Skip to main content

Positioning the Democratic Presidential Candidates

I watched the New Hampshire debates last night. What struck me on the Democratic side was the extent to which the candidates stuck to their positioning. Three of the candidates have clearly staked out their territory in the mind of the voter.

What do the Democratic candidates stand for in the mind of the voter?



Barack Obama stands for "hope" in the mind of the voter. Last night, he repeatedly used words like "empowerment", "getting beyond cynicism", and "bringing people together". The notion that he is an agent of change is an undercurrent of this theme. He wants voters to think he can change the divisive nature of decision-making in Washington into a more inclusive one. His being a fresh face strengthens this message. Voters perceive the usual faces as partisan squabblers that can't accomplish great things.

John Edwards embodies a "fight the power" mentality. He is the populist of the group, and he spoke of battling special interests, lobbyists, multi-national corporations, and "forces of the status quo". The story of his blue-collar father and grandparents working in the mills, and his fighting insurance companies as a trial lawyer, supports this theme.

Hillary Clinton has projected "strength" as a candidate. Her more muscular stances on foreign policy, her statesmanship and experience, and her claims to be a doer and not just a sayer all contribute to this theme. She did not consistently stay true to her positioning in the debate. There were moments in which she responded forcefully to Obama and Edwards with a "let's get back to the real world" message, but she also tried to claim to be an agent of change. This claim distracts from, and may actually undermine, her "strength" theme.

What single idea does Bill Richardson stand for in the mind of the voter? It was difficult to tell from last night's debate, and I suspect his poor standing among the remaining candidates has a lot to do with his failure to position himself clearly.

Comments

Scott Sehlhorst said…
Love this!

Great analysis, and the visual is one of those "hit you over the head with the idea" diagrams. Love it when something makes a concept resonate like this.

It hits me at a visceral level that this would be a great analysis to do for a product - not just in crafting a message that "works best for what you have" but also to reverse directions and say "here's a message that would work - what do we need to add to the product."

Thanks for sharing this!

Scott
Roger L. Cauvin said…
Just an update that the visual in this blog entry was the first iteration of a type of diagram that I now call a "competitive mindshare map". It's a visual way of applying the principles of Ries and Trout to position a product.

Popular posts from this blog

Why Spreadsheets Suck for Prioritizing

The Goal As a company executive, you want confidence that your product team (which includes all the people, from all departments, responsible for product success) has a sound basis for deciding which items are on the product roadmap. You also want confidence the team is prioritizing the items in a smart way. What Should We Prioritize? The items the team prioritizes could be features, user stories, epics, market problems, themes, or experiments. Melissa Perri  makes an excellent case for a " problem roadmap ", and, in general, I recommend focusing on the latter types of items. However, the topic of what types of items you should prioritize - and in what situations - is interesting and important but beyond the scope of this blog entry. A Sad but Familiar Story If there is significant controversy about priorities, then almost inevitably, a product manager or other member of the team decides to put together The Spreadsheet. I've done it. Some of the mos

Use Case as a Black Box

Consider the following use case: Purchase Items Actor: Purchaser Precondition: Purchaser types at least thirty words per minute and has a web navigation efficiency rating of at least 40. Postcondition: For the average Purchaser acting at full efficiency, the number of seconds elapsed is no more than 30 + 20 * n, where n is the number of items purchased. The name of the use case represents a functional requirement. What does the product do, or enable the user to do? Purchase items. What are we to make of the preconditions and postconditions? What relationship do they have to the requirements for the product? Answer: the preconditions and postconditions are the nonfunctional requirements attached to the functional requirement . Another way of expressing the nonfunctional requirement would be as an attribute and associated constraint: Usability: For a Purchaser who types at least thirty words per minute and has a web navigation efficiency rating of at least 40, it shall take no

Henry Ford's "Faster Horse" Quote

You may have heard the ( apocryphal ) Henry Ford quote: If I'd asked customers what they wanted, they would have said "a faster horse". Over at the On Product Management blog , Saeed gives his take on this infamous quote. He "hates" it, and gives some compelling reasons. Saeed is spot on in his explanations. Personally, I think the quote is great, but it's a matter of interpretation. The valid point of the quote is not that it's a bad idea to facilitate a conversation with your market to better understand it. The valid points are: You must ask the right questions to get valuable answers. You must interpret the answers thoughtfully - often outside their direct meaning - to glean reliable information. Asking questions is not always the best way to "listen" to your market. (E.g., sometimes pure observational studies are more reliable.) Nonetheless, I find the quote is helpful to combat "armchair product management" in the