obama is either 22 (Gallup), 20 (CBS), 15 (Quinnipiac), or 14 points (Rasmussen). Discrepancies like these will lead inevitably to the quadrennial questions about political polls’ validity.

We’ll hear that polls this early in the race are meaningless (no, just not predictive of the outcome); that they are affected by the bias of the pollster (most pollsters care more about their reputation than the success of their favored candidate); that so few people agree to participate that the results are skewed (“non-response” is a growing problem but, so far, does not significantly skew results); that mobile phones have ruined reliable telephone interviewing (maybe someday, but not yet); and that online surveys are not scientific (complicated issues, but the best are pretty good).

When you hear attempts to dismiss political polls’ accuracy, remember this fact: In the end, the best arenearly always predictive of the electoral outcome within the margin of error (usually around three percentage points). This is so more often for general-election than primary-election polling because it’s easier to predict, and thus sample, turnout in a general election. There are few professions in which there is greater bottom-line accountability than political polling. If you consistently call elections wrong (or are off by more than the margin of error), people won’t hire you.

How should we evaluate this barrage of polls? Based on 20 years of conducting research for candidates, corporations, and nonprofits, I follow these rules:

1. The farther out from the election, the less predictive of the outcome. Candidates wage campaigns, circumstances change, voters focus and change their minds. However, these polls are not “meaningless.” They affect media coverage, fundraising, endorsements, and many other very “real” factors.

2. Dismiss polls conducted by the campaigns – for obvious reasons.

3. Focus only on reputable pollsters – you know who they are or can easily find out.

4. Average polls. The average of the poll results cited above are more likely accurate than any one of the individual polls.

5. Dismiss “outliers.” If three current polls are close and one is very different, throw out the different one.

6. Pay attention to methodology. Most polls are conducted on the telephone, automated telephone, or online. Telephone is generally considered the most accurate, with automated telephone and online gaining in popularity and credibility.

7. Bookmark these links, which will do much of the work for you: www.realclearpolitics.com/; www. pollingreport.com/; www.pollster. com/polls/; www. politicalarithmetik.blogspot.com/.

Click here to view a PDF version of this article.

Next president must bring US comms into the 21st century

First elected in 2000, George W. Bush may well be remembered as the 20th century’s last president rather than the new century’s first one. In their recent book, Wikinomics, Don Trapscott and Anthony Williams describe the technological, economic, and social forces that will transform 21st century life. They identify four characteristics that will mark successful 21st century organizations:

Being open. “Rather than something to be feared, transparency is a powerful new force for… success.”

Peering. “Could [government] make better decisions if [it] were to tap the insights of a broader and more representative body of participants?” Sharing.“Walled gardens of content… shut out the real opportunities for customer-driven innovation.”

Acting globally. “The next 20 years of globalization will profoundly shake up the status quo.”

Now let’s consider how the current administration has fared on each of these principles.

Being open. Vice President Dick Cheney recently captured this administration’s obsession with secrecy in an act so absurd it defies parody. Claiming to be neither a creature of the executive nor the legislative branch of government, Cheney asserted that he was beyond the federal rules governing control of classified information. But this is just the latest in an ongoing saga of secret policy deliberation, secret prisons, secret wiretaps, and secret torture. Peering. This administration has believed from the start that it had all the wisdom needed to run the government and transform the world. As its Iraq policy faltered, the administration consistently dismissed and ridiculed policy suggestions from the military (e.g., General Shinseki), Congress (e.g., Congressman John Murtha [D-PA]), and a host of experts and commentatorsoutside of government. Even those inside the Inner Circle, like then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, were shunned if they deviated from the company line.

Sharing. In business, sharing usually involves intellectual property. In government and politics, sharing is about power. This administration has steadfastly opposed sharing political power at home with Congress and abroad with our allies and world organizations. “My way or the highway” has been their mantra and the world is increasingly opting for the highway.

Acting globally. Even 20th century presidents from Wilson to JFK to George H.W. Bush understood the wisdom of enlisting global coalitions to support our most ambitious and challenging foreign-policy goals. But this administration has adopted a go-it-alone tack. The results have been nothing short of disastrous.

The president elected in 2008 will face a daunting task of undoing the damage of the past eight years. No matter the party, that next commander-in-chief will have a far greater chance of success if he or she adopts the principles of 21st century success outlined in Wikinomics. The world has truly changed. Recognizing, embracing, and exploiting that change isn’t a matter of being hip or fuzzy headed. It’s a matter of survival.

Click here to view a PDF version of this article.

Candidates’ brand attributes factor into voters’ decisions

Ever since Joe McGinniss’ 1968 The Selling of the President about the packaging of Richard Nixon, the candidate-as-product has been a recurring campaign-coverage theme. Candidates are launched, positioned, and advertised like products. Candidate brands matter because voters, like consumers, have neither the time nor inclination to study each offering in detail to make a fully informed choice. Brands are shorthand for traits that speak to psychic or emotional needs. Am I an environmentally sensitive outdoorsy type? Patagonia must be the brand for me. So what are the front-runners’ brand attributes? John McCain is the “straight-talker” – the un-politician. But he thought he so owned this positioning that he could take chances with it. The result was extreme brand confusion and dilution – roughly comparable to Starbucks getting caught running coffee “sweat-fields” in Columbia. To reclaim his brand, McCain is now taking extremely unpopular positions like wanting more, not less, war in Iraq. Good luck with that, John.

Rudy Giuliani’s principal brand attribute is strong leadership. His brand’s iconic moment was, of course, 9/11 when he courageously marched to Ground Zero. Strong leadership is always a powerful attribute for a presidential candidate. And, while 9/11 is the brand’s “logo,” it is given depth by Giuliani’s willingness to take on everyone from labor unions to “squeegee terrorists” in his successful effort to remake Gotham into a livable city. He continues to reinforce the brand by standing up to the social conservatives in his own party on issues like abortion, gun control, and gay rights. Barack Obama owns a brand attribute that is always strong in commercial and political markets: “new” or “fresh.” Voters are unhappy with the war in Iraq, political bickering, the direction of the country, and the incumbent President. Being fresh has enormous emotional appeal. But, recent political history is littered with fresh candidates who went stale: Howard Dean, Ross Perot, and Gary Hart. Staying fresh through a full campaign cycle will be difficult, if not impossible.

Obama’s brand managers should be checking his “pull date” and preparing for some rebranding. Hillary Clinton is an exercise in brand extension (if you liked Bill, you’ll love Hillary). The strategy worked for George W. Bush, but because of that, it may not work as well this time. Clinton has two sets of brand attributes. To insiders, she is “inevitable” (better get on the bandwagon). To voters, she is “experienced” – an audacious claim by one of the least experienced candidates in either party.

Whatever brand attributes the remaining candidates may want, they are most likely stuck with “loser.” Even when the media cover their campaigns, the tone is “nice guy likely to finish last – if at all.” And, who has the strongest brand growth potential? Those yet to be introduced: those boys from Tennessee, Newt Gingrich and Fred Thompson.

Click here to view a PDF version of this article.