The first presidential debate is over
and everybody is weighing in on who won.
But i have a different question:
how did each candidate performed
from a charisma perspective?
This is critically important
because when people don't know who to trust,
we oftentimes just choose the person
that we have a better feeling about.
You might not like it
but it's the truth of how humans work.
So if you want to know how
how undecided voters are likely to vote,
you cannot ignore the charisma angle.
Let's begin by examining Trump.
He started the debate strong
making one consistent point in his first answer.
Our jobs are fleeing the country
so we're losing our good jobs, so many of them.
So forward is leaving.
You see that, this small car division leaving.
Thousands of jobs leaving Michigan, leaving Ohio --
they're all leaving.
If you've seen our other videos on Trump,
you know that this habit of repetition
makes the point stick better
in the brains of the audience.
Days later, people are only going to remember
a few snippets from the hour and a half long debate.
A month later on Election Day,
they'll only remember how the debate
made them feel about each candidate.
So the repetition of a single point
gives it the best chance of being what lasts.
Trump even acknowledge
that he agreed with Hillary on one point
and it was a strong moment for him
compared to his more extreme positions of the past
because it made him seem more reasonable
and nuanced.
As far as child care is concerned
and so many other things,
I think Hillary and I agree on that.
We probably disagree a little bit as to
numbers and amounts and what we're going to do
but perhaps we'll be talking about that later.
As the debate went on though,
Trump's repeated often unsuccessful interruptions
began to make him look like a jerk.
I was against it once it was finally negotiated
and the terms were laid out.
I wrote about that in--
You called it the gold standard.
Well I--
You called it the gold standard of trade deals.
You said it's the finest deal you've ever seen.
No.
And then you heard what I said about it
and all of a sudden you were against it.
What's most interesting here
is that Donald Trump's interruptions
were one of his winning tactics in the first debates.
So why did they come off as obnoxious
this time around?
First off in the first debate
with so many candidates
that each had to fight one another for airtime.
Interrupting was the only way to ensure
that you didn't lose your chance to speak.
...as their own ties and their own suits.
You know what?
Because they devalue their currencies.
They devalue their currencies that makes it--
Okay, make them in America.
Well, you don't know anything about business.
You'll lose everything you do.
You don't know anything about it
because you're a lousy businessman.
Well, I don't know anything about bankrupting
four hund--
I know, and you know what?
I don't know anything about--
And you know what?
(both speakers talking at the same time)
One at a time.
...fake university.
First of all--
(both speakers talking at the same time)
contract this with a two person debate
where the moderator, for the most part,
protected Hillary's chance to speak.
Now, let me say--
(both speakers talking at the same time)
This is Secretary Clinton's two minutes, please.
...you and the business you do, you've proposed--
(both speakers talking at the same time)
This is Secretary Clinton's two minutes.
Secondly, and more importantly, in this debate,
the audience was specifically instructed
not to speak up, cheer or laugh
and with a few exceptions at the end,
they kept quiet.
So whereas Trump's brash interruptions
in the first debate created a rousing applause,
...but the the Islamic terrorism--
Oh yeah.
This is a tough business--
Oh yeah. I know. You're a tough guy, Jim.
I know.
(audience laughs)
Really tough.
You're not ever going to be the president--
Yeah, really tough, Jim.
Well, let's see. I'm at 42 and you're at 3
so so far I'm doing better.
So far I'm doing better. (audience cheers)
The audience is silenced when Trump cut in this time
just made him sound like a jerk
and this is hugely important.
It comes from a sociological concept
called social proof that states we all get cues
on how to respond to situations
by seeing how other people respond first.
So when we hear a room full of laughter,
we're more likely to laugh
ignoring the fact that that statement
could have been perceived as rude.
But when that laughter isn't there,
we get the sense that what was said is not funny
and in this case is just rude.
It's the reason that laugh tracks exist on sitcoms
even though people insist that they don't like them
and, in my opinion, is why a witty show
like Arrested Development struggled.
Without a laugh track and cues to laugh,
many people just felt awkward.
Well, excuse me.
Excuse me.
Anyway, enough with the side note.
The next point is that Trump also had
some body language that flat-out hurt him
specifically nodding while Hilary made her points.
