How Did Hillary Do?

 
The question is not whether or not Hillary was good last night. Her platform skills were very good and she commanded that floor as a consummate leader. The question is: did she reach her objective? Did she get the result she had to get, which was to deliver most if not all of her steadfast supporters to Barack Obama?

One woman interviewed by ABC, both before Hillary’s speech and after, had this to say, even more emphatically after the fact: “I believe now more than ever that she was the better candidate and that America made the wrong choice.”

I don’t doubt that this woman speaks for many other Hillary supporters, and that means one thing. Despite Hillary’s powerhouse and often rhythmic words; her perfect hand gestures; her smiles, authentic decrees, and again, commanding presence—she failed. [This essay is based on the assumption that she wanted to reach this objective. Clearly, she may have had contrary motivations] That said, she was ostensibly there for one reason: to convince her extremely loyal fans to support Barack. Instead, she convinced them with her polished platform skills that she was the better candidate.

She needed to go further than perfect, polished, practiced platform skills because, in truth, they weren’t enough. They didn't (and rarely do) equate to getting results, and her speech is a stellar example of this fact that so few understand. There is a mighty distinction between looking good—being absolutely flawless in delivering a speech—and moving people to action. The only purpose of any speech, ever. Her entire goal was to influence change…or risk handing this election over to an opponent she and the rest of the Democrats vehemently oppose.

To move those loyal supporters to new action, she needed to implement skills that go far beyond platform skills.

 
What Could She Have Done Differently? Acknowledge the Pink Elephant

 
First, she and her advisors needed a keen and insightful understanding of human psychology to achieve the full breadth of their desired effect. The fact is that nearly 5 million of her supporters say they will vote for McCain and not Barack because she’s out of the race. They are resolute and immovable. And this is what everyone must understand: they like it that way. When someone’s digging in their heels, they’re getting something out of it. Hillary et al needed to know “what’s in it for them” for staying resolute--and then, what would be in it for them to change.

Without having spoken to any of her supporters, my hunch is that “what’s in it for them” is avoidance of a fundamental, human “ick zone”: shifting their self-perception. We don’t like to—and rarely—change our self-images…especially if we’re proud of them. What’s in it for them to stick to their positions is something intangible but fierce: holding on to the way they see themselves. And they see themselves as loyal, dogged, passionate, persistent, caring. I believe they believe (without being aware of it necessarily) that to defect to Barack’s camp would nullify those qualities in themselves. It would somehow change who they “are.”

To not address this is to dance around the issue, saying great things as she did--but never getting the work done. Hillary’s job was to assure them that they would be the same person with Barack that they were with her.

So, how could she have addressed the two WIIFMs— staying where they are, and moving over to Barack? Head-on. I would have wanted to see her spotlight the issue, then turn it around.
 
To do that, she’d need to do something different than "old-guard politics."  She would need to remove old-school formality and get intimate. My preference would have been for her to get out from behind the podium, go to the edge of the stage and speak directly to the situation. Even if she stayed behind the podium, she would need to move in toward the audience, pause as she scanned the entire room, and then—call a spade a spade.
 
She hopped in and out of doing just that in only one sentence, which she keenly posed as a question: “Were you in this campaign just for me, or were you in it for that young Marine and others like him?”
 
That question went right at the heart of the issue—without coming right out and saying it. I would have wanted her to come out and say, “You need to decide who you really are. Are you about me or about your fellow citizens? Are you about making a point by holding on to me, or are you about truly seeking change? What is more important to you: being right or being effective?”
 
That is spotlighting the fundamental issue at hand and piercing it. Once the pink elephant’s been acknowledged, the influence can begin. But no influencing will have any effect until the spade’s been called a spade. Have you ever tried to talk someone out of a deep, emotional position? It can’t be done until you’ve disempowered the emotion. Calling a spade a spade—acknowledging precisely what’s really going on--dismantles the fiercest of defenses. It’s exactly what happened when Oz was acknowledged for being no more than a man behind the curtain. He lost his power and his defenses.

Once her supporters see themselves and their hidden motivations--which have consequently lost their power--she can say to them, “If you’re about being effective, holding on to me is ineffective. You’re going to put a man in the Whitehouse who will continue to set us back. If you are someone who believed in me…you are someone who can believe in Barack Obama.”
 
She needed to blend their self-perceptions as Hillary supporters with their self-perceptions as Barack supporters…and make that blending desirable.
 
Trying to tell them “what’s in it for them” to support Barack before acknowledging that they’ve got a WIIFM for staying right where they are and that it’s not going to work—isn’t going to work. And didn't.

Paint a Picture and Put Them In It

Next, she needed to do something with the powerful emotions that have motivated her supporters: self-pride; the pride of being consistent; loving her, and replace those emotions with even more powerful ones, with a statement like this: “I want you to consider for a moment what this country will be like if you make me more important than the mom struggling with cancer…” and she would begin to paint a picture—with them right inside it—of all the ways the country will get worse if they allow Barack not to be elected. If she did it well, the pain and cost of putting their personal motivations above the country’s interest would be more powerful than their attachments to Hillary and to their self-perceptions.

Make them Say it

But that’s not all. Hillary would need even further understanding of human psychology to get her job done. Robert Cialdini, PhD, in his legendary book, Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion, speaks to one of (if not the) most central motivators of human behavior: the desire to be and look consistent with what we have already done. “Once a stand has been taken, the need for consistency pressures people to bring what they feel and believe into line with what they’ve done. They simply convince themselves that they made the right choice. This drive to be consistent often causes us to act in ways that are contrary to our own best interests.”

The Democrats need to understand this extremely insidious human motivator if they want to be effective. Hillary’s supporters have not only given over their money (a very powerful example of taking a stand), but they have shouted their commitment from the rooftops and each utterance embedded their commitment more deeply in their psyche. They must remain consistent to their convictions—or lose, again, some favorable perception of themselves. How often are politicians vilified for “flip flopping”? It’s hardly a respected trait, and as such, we humans will act in ways contrary to our own (or even the country’s) best interest in order to maintain our self-image of consistency.

How does Hillary combat this? After calling a spade a spade, and helping her supporters see “what’s in it for them” to be inconsistent, she needs to inspire them to “take a new stand,” make a new commitment, that they will then feel compelled to stand behind. They’ve been verbally committing to her for months, so Hillary needs to meet that phenomenon with a similar tactic: have them speak a new commitment. Rather than tell them, as she did, “We don't need four more years of the last eight years. More economic stagnation and less affordable health care. More high gas prices and less alternative energy…” she would turn those into questions so in answering them, the audience would have to vocalize, thus beginning to create a new commitment. “Do we need four more years…?” The audience would answer, (most likely, “No!”). “Do we need more economic stagnation?” Answer. “Do we need more high gas prices…?” Answer. The change is beginning as they speak convictions they’ll immediately feel compelled to stand behind.
 
Then she’d take it deeper. “What is more important to you--being loyal to me, or having unified health care for all?” They would answer, inching themselves further into a commitment with which they will need to be consistent. I would want to see her ask variations on that question several times, then ask a final, clinching question of commitment: “Are you someone who stands apart or stands united?” When they answer, "Stand united!" they've been shifted. No one told them to shift; they did it on their own, and will be compelled to remain so.

And, then, Hillarywould make a call to action. “You’ve said here tonight that you are someone who wants to be effective, wants change, and will stand united. Demonstrate who you are by voting for Barack Obama on November 4^th. I know I will.”

 
Tune in for more commentary as the next 2 weeks unfold.