Analyzing Core Messaging in the 2024 Election

Once in a rare while, I address political issues in my blog. Why? Well, because when it comes to messaging and positioning, it’s the big leagues. Politics is Major League Baseball, consumer packaged goods (CPG) is AAA, and here in Silicon Valley we’re only AA. It’s hard not to look at the big leagues to try and learn from what they do. Plus, they drown us in their communications, which makes it easy to find familiar examples to discuss.

Through looking at politics, I’ve become a fan of Frank Luntz‘s methods, specifically his research-driven approach to messaging. While one side hires Luntz more than the other, that shouldn’t matter. As Patton reminds us, you should learn from the best and brightest of both [1].

In this post I’m going to pick a white-hot topic — core messaging in the US 2024 presidential election — and try to analyze it. Here’s the hard part: I want to do so without dragging myself or my readers into a debate about politics. I believe the key to doing this successfully is not objectivity (an impossible goal), but dispassion [2]. 

Ground rules help, too — I’ll immediately delete any comments or messages that move off messaging/positioning and into policy. If you want an example of the difference, see note [3].

If this exercise is going to bother you, stop reading here. Otherwise, let’s go!

In this post, I’m going to:

• Reduce the messages to two words, each.
• Analyze that reduced messaging using three tests: (1) is it compelling, (2) does it have cross-over appeal, and (3) how good is it as a capstone?
• Share who I think has the stronger message, and why
• Make suggestions on how I’d improve the weaker message

The Reduced Messaging

While I don’t think the messaging has completely converged yet, I think we’re headed here.

That’s the choice. Save Democracy or Save America.

How Compelling Are The Messages?

Putting aside the execution of the two signs [4], both sides argue that they’re fighting to save something. The Democrats want to save democracy. The Republicans want to save America. Who’s got the better message?

Both sides pre-suppose something needs saving. The Republicans argue that America needs saving from a list of real, embellished, or imagined crises, including immigration, inflation, wars, the IRS, Democrats, and the swamp. The Democrats argue that our system of government, democracy, needs saving from a real, embellished, or imagined dictator in Donald Trump, who is under indictment for numerous crimes, perpetuates the falsehood that the 2020 election was stolen, and who tried to prevent the proper transfer of power at the end of his presidency.

In short,

• Republicans want to save the country from a list of crises.
• Democrats want to save the system of government from a man.

This x-ray view makes it easier to analyze the messages.

• Republicans want to save the country, Democrats want to save an idea. Saving the country is infinitely more visceral and motivating.
• Republicans want to fight crises, Democrats want to fight a man. This positions the Republicans as trying to help the average American [5] and the Democrats as fighting a personal battle [6].

Logically, the Republican message almost auto-justifies extraordinary means in order to achieve its critical end. Who cares about saving democracy when America itself is at risk? We need to save our country and our way of life — and if that means taking a few liberties and/or tyranny of the minority, then so be it. We’re talking about saving America, here. We can fix that other stuff, later.

The Democratic message is quite cerebral. We need to save the American ideal, the soul of the nation, and Western liberal democracy. We need to be a beacon of hope for would-be democracies around the world. But tangibly, what does that actually mean? It’s actually kind of a meta-message [7]. It says nothing about what they want to do after saving democracy. There’s no future promise. 

To have some fun, and I’ll exaggerate here, let’s contrast two chants that seem to go with these messages:

What do we want? A Western, liberal, democratic system of government in order to save the soul of the nation and to ensure we remain a beacon of hope to would-be democracies. When do we want it? As soon as reasonably can be expected.

Versus:

What do we want? To save America. When do we want it? Now.

Less is more. Less is more. Less is more. Burn it into your marketing brain. Less is so much more when it comes to messaging. Most software companies miss this, too.

But there’s an even bigger problem with the Save Democracy message that I learned years ago when writing, of all things, a business intelligence white paper on information democracy [8]. I wanted a pithy quote on the benefits of democracy, so I did what I thought would be a quick search. And kept searching. And kept searching. In the end, I had to use this.

“Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried.” 

— Winston Churchill

It turns out that people don’t like democracy all that much. It’s hard to find people with a kind word to say. Churchill captured the spirit perfectly. In this light, then, let’s re-evaluate the Democratic message.

• Republicans are fighting to save the country.
• Democrats are fighting to save an idea that most people don’t even like all that much.

I think this makes Save Democracy a significantly less compelling message than Save America.

Do The Messages Have Cross-Over Appeal?

