DEMS - Treading Water Won't Get You to the White House: Why their speech style isn't moving the needle

If you’ve been keeping up with the Democratic primary debates this year, you may have noticed one key pattern has continued from Round 1 in June straight through to Round Four last night:

With minimal exception, the needle hasn’t moved.

Why?

Because the way they’re all debating is the strategic equivalent of treading water: it just maintains the status quo. Biden, Warren and Sanders are at the forefront because they had the most name recognition in the first place, and nobody else has truly stepped up on the debate stage to dethrone them. Similarly, their respective popularity hasn’t varied much because none of the three has stopped treading and started swimming either. What do I mean by that, you ask?

As moderator Jake Tapper pointed out in Round 2, many (most?) Democrats are more willing to vote for the candidate they think can beat Donald Trump than the one who they agree with most closely on major issues. But what the candidates all fail to acknowledge is that what they will need to do to beat Donald Trump down the road is exactly the same as what would launch them ahead of their current competition, as I have identified from the beginning:

1. Not one candidate has come up with a handful of clear, simple, “tweetable and repeatable” campaign promise sound bite refrains that people can easily remember and talk about, like “Build a Wall” or “Make American Great Again”
2. Few tell compelling, personally relatable stories
3. Few regularly incorporate a clear call to action (CTA), and
4. All sabotage their own credibility at certain points through non-verbal cues such as vocal patterns and body language

Their respective devotees love them and will continue to do so, but they’re not convincing other voters to jump off someone else’s bandwagon and onto theirs. Status quo: achieved.

Want further evidence that they (and for that matter, the media) are not playing the long game? I’m amazed at how much discussion during and immediately after the debate has lamented the “attacks” on Elizabeth Warren by her opponents. Challenging her to admit that taxes would go up with her healthcare plan – especially when it’s actually Sanders’ plan that she is endorsing and he outright states that taxes will go up to pay for it – is hardly an “attack.” That’s the verbal equivalent of shooting someone with a paint pellet. Any candidate who can’t withstand that kind of “attack” will never survive the Trump arsenal.

Changing minds and inspiring people to take action are crucial skill sets in political debates and in leadership in general. Here are a few examples of where some of the core tools were effectively used, some of the time, and examples of who is misusing the tools and cutting themselves off at the knees:

• Biden dropped a few names like John McCain asking him to give his eulogy, which is touching in principle, but he said it matter-of-factly, as if perfunctorily answering the question about unlikely friendships. He didn’t narrate the experience as a story with any emotion to connect with. He should take a few notes from Kamala Harris’s playbook, below. And he had no call to action – at least he didn’t flub it like in Round 3 so he didn’t lose any ground, but he didn’t invite us to move with him either. Once again, treading water in the status quo, safe and sound.
• Harris was the ultimate story champion, from images of her mother at the kitchen table with the bills, trying to figure out how to make ends meet, to illustrating stats regarding gun violence in African American communities. The content is clear and simple, and her delivery drives each one home. But no call to action leaves people hanging and leaves votes on the table.
• Warren also had no call to action, so no concrete instruction step for people to move the needle. She also referenced the same cancer and MS patient one-liners multiple times, which makes them non-stories at best and canned-sounding (which they were) at worst. No ground gained.
• Buttigieg had some great stories, from painting pictures about mothers and babies in the news, to his own diverse friendships with people of all different backgrounds in the military, and he managed to weave his call to action into the storyline: “Go to peteforamerica.com to read all about it.” His delivery is always poised and classy but confident and relatable. No surprise that he has moved from virtual obscurity to an impressive Seat #4 on the stage. (Almost moving the needle…)
• Sanders smartly leveraged the question about his health and age to give his Call to Action, challenging people to come and see for themselves: “I invite you all to a massive rally, berniesanders.com.”

On subliminal credibility cues –

• Again, Biden suddenly got far more animated at the very end since he got the last word of the whole debate, but it was hard to tell if he was calling to us or yelling at us. Mixed vocal messaging lacks direction. Without direction, we tread, not swim.
• Harris and Warren used opposite head gestures: Harris nods her head “yes” emphatically as she speaks as if to say, “Of course you agree. ” In contrast, Warren still habitually shakes her head in a perpetual “no” motion in virtually every answer… but is the subconscious messaging inferred as, “This is bad and must change,” or “No, I’m wrong”?
• Yang still sways compulsively from foot to foot, metronome like, every time he speaks. It’s distracting, and coupled with his increasingly robo-tone voice, makes him less relatable and engaging. I sense the gains he has made to date (seat #6) will slip in the next round, despite his included Call to Action of going to Yang2020.com.
• O’Rourke is the tallest candidate at 6’4”, and while height is typically correlated with strength, it undermined his authority this time as he kept leaning on one hand on the podium to talk into the microphone, and as a result he looked off-balance all night, not standing straight and strong.
• Klobuchar had touching stories about her dad’s struggle with alcoholism, and included a clear call to action, but lost her power as she seemed to suffer from a semi-breathless, quavering voice all night, as if her nerves got the better of her and she never managed to get into her groove. It shows up as the antithesis of executive presence. She won’t likely make it to the next round.

As for the others, they made little impression in these areas, for better or for worse. Steyer is new and apparently hasn’t gotten the original memo yet so made no significant impact. For Castro, Gabbard and Booker, no change means they’re not long for this race.

At this point, what this says to me is that Biden is in it for the long haul as long as nobody else takes my advice and steps up their game in Round 5 on November 20th.

Any takers?