This article first appeared in the St. Louis Beacon, Oct. 4, 2012 - For better or for worse, presidential debates are frequently a competition of style as much as substance.
From the dissection of Richard Nixon’s stubbly five o’clock shadow or the pinpoint analysis of Al Gore’s sighs, a candidate’s mannerisms and tone can be just as memorable as a sharp exchange or a detailed policy position. And while it can be debated endlessly who “won” Wednesday's debate between President Barack Obama and GOP challenger Mitt Romney, some nonverbal aspects of the candidates' performances can leave a mark on voters.
A consensus seemed to be developing among those interviewed by the Beacon:
Romney – the former Massachusetts governor trailing in public opinion polls – came off as assertive, so much so that he essentially ignored moderator Jim Lehrer’s instructions. His answers to questions were particularly disciplined, often repeating assertions that he’d made earlier in the debate.
Obama, on the other hand, was less aggressive, and he at times chose not to rebutt some of Romney’s assertions. His responses tended to be more conversational and detailed but meandering. And he didn’t attack Romney with some of the controversies that have beleaguered his campaign – such as his infamous “47 percent” video.
“Barack Obama’s deliberative approach often seemed halting compared to the more energized Romney who approached his debate task with a sense of urgency tonight,” said University of Missouri communications professor Mitchell McKinney in an e-mail to reporters. “In several instances President Obama failed to respond to a number of direct Romney attacks, such as Obama’s energy policy or his inability to reduce the federal deficit. Other examples of Obama seeming to pass on an opportunity to take on Mitt Romney was in the entitlement question. Here was a clear opening for Obama to point out Romney’s 47 percent remark, yet no mention of this from Obama.”
McKinney also noticed that Obama’s nonverbal cues “seemed to mirror his reluctance to directly confront Romney attacks.” For instance, he said, Romney directly faced the president during his responses. Yet, from McKinney’s view, “Obama infrequently faced Romney.”
David Kimball, a political science professor at the University of Missouri-St. Louis, said he was also surprised that Obama didn’t challenge Romney more aggressively.
“I think Romney as a challenger was probably more aggressive in continuing to try and have the last word,” Kimball said. “Which sometimes may have helped him, but sometimes he may have went too far. I guess I was struck that the president… didn’t say anything about the “47 percent” remark that Romney made or his offshore bank accounts. But he’s leaving to his surrogates and his advertising to make those points.”
Wayne Fields, an English professor at Washington University, said at times Romney tried to present himself as “kind of a messianic figure – I’ll do this and I’ll do that.” But, he added, Romney didn’t explain how that will be done except that he’s the one that can do.
Romney conveys an idea that “there’s something so special about me, I’ll get this done – even though I’m not going to tell you how except from previous experience and my willingness to talk to people,” Fields said. “I don’t know how that’s going to play, to tell you the truth. ... Obama seemed too hesitant to take Romney on. He didn’t say the obvious things.”
For instance, Fields noted that when Romney was talking about how he was able to work with the Massachusetts legislature, Obama didn’t aggressively point out that he had a Republican Congress that’s often been unwilling to cooperate with him.
“There were all sorts of opportunities which he – and I think wisely – chose not to take up,” Fields said. “But what it meant was, he was very cautious. He stated the same positions that he has in past.”
Henry Schvey, a professor of theater at Washington University, added that Obama seems “almost obsessively polite,” “circumspect” and “professorial.” While Schvey said again those things made him seem “presidential,” it also gave the impression that he was too considerate or conciliatory.
“Romney seems very rehearsed, but he had clearly absorbed the lessons of the people of the people who were prepping him,” Schvey said. “And he had certain points that he obsessively returned to. The $716 billion, the amount that Medicare was going to cost – all those things. And Romney kept repeating things ad nauseum. For Obama, I think he seemed much more natural for the podium – as a speaker he seemed very natural. But it also to some extent – this is a slight drawback – he tended to ramble a little and to get lost in minutia instead of going for the jugular vein.
“Romney knows about going for the opponent’s weakness and keeping on hammering,” he added. “So there was a very strong contrast there.”
Romney’s demeanor, he said, showed that he had “very carefully prepped and he looked confident.”
But Schvey found some drawbacks. Romney, he said, “has a very petulant attitude,” adding that it became obvious that he didn’t like Lehrer’s interruptions when he was making a point or answering a question.
“He gets irascible when he’s interrupted. And I found that really off-putting,” Schvey said. “But at the same time, he had this entitled smart kid attitude that he can kind of override the time and interrupt the moderator. Which I think makes him assertive and in some ways a good debater.”
Still, Webster University political science professor Gwyneth Williams said the debate didn’t come off as overly adversarial, adding that both candidates were “very much wanting to make sure they seemed presidential.”
“Certainly people were saying that Obama has to make sure that he doesn’t seem flip or arrogant and so I think he was definitely trying to make sure he didn’t do that,” Williams said. “And Romney definitely did not want to be accused of appropriate respect to the president of the United States. And so, it seems that both of those things worked to keep things very much based on policy – not sharply critical and not the least bit nasty.”
The obvious question is how the candidates’ performances will - if at all - shift the campaign's trajectory.
“I’m a little agnostic about that,” said Williams, referring to debates’ impact on the election. “There’s early voting in some of the swing states. In Ohio, some of the people started voting this week. And so, some of that is going to be set in some of the key states. Some states that were swing states – such as Pennsylvania – people like pollster Nate Silver put back into the Democratic column.”
“If there’s begins to be a whole narrative that ‘oh my God, this is a huge game changer,’ maybe it could,” she added. “On the other hand, it is very late in the game. People keep saying, ‘Well, look at what Ronald Reagan did through the debates with (President Jimmy) Carter.’ " But Williams said that it may have the hostage crisis and other issues -- not the debate -- that turned the tables against Carter.
McKinney agreed that the debate “produced no ‘knock out’ punches tonight nor any ‘game-changing’ gaffes or mistakes.”
“Both candidates’ supporters will come away from this first debate proclaiming their candidate as the ‘winner,’” McKinney said. “Overall, Mitt Romney’s performance was likely strong enough to silence the critics of his campaign, those from within his own party, and re-energize his supporters.”
But Schvey noted that the candidates’ style, tone and demeanor during this debate may bleed over into two other face-to-face meetings.
“Romney took probably his best shot tonight,” Schvey said. “And I think that Romney will become somewhat more assertive in subsequent debates as he realizes the response. I think that Romney’s tone – which always threatens to get petulant, strident and smarmy – will increase. He will force the issue more in subsequent debates.
“Obama’s strategy is almost Cassius Clay/Muhammad Ali rope-a-dope,” he added. “I think he’s going to allow Romney to be so aggressive in the next debates that he’ll end up hurting himself. But that’s a prediction – obviously that’s one possible direction that this could take.”
