Back in my days training political activists, a coworker introduced me to a formula to help people develop a winning message:
M=EC3: Message = Emotion x Connection x Contrast x Credibility
Get it? M=EC3 instead of M=EC2? The idea was that any effective political candidate must show they care; build a link with a receptive audience; establish contrast between themselves and their opponent; and demonstrate credibility that they are best situated to solve whatever problems are discussed. If you fail at one facet, it makes the whole message weaker.
Over at Medium, I posted a piece about the recent end to the 2024 Republican primary. Early in the process, Trump looked vulnerable. Ron DeSantis and Nikki Haley each built strong campaign organizations that looked capable of a serious challenge. But in building their messages, both DeSantis and Haley betrayed incorrect assumptions on how people decide what to do with their votes. DeSantis hoped he could appeal to the same base of support Trump had with a logical case that he had won policy battles as a chief executive. Haley eventually settled into the logical message that she polled better against Biden in swing states and was thus more likely to win in November. Both cases were built with Spockean logic because both candidates were trying to thread a needle with a very narrow eye: They wanted to create some contrast with Trump, but feared that too much contrast would turn off his supporters.
People don’t vote with their heads, they vote with their hearts. (Remember emotion from M=EC3?) And while they do vote from a place of fear, they do not vote for fearful candidates. By trying to downplay contrast, Haley and DeSantis sapped their messages of emotion, which severed their ability to connect with audiences and build credibility.
Jim Eltringham 