Debates have had an outsized impact on the Republican primary process, so far, this year. This, of course, can be both good and bad. On the positive side, one hopes the increased significance of debates means ideas and substance might finally trump glad-handing voters in places like Iowa and New Hampshire. The negative, of course, is that debating well doesn’t necessarily translate to governing well. And then, there’s also the fact that debates don’t necessarily benefit the candidates with the best ideas; looks and style — superficial things — often trump substance.
When viewers watch debates, they make a series of quick decisions based on unconscious signals they observe. Often, we viscerally like or dislike a candidate, without ever consciously knowing why. Some might argue that these “blink” decisions are healthy — that we are accurately, if subconsciously, judging them. Others would argue this is illogical and harmful — that this is all a big made-for-TV reality show.
Good or bad, it is clear that the way modern candidates present themselves on television makes a huge difference. With that in mind, I asked Stephen Clouse, a communications expert who works to “prep” candidates and train them on improving their communications skills, for his take on what the candidates are doing right and wrong.
(Listen to a podcast of my full conversation with Stephen Clouse here.)
Regarding former Speaker Newt Gingrich, Clouse says, “I think we can all agree that his policy knowledge is exceptional.” So where should Gingrich improve? Clouse would like to see him “be more conscious about the facial expressions, because when he relaxes his face, he looks angry.” Clouse, who has worked with Gingrich on videos in the past, adds: “I would encourage Newt to over-animate.”
Clouse would also like to see Gingrich lean forward more when speaking — and to talk more about his grandchildren.
Other candidates have even more serious visual problems to address.
Former Sen. Rick Santorum “always has a great posture,” Clouse says admiringly. But he also points out that the commonly-held impression that Santorum is pompous has something to do with “the way the jaw is slightly clenched.”
“When he talks, he enunciates, but barely,” says Clouse. “So there’s almost a clenched look to the jaw, when you see it, it’s almost closed. And so, as a result, it seems negative.”
Rep. Ron Paul “does have a sense of earnestness about that which he believes,” Clouse concedes. But “the visuals are more important than the words…and when I look at him visually, I think that it starts to undermine” his message.
Clouse compares the way voters judge candidates to the way an employer might judge the appearance of a potential employee. “People want to hire someone for a job that looks like someone they would like to take advice from. I don’t think Ron Paul crosses that threshold,” he says.
Though not as important as visuals, the sound of a candidate’s voice is also very important.
“There’s two candidates that really have problems with nasally voices — and it’s Ron Paul and Rep. Michele Bachmann,” Clouse notes. A nasally voice is a bigger problem for candidates than for average folks, he says, because “electronics amplifies the high pitches of the human voice — and it makes it worse.”
Listen to my full conversation with Stephen Clouse here. Or download the podcast on iTunes.