I’m not a political strategist, but I’d guess in a world where only 54% identify as either Republican or Democrat and 43% identify as Independent, that you’d want a message that does two things: (1) rallies the base and gets them out to vote and (2) appeals to those outside the base, particularly the Independents. Now let’s analyze how our two reduced messages fare on this test.

Save America is a strong message for the base. And I think it’s a reasonable cross-over message that has some appeal to both Democrats and Independents. Sure, I don’t want to be a member of your party, but I’m down for saving America. What you want to do and how you want to do it may well turn me away, but for a two-word message, with Save America you still have my attention.

Save Democracy is a good message for the base. It’s too cerebral for my taste, but many members of the base are cerebral themselves, so that shouldn’t bother them too much. The problem is with cross-over appeal. For Independents, I think it’s a reasonable message. Yes democracy is important, but again, fairly cerebral and a bit too meta — and then what? 

For Republicans, however, it’s a total non-starter. Wait, you want me to save democracy by putting the people I disagree with in charge? That’s your sales pitch? Take one for the team in order to save democracy? Please tell me that your marketer hasn’t pinned your hopes to this message.

For these reasons, I think the Save America message has better cross-over appeal than Save Democracy.

What is the Capstone Utility of the Messages?

Capstone is a fancy MBA word, typically referring to a capstone course and/or project that integrates everything you’ve learned in the program. I think it’s a useful concept here. Your reduced messaging really should serve as a capstone. It’s thus both the ultimate summary of what you’re saying as well as the starting point for your stump speech. For example:

“Thank you for coming out today. We’re here to Save Schmumble. If we don’t, here are some of the bad things that will happen. If we do, here are all of the good things that will happen. Do you folks want to Save Schmumble? So do I. Let me ask you, is there anything more important than Saving Schmumble? No, I didn’t think so. Now, let’s talk about how we’re going to roll up our sleeves and do it.” [9]

I believe that the reduced messaging naturally points you in a given direction. Let me demonstrate that with an example of where Save America would point me.

“We’re here to Save America. Our country is under threat. Threats from immigration and our open border policy, inflation and the erosion of the US dollar, endless wars that siphon our resources and put our brave troops in harm’s way, taxation that stifles both American business and the American spirit, slowing job creation and the economy … Are we going to do something about these threats? Can we stop them? You bet we can, and we will.”

Save America points you in the direction of talking about the threats to America. That is, from the audience’s perspective, the day-to-day problems they face. As I’ve said many times [10], convincing someone you understand and care about the problem — in software or in politics — counts for about 80% of the sale. 

Unlike software sales where customers require proof that you can solve a problem, to win the rhetorical war you don’t actually need concrete solutions to close the deal. All you actually need is to convince people that you care about the problem and that you can solve it [11]. We can talk about how, later.

Let’s see where Save Democracy points me:

“Our system of government is under threat from a man who has shown us that he believes he’s a king. From granting key government jobs to unqualified family members, to the use of government to pursue personal vendettas, to abusive pardons of convicted criminals, to the events of January 6th and all that surrounds it. Democracy itself is at stake here … And it’s up to us to protect democracy and its sacred light. And we’re going to do just that in November.”

Save Democracy points you in the direction of Trump. He is the threat to democracy. So you start to talk about the things he’s done and the risks of what he might do. That leads to talking about the people who’ve joined him, the inner circle at first, but if you keep going, you get to the entire Republican party. Ending here is disastrous because, as Hillary clearly demonstrated, insulting people isn’t a great strategy to win their support.

The narrative ends up sounding personal, angry, and negative. And it can lead to a deplorables style write-off of your opponent’s supporters and, more dangerously, the Independents who sympathize with them. 

Believe it or not, I didn’t try to throw the exercise. I just started with the two different themes and followed where I felt they were pointing me. Save America pointed me to a place where I could rant about problems and gloss over solutions. Save Democracy pointed me to attack Trump, his people, and those who support him. For these reasons, I think Save America has higher capstone utility.

Thoughts on Improving the Weaker Message

In the spirit of bringing solutions, not just problems, I’d recommend the following ways to improve the Democratic messaging:

• Not adopt a save-something counter message. This blows things up on the launch pad and lets the opponent define the agenda.
• Sell today’s success. Several surveys show that many Americans think they (and interestingly, other Americans) are doing worse than they actually are. The cardinal sin of marketing is under-marketing reality [12].
• Sell a vision for a brighter future. I’m not sure what or how, but that’s what people want to buy. Sell it to them. It’s a far better strategy than attacking the other guy in the name of saving a relatively unpopular idea.
• Don’t turn the race into a good vs. evil battle. This is precisely what the opposition wants. Don’t give it to them.
• Put an emphasis on actual solutions. Where’s the beef? What are the details of the “better” health plan? This one’s dangerous, but so is giving your competitor a pass on their ability to solve problems.

