« Maximum Irony | Main | Merry Christmas: We've Been Bought »
Putting on the Swami Hat: Movement Analysis in Iowa
A friend wrote today suggesting that Hillary was outspending the rest of the Democrats in Iowa and might pull it out there. As you all know, as a DCPer and as a movement analyst, I have no horse in this race, nor would I endorse anyone. But I thought it might be fun for you to see what I told him, and let's see if I have any credibility left after January 3rd!
Dear __,
Not so fast. It's not ALL about money. I don't think we know how the Iowans are going to caucus and here's why:
As a movement analyst who has called a number of these races correctly, often against what the pollsters understand, there are a certain factors on the nonverbal front that make or break a candidacy:
1. Listening: Here HRC may have the advantage. No one models listening behavior up close the way she does. She had good practice in her Senate race in New York state, where she listened impressively. I have observed Edwards' ability to actually lean over and listen well, but too often, his responses are a little too pat, or canned. Iowans tend to hate that. Obama is a tad remote, and that may work against him in the end. But Hillary has practiced her "listening tour" demeanor and people may be swayed towards her for that reason. However, note that when I made phone calls into Iowa four years ago, she was hated. Universally despised. So her listening demeanor needs to overcome some fairly high negatives.
2. Accomodating/Shaping/Connecting authentically: Shaping always trumps content, see Huckabee for evidence. Shaping is the ability of the candidate to move both posturally and gesturally in three-dimensional patterns that include the back pat, handshake, hug, or inclusive spreading and enclosing patterns. The key here is authenticity. Clinton and Reagan had it, Kerry had it on the stump but rarely on TV, Bush has it on occasion but anyone who thinks it's authentic is fooling themselves. It is a limited form of shaping--the buddy-back-slap pretty much sums up his relational abilities. Huckabee has it, tons and tons of it. Edwards does too, but it does not read as authentic all the time--he often distances at the same time he accomodates. Hillary does not do this well at all, although she can--at least I have personally experienced it in a small group setting. Obama has it in droves, but does not always ACCESS it when necessary. He is not yet master of the authentic exchange, but he can get there. The question is: Will he? Has he? Iowa will tell us a lot.
3. Grounding: Grounding--the ability to "hold the ground" through an energetic connection to the ground beneath, reveals something about commitment and follow through as well as maturity. Chris Dodd is by far the most grounded of these candidates, but it's not enough to overcome the rest of his limitations. Hillary can be extremely grounded but she also tends to access what we call BOUND flow at those moments--she looks a little rigid. When she is grounded, she is her least feminine self, and when she is most feminine, she often loses her grounding. She has clearly been practicing to appear both strong and feminine. Obama needs to be more grounded. If he wins Iowa and NH, he is going to need more help than just Oprah (who may be the MOST grounded human being on the planet). Edwards just does not have much grounding--his character is one of passion and energy and charm, but I am not sure we understand how well he will get the job done.
4. Complexity/Innovation: Movers who are patterned and predictable, but complex and variable (within a range) inspire. Huckabee has this ability, which is why he is beating the crap out of Romney. Hillary has little variability and she needs to develop more--the droning just does not work. Edwards is almost always the same: predictable without offering anything new or innovative. (I say this despite his having some of the better policy ideas--but if you can't sell it at the dance, no one will buy it). Obama has much more of this than any of the others, which is part of his appeal.
Iowans, god bless 'em, are hard to fool. Those who participate in the caucuses are still thinking about it. But, there is also the concept of the "last click" and that plays a role. For those who work fulltime and are swamped with information, there is a tendency to go with the most recent impression. This is a function for western society as a whole. It does not hold true for the older generations, who are slower to come to conclusions. But for anyone under 60, the "last click" impression is the most potent impression and people will vote for the one whose most recent "click" resonates positively.
And there you have it. Too close to call yet, and what the next week will bring by way of candidate education remains to be seen! As my brilliant husband often says: the candidate needs to learn what works.
I guess what I am saying here is that candidates win by love OR money. And we all know what the world needs now is....
cue Dionne Warwick...
