What Story Did Debate Night Body Language Tell?
When determining who won a debate, commentators often include body language as an aspect of their evaluation. In the second presidential debate, much was conveyed non-verbally. Donald Trump repeatedly stood behind and seemed to "stalk" Hillary Clinton, which has been described by a public speaking expert as his attempt to exert dominance over her. Trump's gripping of his chair and frequent fidgeting has been described as a way for him to convey power, and his facial expressions said to indicate he was very angry. Clinton looked down frequently, which could be interpreted as her acting defensively. Did you find either of the candidate's body language to be off-putting? How much of an effect do you think body language has on the public's perception of a candidate's performance?
I'll admit, the "handshake that didn't happen" made me a little uneasy from the start, but there was so much more about the body language from this night that was uncomfortable. Having a debate where the candidates were allowed to roam freely only emphasized how much of a predator Trump is. He literally stalked her- circling and swaying about, and this was in addition to his snarky comments and quick insults. And this isn't even to mention how he yelled at her almost as a parent would to a child, when all she was doing was sitting there. Obviously, neither candidate is perfect, and having a truly perfect candidate will probably never happen. However, these debates have been a fantastic model of whether or not these candidates know how to handle themselves in public. How do they respond to insults? Are they a fighter, or do they remain calm? Even when she became upset, Clinton never stalked Trump as he did to her; she usually remained seated, and occassionally wrote notes, listened, and shook her head, or smiled. She knows she's better, and more capable, but isn't it funny how Trump is the one always telling her that HE is the one who is more capable, and that HE is the one who is better? They express their views in very different ways, and I think this debate was great for giving us a closer look at that.
ReplyDeleteI think the way Trump hovered around Clinton the whole night was very weird and a little off-putting. He somehow always managed to just fit himself in the screen as Clinton would speak, and then would stand behind and almost circle her. He looked like a shark trying to lure his next meal in. With this being said, body language definitely has a huge effect on public perception of a candidate. Immediately after the debate, the talk was not only on Trump and his sniffles, but also on how he hovered. It wasn't hard to miss, and when people watching the debate see it and take notice, I think it definitely knocks Trumps stuttering campaign even more. I don't think the debate was anything really different from the first, with Trump criticizing and lying, and Hillary taking cover for the most part. I say this because the biggest things taken from this debate were probably Trump's awkward circling of Clinton, and the discovery of Ken Boone.
ReplyDeleteTelevised debates have completely changed how people vote. In 1960, the first televised debate aired between Nixon and Kennedy. As I'm sure we've all heard multiple times before, people who watched the debate said Kennedy "won" and people who listened to the debate on the radio said that Nixon "won". Nixon was sweating and looked particularly uncomfortable during the debate which lead voters who were watching it on television to become more fond of Kennedy. Television has since been a significant factor in every election. Because of this, Trump's hair, facial expressions, body language and mannerisms have not helped him to say the least. I think that lots of people find the way he seemingly treats Hillary like prey on the stage (No, I won't take this perfect opportunity to make a point about how he has treated MANY women, who are all coming out to confirm that he has sexually assaulted them, like prey) to be off-putting. Overall, I think that his body language is hurting his odds of becoming president even more (if these odds are even still relevant considering the fact that he is basically a lost cause and his party is deserting him). However, I think the lack of a handshake hurt both candidates because there is no respect between them and the public is offended by it. Both of them could use to work on their stage presence. Tump needs to stop walking around like a perpetually angry, confused, inarticulate lion, and Hillay has no reason to be looking at the ground. She should look up and smile because she is running against said lion.
ReplyDeleteHillary Clinton made it very clear through her body language and interviews afterwards that she made sure to give Trump space while he spoke by either sitting in her chair or standing far enough away. He did the exact opposite, which to viewers, looked unsettlingly to say the least. His lurking made him look even more like a territorial creep than he was already perceived to be after the leaking of his sexual assault audio tape. I’m not sure if he doesn’t listen to his campaign advisors or if he just genuinely didn’t realize, but he looked very aggressive at the debate, which made it seem like he was unable to control his emotions. I find it funny—people suggest having a woman in the White House will be bad because she’ll be “too emotional” but Trump can be set off by nearly anything. I do not think his hovering will have any major effect on whether or not people decide to vote for him. Surprisingly, people are okay with having a President who doesn’t know the definition of consent, so why would they really care about where he is standing?
ReplyDeleteWow theatre lab is really gonna carry me here. So, as we've all seen, Clinton has been the face of poise throughout this campaign season. Her calm demeanor through hours of Benghazi hearings (many, many hearings). Her poise in the face of a narcissistic Oompa Loompa. Her classy blank expression as Mr. Trump just spoke over her repeatedly, it's all there. I want you to think about a Sit-Com. Now picture a scene where one character wants another character to do something. They follow them, they stick with them, the other person tries to retreat, but eventually they are cornered. It was obvious that Mr. Trump was attempting to do this to Ms. Clinton. He didn't succeed. She walked about, and as much as he followed, she didn't give him the time of day. He also didn't block her at all. When she passed him to get back to her seat, she walked right by him with no hesitation. She didn't seem even slightly intimidated, and I remember going "Yeah! Get him, Hillary!" Over my bowl of ice cream.
