Presidential Campaign Psychologist Gives Advice to Democrats.

I know this is from a Christian newspaper, which I don't read. I am not religious. But, I was just skipping around for stories and came across this interesting one. I've heard of the guy and he is making quite the buzz in the democratic party. His book on how we can win is catching on with the party.
So, this article is out today and the guy is giving advise to the democratic candidates on Debates.
alot of common sense here. and at the last paragraph I included something we democrats seem to keep making the major mistake with. We overthink and look for policies to overwhelm people thinking they will vote for us if we are super smart and wonky. And we cannot understand why we loose.
So, here is a paragraph on the top three and a link to the full article.


Hillary clinton:

One on one she is quite personal but she doesn’t come off that way on television. Some of it is readably coachable because it has to do with how you present yourself in particular to the media. The biggest thing she can do is to watch the megaphone like quality of her voice when she’s in debates and forums. She has a tendency to talk like she’s speaking into a megaphone. It reinforces the story of her as shrill or cold or angry. Someone needs to turn up her microphone and suggest that she talk more softly and someone needs to have her watch those tapes carefully and look at the tone that comes across. It sounds superficial but it’s not superficial at all in its impact on voters. That style of speaking gives an impression of who you are that sticks with voters, particularly when they have a pre-conceived notion that you’re a cold fish.

Barack Obama:

“The Obama who showed up at the debates has been radically different than the one who shows up on the stump. The official word you hear is that Obama isn’t comfortable with the debate format yet. Personally, I think if that’s the problem, then his debate prep should not be about studying briefing books it should be getting comfortable with the format. They ought to hire him a different type of coach. But a bigger issue here is that his campaign responded early to the critique, mostly by leftist pundits, that he was all inspirational and no substance with an overcorrection. If you read the data that predicts peoples voting habits, that’s a mistake. People want to be inspired by their leaders. What catapulted him into being a major candidate for the presidency was his moving oratory and not his 16 point plans. That’s not to say that he should not have some solid plans to govern but it looks to me that when he is answering questions at the debate he is hearing two voices; the inner voice that knows how to move people and the other voice that is telling him make sure you give specific plans a and show your substance. What ends up is a hybrid that does neither. Let Obama be Obama. I wouldn’t stick a briefing book anywhere near this man just like I wouldn’t stick a briefing book near Ronald Reagan.

John Edwards:

Edwards has gotten the short of the end stick from the media. I say this as someone who is on the left, I think the “liberal media” are bewitched with the idea of the black man running against the white woman and in doing that they have left out the guy on the stage that would normally had been the presumptive nominee, the one who was the Vice-President nominee from last time. Sure, Edwards has made some missteps like letting the haircut story or the story about his big house fester when he should have responded to them the day it came out. The first thing you do is that you don’t let it take hold. There are some very good psychological reasons why you don’t take anything on the chin in politics and why you respond immediately. Edwards let it go for awhile. I don’t know why. That’s when you have to design your own instant replays for television where you come out with a line like, “I would be happy to go back to 12 dollar haircuts to make sure every kid in this country has healthcare.” You take that negative and weave it into part of your story and if you can do it with humor all the better.”

One of the Main and True thoughts:

“Something Democrats have a difficult time recognizing is a way to develop a coherent ideology and ways of speaking about values that are emotionally compelling. The Democrats pre-occupation with who has the best 16 point energy plan has been a tremendous mistake. The argument is if you want to appeal to peoples minds, you better start with their heart


http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/216229.aspx

much less than with the brain.

And our candidates have to be able to appeal on that level, too. It isn't nearly enough to be "correct" on the issues.

We heard about how Al Gore was advised to wear earth tones to impress people.

Then we heard about how Lakoff was telling Democrats what words to use in their speeches to impress people.

Last week there was another story about some neuroscientist supposedly telling Democrats to be "emotional" to impress people.

Now this.

I am not saying that none of this advice is valuable...just that it seems to be a pattern here, that the public is given the impression that Democrats are constantly scrambling around trying to find experts who can tell them how to win. Am I wrong, or do we not usually hear stories like this about the other side?

part of your story. It shows folks it's not a negative and that you are not ashamed. Rather than running from it, it shows courage.

e.g. Obama took "inexperience" Sunday and turned it into taking a new more creatively proactive role in legislative processes like the one that lead to the IWR. I thought it was pretty devestating.

There are no absolutes, so most negatives can be "spun" into positives and, of course, vice versa.