Articles by Jon

 It would be hard for the most imaginative playwright to top the theatrical ups and downs of a presidential campaign such as our current one, with its clashes of personalities, ideologies and sparring multi-media messages. Just days before the end of this seemingly endless production, how do we forecast the outcome? Let’s go behind the scenes and examine how the candidates shape their roles and how voters respond in this—or any—election.

If “all the world’s a stage” as Shakespeare wrote, then elections are best understood as human dramas about how the winners win and why the losers lose.

This drama is played out around four emotions: reassurance, fear, anger and coolness.

The winning candidate is the one who performs better by incorporating these four emotions into the portrayal of their character and the plot of their campaign.

Reassurance

Voters know that every candidate has flaws; so what they’re really looking for is a sufficient amount of reassurance that Candidate A is better than Candidate B. Keep in mind that perception is reality: substance doesn’t necessarily beat style and emotions trump facts. There are four forms of reassurance that voters seek. Think of them as “the four abilities.”

Credibility. Which candidate succeeds in portraying themselves as more “up to the job” by qualifications: record, experience, knowledge, and being a convincing communicator when discussing issues and their plans?

Suitability. Which candidate succeeds in portraying themselves as more “right for the job” with qualities such as leadership, judgment and temperament that suggest they have the better aptitude to fix major problems of the day?

Likeability. With the exception of firmly committed voters, many people have mixed feelings about the candidates, right up to the end. They conclude that “no one is perfect, but—you know what? I just like this candidate better.” The size of that “like vote” can’t precisely be measured. But it is big. After all, people are emotional creatures. We pride ourselves on being rational, but we vote with our feelings.

Memorability. When we close our eyes, what picture of each candidate forms in our minds? Given a single sentence, how would we describe each candidate? During defining moments in the campaign, did one candidate go either right-footed or wrong-footed and did their behavior make an indelible impression on the public—either positive or negative?

Sadly, we are often reduced to asking ourselves: why couldn’t better candidates be found? (Perhaps our favorite candidate didn’t make the final cut.) But when the curtain closes in the voting booth we choose one candidate, not because they are the ultimate hero (or heroine) but because, compared to their opposition, they are relatively more reassuring.

Winning candidates reassure us to the extent that they do a good job playing two roles: the “happy warrior” and the “good listener.” The human drama of an election peaks where these two roles intersect, in battles between the candidates—debates, speeches, dueling advertisements and those moments when a candidate blurts out something in response to a question, a challenge or an event.

Winston Churchill said, “I like a man who grins when he fights.” Voters prefer a candidate who is a happy warrior. Losing candidates are unhappy warriors. At crucial moments in the drama of the campaign they make a mistake or do something ineffectual. In a worst case, they become an object of ridicule.

Happy warriors are comfortable in their own skin, confident in their own convictions, and articulate about their own plans. They seem to relish the chance to win us over with the force of their personality and the depth of their beliefs. Losers stumble and get tackled. Winners break tackles and keep running forward. The difference isn’t always because of the way a candidate acts; it’s because of how they react, artfully or awkwardly.

The title of Arthur Miller’s play, “Death of a Salesman,” captures the poignant human drama of an election. Candidates are sales people. They travel around with “a smile and a shoeshine.” Only one achieves the dream of success. The winning candidate is the better sales person in this way: he or she has listened better to the voters and the spirit of the times. When we buy anything, we buy from those who listen for and respond to what we want, what we need, what we object to, and what price we’re willing to pay. Winners listen well and when it’s time to talk, they show that they heard us.

Fear

Just as we often choose to vote for “the lesser of the evils,” we often choose to vote not so much for what we are attracted to but against what we fear. Candidates play on our fears as well as our hopes, warning us of the consequences if we don’t vote for them.

Certainly, candidates also appeal to our hopes. But in many elections there aren’t enough true believers behind one candidate to ensure a victory. Candidates thus put the greater emphasis on fear to motivate voters who are tuned out, ambivalent or independents.

The fear appeal is highly dramatic and it can be highly effective. It says, “My opponent and what he or she represents will lead to catastrophe.” Winners often wear the face of hope, even as they open our eyes to fear.

Anger

As with fear, anger is frequently what motivates our vote. Winning candidates have one thing in common: they know how to stir us to anger. They play to what we are “mad as hell about and not going to take anymore.”

Politics is a human drama about power. We are angry that powers seemingly beyond our control are affecting our lives. The winning candidate persuades us that he or she will be better at addressing our anger and redressing our resentments about abuses of power.

Coolness

The winning candidate is better at the “Goldilocks test.” Just as in the Goldilocks fable where the porridge is “not too hot, not too cold—just right,” a winning candidate is the one who seems more cool, calm and collected without seeming indifferent or aloof.

Candidates lose when they are too cool—when they seem distant, detached or “out of touch” regarding the concerns of the public. They lose when they seem cool instead of passionate when talking about their principles and plans. How can you sell anyone anything that you don’t seem to believe in yourself? Yet we see this in some losing candidates. They want to be the star without appearing to completely believe in the script they’re delivering. Losers also blow it by blowing too hot, in response to a question that gets major media play or to some other big breaking news story, for example.

Candidates win when their cool is seen as “just right” in the heat of battle, whether that battle is in a debate, a media interview, with a heckler in a crowd, or in response to any other confrontation, attack or crisis.

Put this analysis to the test. At any point in an election—and particularly once it’s over—check which candidate has played the more convincing role that appeals to four key emotions in the human drama of elections: reassurance, fear, anger and coolness.

Author & communications consultant Jon Kraushar may be reached at 212 685-8157 or jon@jonkraushar.com.