ReplyDeleteLet's think about a play now. If you're watching a play and there are two characters on stage, have you ever noticed that when they're not moving, they usually retreat to one spot? That's what we call, "home base". If a character has no home base, that's either poor direction, or intended to display a flighty character. Ms. Clinton's home base was her chair (where she sat in a reclined pose, very much like a Roman Emperor), but Mr. Trump had none. He stomped around like a confused emu all night, microphone in hand, huffing and puffing about how he was being bullied by Anderson Cooper (yes he's going to beat ISIS but it's Anderson Cooper's dreamy eyes and ice-white hair which are Trump's kryptonite). He looked like a flighty petulant child, and she looked like a graceful queen (if a little robotic at times).
The body language and facial expressions of he candidates during the debate just reiterates the experience of Hillary and the inexperience of Trump in regards to political debates. Hillary kept a blank face even as Trump showered her with attacks, because of her experience in situations like that or at least situations similar to that. The article says that she was defensive because she looked down once or twice, but who wouldn't be at least a little defensive if Trump were standing there insulting them. Of course Trump's facial expressions tell a different story that those of Hillary. As the article states, Trump's feelings of disdain toward his opponent were clearly broadcasted through his facial expressions. That being said he seems to always be scowling, so maybe he can't physically help that he is scowling at Hillary. Also Trump's awkward stalking of Hillary was certainly distracting and unsettling, and if you saw the SNL version of he second debate, the cast compares Trump to the shark in Jaws. This is sadly too fitting. Overall some interesting things can be observed through the body language and facial expressions of the candidates, but if you are making judgements of the candidates, it is more important to look at their words and actions, especially their words and actions prior to this election season.
ReplyDeleteMr. Matthews taught us the importance of a hand shake on the first day of Accounting I, and seeing the two candidates meet in the center, being ever so close to each other, but not shaking hands was something I found both cringeworthy and hilarious, but is a bad sign for our candidates. It's like playing in little league baseball, where all the kids had to hi-five after the game. Some of those little brats would yell "We won" and didn't hi-five anybody, even though nobody kept score! A handshake symbolizes fairness, a means of giving respect, and shows maturity in both parties participating. The candidates not shaking hands to some may not be a big deal, but to me, it highlighted how unprofessional both of these candidates are. Body language is very important determining character, but based off the body language in this past debate, I don't think Americans will be that effected by it.
ReplyDeleteNow why can't we talk about something with clear results... like a drug test?
I agree with Ian. A handshake is very important to signify respect for one another, and the lack of one at the debate did reflect poorly of the candidates (but it pretty much sums up the entire election).
DeleteThe body language was not surprising to me, and I don't think it will really effect anyone's decision on who he or she is going to vote for. But I don't think a drug test before the debate would be too bad of an idea. It does give clear results and could probably provide people an answer for Trump's sniffling. In all seriousness, the idea that a drug test is needed is an embarrassment to the country that we have devolved to this.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteMr. Matthews taught us the importance of a hand shake on the first day of Accounting I, and seeing the two candidates meet in the center, being ever so close to each other, but not shaking hands was something I found both cringeworthy and hilarious, but is a bad sign for our candidates. It's like playing in little league baseball, where all the kids had to hi-five after the game. Some of those little brats would yell "We won" and didn't hi-five anybody, even though nobody kept score! A handshake symbolizes fairness, a means of giving respect, and shows maturity in both parties participating. The candidates not shaking hands to some may not be a big deal, but to me, it highlighted how unprofessional both of these candidates are. Body language is very important determining character, but based off the body language in this past debate, I don't think Americans will be that effected by it.
ReplyDeleteNow why can't we talk about something with clear results... like a drug test?
Dr. Albert Mehrabian said that 55% of communication is body language. That statistic was definitely proven right in this debate. In the first debate, cameras were mainly focused on the upper half of the candidates. Although facial expressions are a huge part of body language, the way someone moves can tell you even more. That being said, I feel that body language could only have a negative effect on Hilary. At this point, Trump could do or say anything and those that still support him won't be turned off. Hilary, on the other hand, had more at stake, but luckily for her, she seemed to have relatively less creepy composure and movement.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, the lack of a handshake wasn't even a matter of body language; it was a matter of character. It reflects poorly on both candidates and epitomizes the unprecedented chaos this election season has delivered.
The body language in this debate perfectly captured what the candidates are about. Donald Trump was too aggressive and looked like he didn't know what he was doing. While Hillary was reserved and seemed like she already had a plan laid out for her body language. Trump looked foolish and weird, and took most of the criticism. Hillary, on the other hand, looked way too robotic and calculated, but didn't receive much criticism. But, at least Hillary did not make a fool out of herself. I would choose looking too prepared over barely being able to form coherent sentences in the midst of the yelling and stalking the other candidate. The body language is important, but in this debate, it simply confirmed what we already thought about these candidates.