Yours in movement,
Karen
18 Comments
Leave a comment
Not registered? Click on 'Sign-in' above and then select 'Sign up' in the lower right corner. Don't forget to click on the link in the confirmation email that will be sent to your email address.
Ok. Thinking about your friends commments.
First, there are indeed times when I like Hillary and like her body language. I think when I stop liking her is when I think about her stance on some issues, like war, Iran, healthcare, etc. But I also don't like her when I think of it from a logistical standpoint too. By that, I mean there seems to be a Bush/Clinton dynasty happening and that freaks me out. I would feel much better if there had been others in between.
But when I think of Obama, his body language sort of reminds me of a colt. Agile, jumpy, and coltish.
When I think of Edwards and his body language, two thoughts enter my head: arrogant, foxey, and foxey (if you know what I mean.)
And when I think of Kucinich, Dodd, and the others, they sort of seem like they don't take up much space. (I know it seems wierd to say that since Kucinich is smaller than Dodd or Biden) but it's the spacial analogy. When they are there, their egos are not taking up as much space as Clinton, Obama, and Edwards.
What do you think?
Wow - I was born in OR but form age 4-26 lived just N of Iowa and first went to college on the Iowa border. People I grew up around were not the most trusting of government nor the highly educated, nor urban people in general. The belief system was that whatever small town they lived in was the best in the world, that no one in their right mind would want to ever live anywhere else, and outsiders were to be watched closely as were newcomers.
Part of my perceptions are therefore formed in such an environment, though I fought it from the start. Some people will stlil detect that my accent is not purely northwestern, even after almost three decades gone.
I look mostly at grounding and variability, based on my reading of the above, but not sure how much would be attributable to living in the upper midwest (I also worked for McCarthy & McGovern as a youth and was aware how speeches etc. were formulated for farmers, teachers, etc. in SD).
The "grounding" stands out because it speaks more to me of the fundamental person and their integrity, confidence in their abilities, use of logic and underlying belief system and experience. The upper midwesterner in me is always on the outlook for "phonies" and can't stand cocktail parties where people stand around with wine and hors d'oevres, though may duck in for the free fare.
"Passion" would therefore be less attractive, because I would find myself wondering if it were authentic unless I had a chance to actually observe the person for consistency over time. Not saying I represent the upper midwesterner, but I still have alot of friends/relatives there.
"Complexity" attracts me very much and that's almost a rebellion against the sameness I grew up with - always bored and looking for something different. That is one reason I left, and probably alot of why alot of young people leave.
Great analysis! Now I want to know how they all dance to music. It would be only slightly less funny than the Republicans, I think!
Well, I would say that Richardson takes up a LOT of space! But he doesn't have much to fill it WITH. He should, he's a smart guy with a lot of experience. But somehow he cannot dominate.
I like your Obama-as-colt imagery and it does hold up. His ability to signal innovative and new and young and energetic is modified by his lack of grounding and ability to give serious resistant push-back. I am fascinated to see if he can learn to hold onto the former and further develop the latter.
Edward's has the most passion of all of them. But is it contrived? He seems more passionate this time around than the last time.
Ok...so I admit it. I have a trust issue here. I don't trust any of them. So I don't want to sound like I'm a single person basher.
But their body language strikes me as acting on a stage--with posing and posturing.
Actually, with regards to the acting, posing and posturing, Thompson really seems the most 'us-like' except that um...HE'S A PROFESSIONAL ACTOR!
(*insert eye rolling at myself here)
HERE'S TO HILLARY'S SPENDING IN IOWA:
On Hillary listening:
My mind works in wacho ways. I know I'm not suppose to confess that, but it's not like I can hide it. But anyways, the reason my mind is on a weird track now is because I'm thinking of 2004 with Bush and Kerry's body language and how they appeared on t.v.
I met John Kerry in 04 at the infamous "Field of dreams" rally. This type of setting really allowed him to shine in his natural habitat. Not that the baseball field is his natural habitat but that he seems more comfortable with casual events, sports, and having fun.
But the camera really seemed to distort him. It made him seem rigid and clumsy instead of smooth and sporty, friendly and funny.