It gave the impression that
he was begrudgingly acknowledging the truth
of what she had to say.
We need to do more to make
the contributions we should be making
to rebuild the middle class.
I don't think top-down works in America.
...broad-based inclusive growth
is what we need in America
that means zero for troops, zero for vets
zero for schools or health
and I think probably he's not all that enthusiastic
about having the rest of our country see.
So Trump was a mixed bag and i would say
that he got worse as the debate wore on
but let's move to Hillary now.
She got off to a rough start.
Her opening remarks,
which were obviously prepared, felt scripted.
That sense of being overly scripted
often comes through in a couple of hitches
when people accidentally vary
from their word for word script and then
struggle to get back on track and as we saw,
some of the words got stuck in Hillary's throat
as she tried to recite that word for word script.
...arts with raising the national minimum wage
and also guarantee finally equal pay...
There was also a very slight but palpable sense
of searching as it felt like Hillary scanned her brain
to see what her next point was.
...we're going to do it
by having the wealthy pay their fair share
and close the corporate loopholes.
Finally, we tonight, are on...
This was a problem for Hillary
because one of the big things that she wanted to do
in this debate was come across as less robotic
and more personable
which is why she kept referencing her family.
Now, the reason that Hillary likely had those hiccups
was because she memorized for talking points
word for word.
Now I cannot emphasize this enough.
Unless you are a talented actor,
memorizing word for word is a bad idea.
It is very difficult to make those
word-for-word memorization feel normal.
We have a separate video on how to memorize
a script or speech in a way that feels more fluid
to an audience which i'm going to link
to in the description if you are interested.
But things just got more uncomfortable
with Hillary's smile which looked forced.
The lack of tension around her eyes
made it come across as fake.
Again, we have another video dissecting
the anatomy of a genuine smile
but just notice the difference in the eyes
between her typical smile and one of the smiles
where she seemed to genuinely be laughing.
Woo! Okay.
As the debate continue though, Hilary definitely
loosened up, lost some of the nerves
and even shot back with some unscripted zingers
that match the flow of the debate.
And we don't have the money
because it's been squandered
on so many of your ideas.
And maybe because you haven't paid
any federal income tax for a lot of years.
This was one of the charisma high points
of the debate for Hillary.
It was a direct spontaneous remark that perfectly
match what they had just been talking about.
Unfortunately for her,
there were far more preckaged lines
like "Trump up, trickle down" that just didn't hit as hard
and she was unable
to get the full benefit of this moment
because rather than hammering that point home,
she silenced the audience
so that she could continue with her talking points.
...and the other thing I think is important...
In some, I saw major charisma issues
with both candidates. Neither hit a home run
but who won?
I wrote down my reaction
immediately having finished the debate so
it wouldn't be swayed by the day after new cycle
which is where the real battle
for who won the debate is fought.
Keep in mind, I'm coming at this
from just a charisma perspective -- not commenting
on the merit of one anyone had to say
or the quality of the proposed policies.
I'm not saying that you shouldn't consider those
things but there are of course tons
of other places where you can go
for commentary on that.
So from just the charisma perspective,
it was close.
But i would have to say that Trump edged out Hillary.
Hillary had the opportunity
for some really strong moments
but rather than hammer them home
she stuck tightly to your talking points
which often came across as very scripted.
Trump struggled to restrain himself and
probably alienated some voters
by shouting over Hillary
but in my mind, he generally spoke with more ease
and conviction which translates to charisma.
Still, it was close.
I don't think that either party's going to
pull away sharply from this
and I'm excited to see how both candidates
adjust for the next debate.
If you want to see that next debate breakdown,
make sure to subscribe to the channel.
Not only are you going to get that
but you'll also see weekly updates
from all of our videos that are gonna help you
take your charisma to the next level.
We're on political season right now
but we've been known to break down everything
from Game of Thrones to Kevin Hart's storytelling
so if you're interested
in learning how to be more charismatic and confident,
make sure to subscribe so you never miss a new video.
If you want to check out
the other videos that I've mentioned,
we've got links in the description
and of course until next time.
I hope that you enjoyed this video
and I'll see you in the next one.