ReplyDeleteBody language plays a huge part in these debates, as body language is still a form of nonverbal communication. Since this debate was in the town hall, we got to see more of the candidates and how they communicated to the audience at home. Trump was a shark, and he seemed to be in the shot as Clinton, even if she was the one speaking. He was very reactive (not surprising) while Clinton distanced herself and seemed more collected. Perhaps the biggest indicator of how the debate was going to go was the handshake, or the lack of one. From that point forward, we were able to predict that the debate would be very frosty. As for how the viewers would react to the candidates' body language, I doubt that many opinions were changed since we are so far along with the campaign.
ReplyDeleteI'm curious as to how much of an impact body language plays towards the average voter. With this election in particular, Donald Trump's and Hillary Clinton's personas and style of speaking seem to have had a greater cultural impact than many of the things they've actually said. However, Conor Friedersdorf of The Atlantic put out data after the 2012 debates that seemed to indicate the contrary. After randomly surveying voters who watched the debates, he noted that people indicated they were convinced of which candidate "won" overwhelmingly through the iteration not of their respective policies, but of their party ideals. However, Rappeport's article suggests this debate is different, and there's little question as to why- it's almost like watching a cartoon, with the two candidates having exhibited outlandish behavior throughout their campaigns. Trump's continuously attempted to assert a sense of dominance, but I feel Secretary Clinton's composure seemed fairly unmoved by his instigation, if a little awkward.
ReplyDeleteNeither of the candidates did anything that I found particularly unnerving. The missing handshake didn't semd me into a tailspin or make me hang my head in shame and disgust. At least they half-smiled at eachother. As for Trump's super menacing, ultra-defensive stalk-a-thon, it didn't do anything for me except make me laugh uncontrollably. I found it interesting that the article said that Trump gripping the back of his chair was another example of him being defensive. I, on the other hand, looked at him gripping his chair as a sign of weakness or poor health. Watching him lean into the chair and rely so heavily on it made me think he was sick or threatening to throw up. Also whenever he was just standing and the camera would show his profile I couldn't help but notice that he slightly pitched forward at his waist and looked very much like he had spaced out. Hillary looked fabulous. Nothing out of the ordinary for her. I loved how she started to smile and shake her head at Trump whenever he said something absurd. I have to agree with the point that Abby made about the Kennedy vs. Nixon debate and how their physical appearances changed the outcome of the debate for people watching the debate, but I don't know that either of these candidates can beat each other in terms of age and physical fitness. Hillary looked slightly more alive and focused but nothing else was exactly noteworthy.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Anurag entirely. Trump's body language conveyed dominance. People will often make themselves look bigger or stand closer to "exert dominance" and intimidate someone. Trump was likely trying to intimidate Hillary, as he is a businessman and a lot of business is body language. However, I think he took it a little too far, trying to tower over her and "stalk" her in a way that is creepy at best. Hillary, like Anurag said, took a much more reserved and calculated approach. She is a politician, and she knows the importance of body language in a debate. She gave Trump space and tried to act less like she owned the stage to give herself a more quiet power, but in the end I feel it came off a little too calculated. However, in the end I'm not sure that the body language will really effect the outcome of the debate, but it does make it more interesting to watch.
ReplyDeleteI think that Anurag explains the body language almost perfectly in his post. Hillary looks like she has rehearsed her actions numerous times and looks stiff just from holding specific poses, while Trump looks like he wants to exert his power/dominance on stage, but looks out of place and silly as a result. It's kinda funny to see how the personality of the candidates and how they've approached their campaigns translates perfectly to how they act on debate, with Hillary being rehearsed and orderly, and Trump being powerful and aggressive.
ReplyDeleteTrump looked, to say the least, creepy. In his attempt to show his dominance, he showed his animalistic qualities. Animals show their dominance and their power, but they are still animals. Trump looked like an animal on the stage, and he looked foolish in the process. Meanwhile, Secretary Clinton presented herself perfectly, looking confident and, as Marcus said, orderly. Trump's stalking made me uncomfortable, as well as his fidgeting and his general distracting nature, while Clinton held herself well, if not a little too condescending. Public Perception is impacted by these notes; Trump supporters like to see his aggressiveness and hate to see Clinton's condescending smiles, while Clinton supporters find the actions of Trump odd and the actions of Clinton comforting. The public has their views shaped on a candidate based on how they conduct themselves, and this is exactly what that does for them.
ReplyDeleteI feel like Trump's stalker-like body language was definitely off-putting and probably an attempt at dominance, reminiscent of a certain Gore v Bush debate. Clinton certainly did what was best given the circumstances, remaining composed and not becoming intimidated by his advances. The only thing that could have made more of a statement is verbally addressing him and asking him why he was doing what he was doing, however this could have easily resulted in a comment on pacing and an excuse to go off track onto our issues with terrorism. Overall, though, I feel like their body language may have affected viewers, but not nearly as much as the way they conducted themselves during the debate, including interruptions and professionalism, or lack there of.
ReplyDelete