How do you think McCain and Obama did in the first presidential debate of the 2008 election? The early consensus seems to be that it was a draw — although I could argue that Obama had a slight edge.

Both candidates were serious and relatively substantive (of course, they dodged the details…but they always do). You could certainly imagine either senator being president. So, how does the interested observer rate the performances?

This being principally a blog about marketing – not politics — I will take a stab at analyzing the debate from a branding perspective. I’ll explore which brand did a better job of connecting with people and “closing the sale” relative to consideration and purchase intent. Of course, as with any brand, there are some people who swear by Coke and would never even consider a Pepsi (and vice versa). Same with the presidential candidates. Estimates are that 45 percent of the voting population is for McCain and another 45 percent for Obama.

Those groups are pretty much brand loyalists, and it’s very unlikely that they were swayed last evening. It would be like a funny new Super Bowl ad convincing a Pepsi drinker to switch to Coke — never going to happen (I use the soft drinks analogy because they have an unusually high loyalty quotient in the brand world…very similar to politicians).

So, how did the two brands do? As I said upfront, both brands did reasonably well on the practical/rational attributes measure. They stuck to their positionings and messaging and reinforced the values that please their brand loyalists.

Where it gets interesting is the emotional attributes of the two brands and how those played in the first debate. As the readers of this blog know, every brand has practical as well as emotional attributes and benefits that it offers and represents to it’s “owners” and users. The emotional side is particularly important in that it really is what separates a true brand from just a product.

From the standpoint of the emotional side, I would say that John McCain has a real problem. That problem was clearly on display during last evening’s debate. McCain does well on emotional attributes such as ”trust,” “integrity” and whether or not we “admire” this person (he is, after all, a genuine war hero). But, where McCain falters is on his “likability,” which is greatly influenced by what almost everyone agrees is a temper issue (McCain admits it himself all the time, including last evening when he said he would never get the “Congeniality Award” from his Senate colleagues).

A major theme that is already emerging from this first debate is that McCain looked “grumpy” (some went as far to say he looked like a “grumpy old man”). That grumpiness bordered on mean and nasty at times during the debate. For example, McCain never even looked at Obama the entire 90 minutes. He just couldn’t bring himself to do it. That is a manifestation of McCain’s anger problem. When anyone opposes or crosses him, he pretty much decides they are the enemy. And, we all know that McCain does not talk to (or look at) the enemy.

Throughout the debate, McCain answered virtually every question by taking a shot at Obama. Fair enough, I guess you could say, presidential campaigns can be brutal. But, I think McCain just overdid it last night. If he truly is “Mr. bi-partisan, reach-across-the-aisle,” he certainly didn’t show it. Obama, on the other hand, agreed with McCain a little too much. There were plenty of opportunities for him to score real points against McCain, but he pulled his punches. (At least that is what many of his supporters are saying today.)

Bottom-line, I think McCain’s debate performance was excessively and unnecessarily negative. He could have lightened things up a lot and still done equally well (actually better).

The real problem for the McCain brand now is that Americans don’t like grumpiness or public anger in their presidents. Sure, they want them to be tough and able to show an appropriate level of anger if and when the situation warrants it (like when Russia invades its tiny neighbor Georgia or anything to do with Osama bin Laden). But, people in this country don’t want to see their president constantly fighting with opponents, and showing flashes of nastiness and anger when the work of the nation is concerned. The public is sick and tired of the partisan bickering that has become a serious roadblock to solving the urgent problems of our time (i.e., financial meltdown, economic crisis, two wars, skyrocketing energy costs, healthcare reform, etc.).

Our recent presidential brands clearly demonstrate this thesis. George W. Bush is a true partisan, but he won two elections because he was viewed as a decent, even nice guy (remember he talked a lot about “compassionate conservatism” in 2000). Bill Clinton is known to be a hot head who explodes at staffers, but to the public he is the master political brand manager…he has true emotional intelligence and uses it brilliantly to achieve his political goals.

McCain’s hero, Ronald Reagan, was the polar opposite of grumpiness and anger in politics . No one would question the steel in his spine about the big issues, but he also had a genial, grandfatherly way that served him extremely well. Better than any other politician, Reagan understood the power of optimism and humor to gain trust and consensus (amongst both his opponents and supporters) . He was famous for fighting hard during the day but being friendly with his political adversaries when it was time for a drink in the evening (his relationship with Democratic Speaker Tip O’Neill was a famous example of this trait).

The American people like that sense of optimism and forbearance in their leaders. Once a candidate passes the presidential attributes threshold — is he/she smart, knowledgeable, experienced, honest and able to be commander in chief – voters look for the emotional brand attributes that they can identify with and want in their leader.

Again, this is where brand McCain has a real issue that he and his campaign need to deal with. That issue was front and center in the first debate. Ultimately, the McCain brand did not display even one note of grace last evening. He was mainly slash and burn, grimace and grin. From purely a branding perspective, it was not a reassuring moment. In fact, it was really kind of grim and dark. That last president who displayed those attributes was Richard Nixon. Yes, he did get elected twice to the presidency, but he also resigned in utter disgrace.

I think McCain showed real grace, optimism and humor in his acceptance speech at the Republican Convention. If he wants to prevail in this election, he will have to summon those emotional brand attributes for his next debate and in his campaign appearances in the weeks ahead.

At the end of the day, if the practical/rational attributes of the McCain and Obama political brands are roughly equal in this presidential election (and, according to nearly every commentator, they were in last evening’s debate), American voters are surely not going to choose the grumpy guy brand. They will go with optimism and grace every time.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS