Two Strategies of Persuasion

In reading the political blogs, I came across a fascinating piece on the New York Time's political blog entitled Axelrod and Penn. The basic gist of the story is that the two democratic campaign's chief strategists have differing strategies of persuasion. The Obama campaign's strategy of persuasion centers around telling a story and inspiring hope. The Clinton campaign's strategy of persuasion centers around poll-tested keywords and niche marketing.

I've included pertinent excerpts below. FYI...Axelrod refers to David Axelrod--Mr. Obama's chief strategist. Penn refers to Mark Penn--Mrs. Clinton's chief strategist.

Mr. Axelrod’s essential insight — the idea that has made him successful where others might have failed — is that the modern campaign really isn’t about the policy arcana or the candidate’s record; it’s about a more visceral, more personal narrative. This is probably a big reason why Mr. Obama has, from the start, focused almost exclusively on broad themes of “hope” and “change,” drawing heavily on his own life story, rather than staking out any particularly new policy ground. In its tone and emphasis, Mr. Obama’s campaign reflects all the attributes of a truly great political ad: the stirring words, the beautiful pictures, the simple and elegant storyline of a ruined political system and the man whose moment has arrived.
...
Mr. Penn, on the other hand, is a pollster, and pollsters tend to look at campaigns as a series of dissectible data points that either attract voters or drive them away. Get a health-care plan and an economic plan that 70 percent of people say they view favorably. Pay attention to words that move the dial in focus groups, like “real solutions for America” or “ready to lead on day one.” Trust in poll-tested character traits like “strength” and “experience.” Mrs. Clinton’s relentless focus on pragmatism and specificity, as well as her willingness to shift to whatever slogan suits the moment, are not simply a result of her own personality but also of Mr. Penn’s strategic outlook, which values testable ideas and phrases over more sweeping imagery and thematics.

Why Axelrod's Strategy is More Effective

• It is much newer and people like new. Poll-driven politics is as old as polls and yet America has seen only a small number of Presidents really effectively play the story-card (Kennedy and Reagan did). The story card forges an emotional connection while the poll-card forges an intellectual connection. Emotional connections are stronger than intellectual connections.
  
• Hillary's poll strategy only reinforces the stereotype that she is a flop-flopper who will "say anything to get elected."
• Stories are (almost) always more effective than ideas. Granted, I have no empirical study to prove this. Nonetheless, I believe Obama's candidacy is a type of proof in itself. (I realize this is kind of circular reasoning, but I still think Obama's candidacy should tell us something about the power of stories).
• The poll-driven strategy is very short-term because polls fluctuate considerably. However, people resonate to stories for longer periods of time.