I also saw him after that in a more formal type occasion. And even with the formality, Kerry seemed more uncomfortable with all the eyes upon him than Bush seems with all the eyes on him.
Of course, I never saw Bush up close to know that for sure. But when you see Bush on camera, even when he's stumbling through his maze of lies, he always looks like he's going to dominate the crowd--dominate the camera.
Bush takes up space. His ego takes up space. He looks like the jock who will beat you up in the lunchroom if you dare look at him cross eyed.
I could never understand why anyone could look at him and say, "He's a good Christian." Or how they could look at him and not see the arrogance, meanness, conniving, torturer glinting from his squinty eyes.
So now, in my weird thinking, I scoot on to John Edwards.
I saw John Edwards in 2004 and 2005. (One time up close and personal and another time I saw him by Press row.) In 2004, Edwards body language came across as a young southern boy--puppy-like, playful and insecure. In canine terms, there is always a dominant dog and subservient ones and the pups. That's what Edward's was back then.
In 2005-2006, after campaigning more and dealing with Elizabeth's cancer, he appeared to develop steel in his stance and in his jaw. But he was still testing different roles. I saw him at the TBA, Rainbow Push, and another gathering in Michigan. And each time, he seemed to get bigger and bigger.
In 2007, his body language is not the puppy anymore and more developed than in 2005. He is still part of the canine breed, but this time he's no longer puppy-like. He's foxy, he's dominant, and on the hunt.
That's all my wacho thoughts on their body language at this time.
And, of course, Hillary sounding JUST LIKE George Bush and Dick Cheney:
Well I had just made a cartoon drawing where Ted Kennedy, Jim McDermott and Robert Byrd were Santa Clauses, and Dennis Kucinich and Barack Obama were elves, for whatever that's worth.
Whenever I feel swayed by body language, I look at the record of what they've accomplished so far, even before listening to what they say they'll do.
& this time, I think they're all a pack of dogs.
nmp,
That is hysterical! The added nuts: Alan Keyes, Duncan Hunter, and Tom Tancredo (although he has been excised).
And Gravel on a grumpy day...
Sparrow said
Not to me. Bush has never looked like he could punch anyone's lights out. To me, he'd get one of his minders (even at High School) to do it for him. Bush is the "tough-talking" coward. His entire body wreaks of cowardice. He can't even face congress. He talks through his minders whilst totally ignoring the demands, wishes, pleas or pleases (and sugar) from Congress.Richardson has done some rather lame things in New Mexico, according to "Armed Madhouse", I won't be supporting Richardson either; Clinton, Dodd, Biden and Edwards all voted for the stupid Iraq war and gave Bush a blank check...
Clinton even voted for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment...
Karen,
The more I think about Hillary's body language the more the word "Regal" seems to fit. She's a prettier version of Queen Elizabeth without the air of entitlement that the Queen has.
She looks firm and in command. She doesn't look like she'd be caught messing up like Bill did.
I love the voice and body language of our Governor Chris Gregoire. The does what needs to be done. I love to watch Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray, our Senators. They are so different. Maria is the RealNetworks Executive, the dot.com millionaire who went through the meltdown. Patty is the "mom in tennis shoes" and will show up in sweats when everyone else has suits. She is on the powerful Appropriations committee and handles things for the vets, Boeing etc. I love to watch Darcy Burner, who has yet to beat "Sheriff" Dave Reichert and is in a swing district. She is a Microsoft mom.
I remember watching "Iron Lady" Margaret Thatcher and shuddering, because she was "separated at birth" from Reagan in policy, if not manner. Our British student, Kit, admired her when he was a child. He is Lib Dem now but was a Conservative child and thought that the Prime Minister could ONLY be a woman.
It's nice to see Benazir Bhutto back again. I think Pakistani women are among the most beautiful in the world, but she has a commanding moral presence. I miss Margaret Trudeau of Canada, the coolest first lady ever (except for Teresa Heinz Kerry, had the election not been stolen).
Bush looks to me more like a tire slitter than a beater upper.
nmp
love the Killoggs! Excellent poster. Thanks.