I can’t start out talking about Frank Luntz and not say that I’d research the heck out of all this. Don’t get confused. I am a big believer — as this post shows — of thinking deeply about what we are actually saying. More software companies should do that. But I’m also a big believer in understanding what they are actually hearing. More software companies should do that, too.

Thanks for reading. I’m not here to change anyone’s mind about the election, but I am hoping to help us all learn something about marketing by examining it.

# # #

Notes

[1] The movie took some cinematic license. The scene appears made up. Nevertheless, I think the point stands because it’s made by many others, who have expressed an equivalent idea, if not so dramatically.

[2] Hard as we try, none of us can ever be objective. We can do our best, try to see both sides, etc., but our opinions are definitionally subjective. Research is probably the only way to do objective anything — and there are plenty of ways to bias research as well. Ergo, rather than strive for an unattainable goal (and potentially get sucked into debates about the degree of my objectivity), I’ll admit now that I’m not objective. I have opinions. But my purpose here is neither to share them, nor persuade you to believe them. To make this kind of post work, objectivity is the wrong goal. I think dispassion is a more realistic goal and I will thus in this piece attempt to dispassionately analyze the messaging.

[3] For example, in this context debating policy would be debating the pros/cons of a Mexican border wall, including its effectiveness, efficiency, cost, morality, environmental impact, and such. Analyzing messaging would instead look like: should we pick immigration as a core issue, and if we do, can we successfully use “the wall” as our solution? In a problem/impact/solution format, immigration is the problem, impacts are the various troubles it causes the audience, and the wall is the solution. In this context, it’s fair to ask if you can sell the audience on a wall as the solution to the problem. But you get a penalty flag if you enter into a debate about your opinions on the wall.

[4] I can’t resist. Let’s quickly analyze the execution of the two signs. What do I see?

• The left sign is generally inferior to the right.
• The left sign has two messages, the right sign has one. For a quick-read sign, pick one. (The only person who reads all 30 words on this lawn sign risks running over the neighbor’s kids.)
• The left sign inverts the relative importance of its messages, heavily weighting Vote Blue over Save Democracy. I hope it was intended to sit outside a polling place, otherwise I don’t get it.
• The right sign is clearly a lawn sign. I tried to find the left sign in a similar aspect ratio, but couldn’t. Either way, this demonstrates an important lesson about aspect ratios when making logos or images. The left sign loses relative space here due to an arbitrary choice I made (i.e., equal height) in designing the composite.

[5] A particularly unfortunate built-in concession, given the opponent’s lack of a policy platform in 2020.

[6] Enabling the “Trump Derangement Syndrome” genre of messages.

[7] By meta, I mean, “we’re not sure what we want to do, but we know how we want to do it — democratically!”

[8] Which I was going to turn into a quadrant (access vs. control) with boxes named things like information dictatorship, information anarchy, and such.

[9] If needed, you could add a dash of: ”Can you believe that my opponent doesn’t even want to Save Schmumble? Why just last week, he said Schmumble didn’t matter. I can’t believe it. How are you going to Save Schmumble if you don’t even care about it? Well, we can’t let that happen.”

[10] My definition of “solution selling” is convincing the buyer of three things: they understand my problem, they can solve my problem, and I want to work with them. You score most of your points on the first and the third item; demonstrating proficiency on the first often gets you credit on the second. That’s why I like completing the customer’s sentences occasionally when they’re describing the problem.

[11] In this light, real policy is actually kind of dangerous. It’s hard work to create and details matter (which is why you need “policy wonks” to help). Worst yet, once you create a policy, you pin yourself down. It can and will be attacked. It’s far easier and less risky to devote your messaging to high-level vision and detailed discussion of the problems, but with only a cursory discussion of the solutions. If your audience and your opponent let you.

[12] I’m not saying this would be easy. Convincing someone they’re doing better than they think they are is no easy task. I know it’s dangerous ground, but so is letting people think they’re worse off when they’re not. As with many situations, the best way to get out of this one is to not get into it. But that’s where they are.