The night began with no opening statements. John Huntsman, Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, and Mitt Romney lined their respective podiums. Hosted by CNBC, it was economically focused, for, as we all should know, this election is going to hang on economic solutions, and who we feel are more competent in economic matters.
In this debate, the two that stuck out, were Mitt Romney and Herman Cain. They both kept on target, made their points succinct and clearly, used framed hand gestures (staying in the Presidential Box), and neither sought to tear down any of their fellow candidates.
Romney spoke with a suave certainty, much better than his usual appearances on speeches, though quite similar to most of his debates. When given the opportunity to comment on Herman Cain's credibility issues, he easily moved away from the question, with a subtle point that any issues of Cain were between the people and Cain and not for him to discuss. This smart evasion and redirection, built a rapport with the audience that gave him the respect from them that he gave to them. He kept head movement to a minimum, he alternated hand movements with positive and negatives, a matter of anchoring, and drew the audience in to his statements. When he listed issues, he listed them numerically, keeping any statement with multiple points easily accessible. Something Michelle Bachman should've learned.
Herman Cain stole the night at the beginning and stayed consistently strong throughout the debate, until his continuing reference to his 999 Plan became a joke for which everyone including the audience and the panel began to laugh at . For that, Herman Cain cannot be declared the winner of the debate. His inability to get over his own plan, to answer many of the economic questions without referencing his initial plan, created a weakness in this debate. Repetition is a strong method of persuasion, but occasionally, a stronger method is through leading statements, and using vagueness. And occasionally, one needs to answer a straight question without redirecting it, because people need to know you can focus on different things, and you're not a one hit wonder. By the end of the debate both the moderator and the audience seemed annoyed, and wanting an answer to the question that didn't begin with "A Bold Plan."
Michelle Bachmann was incredibly uneven in her responses. At points her grouping became confusing to the point you don't remember the question and you don't remember all her solutions. Numerical Listing would've helped her come of more viable and legitimate. Her body language was strong, but it always is. Her answers came off consistently cluttered, wanting to make dozens of points in each statement. Whenever her answers were direct and on one subject, they were strong and well delivered and meant with a stronger reaction with the audience. Her body language was a bit tight, not uncertain, but with a great amount of unease. Unlike Cain and Romney, she felt a need to critique others for their ideas, instead of presenting ideas that were different.
I kept questioning if Rick Santorum even wanted to be on the stage. What he said was consistently contradicted by what his body did--not so much a statement of lying, but of that of uncertainty and unease. There was an overall nervousness, his jaw seemed tight, his reactions seemed both mechanic and exaggerated at times, and he swayed often with uneasiness. Though he was somewhat the odd man out, evident in his attempt to turn a question on healthcare into his accomplishments in the housing market, the anger for which he responded, though tame in his words, was echoed like a scream in his tonality and body language. Santorum also had a habit of listing his credentials and his successes, it was a poor statement, because people don't respond well to a lift of accomplishments without a lead in, something that first builds rapport. He lacked the rapport with the audience and kept it away by stating his accomplishments first. Santorum seemed to be the odd man out in more ways than one.
Rick Perry's great gaff may have been funny or sad but it's beside the point. His technique was flat. He had a somewhat jockeyed expression and smug smile that we've come to know from George Bush, with half his body and emphasizing with an open hand, as if he was offering the people a handshake. This great gesture holds a lot of power and strengthens his message, unfortunately, in my opinion, he did this with a question that others had well gone through, and he was in agreement in with the majority--thus, an empty gesture, because they already agreed with him. Though many pundits are focusing on the gaff, which, yes, does hurt his persuasion--especially when you're talking about cutting those industries--this is something that can and could've been overcome. Unfortunately for Governor Perry, the rest of his answers never rose above his usual strength, and thus never overcame his initial mistake.
Ron Paul, I will admit is my favorite, though, he is not a debater. In all the time that I have watched Ron Paul speak, he has spoken in the same fact based and certain world. He's the salesman that tells you everything about the product and never lies and gives you the good and the bad. We call that noble, but not persuasion, and he's not going to be the republican nominee for that reason. He comes off dry and uninvolving. And to be persuasive you have to capture and lead the attention of those you wish to persuade. If you cannot capture the attention of people, you will not be able to change them.
John Huntsman was just there. He holds his own. He makes his points. But he doesn't stand out. He speaks well and addressed the issues each time. However, he never was able to say anything that really put himself as a player in the field. No bold ideas, with the exception of calling the statements made on China pandering. When in groups, pandering to the group to persuade the group, especially in something that one can easily move away from when time comes to pay up, without much blowback, is of course helpful. Trying to call out the candidates that are participating in this great persuasive strategy gets you a lack response, and for the television watching public, people subconsciously gage a response by how well others are gauging a response. From this fault, he never rose to the occasion.
Newt Gingrich makes the same fault as Ron Paul, though in this case here, he leaves out the bad and focuses only on the good, because of this he can hold a strong audience that can appeciate his method. His focus is always technical details. It appeals to few people and only for a little while. Newt failed, like Ron Paul, to truly capture the audience, or become memorable in any way. Tonight, for Newt, seemed like just another night. His body movements were with certainty and clear vision, his tonality was even, he was a strong person, but, not a challenge in the debate.
The Best Answer Of The Night Goes To Herman Cain to his response on his personal issues. He used dissociation, punctuation ambiguity, and anchoring, in a matter of one sentence that went mostly unnoticed in the media analysis, but not in their psyche. He started off the question saying that "The American people deserve better than SOMEONE being tried in the court of public opinion." This was a brilliant dissociation, moving complaints and allegation and media away from him, to someone/anyone. Then, he said, "With every one person who comes forth with a false accussation, are probably, there are thousands who say none of that behavior ever came from Herman Cain. YOU ARE RIGHT..." and he continued talking. This went missed by most people, maybe even yourselves. But he disassociated the complaints and allegations to "this person" and linked thousands to vouching for Herman Cain. Then using a punctuation ambiguity, he told people they are right to vouch for him. It was brilliant. Powerful and wonderful.
The Winner of the Night is Mitt Romney. This may be no surprise, in debates Mitt Romney ranks number one, he maintains a strong composer, speaks gently but with certainity, avoids talking over himself, and avoids awkward silence, and dying flare, as have occured in his speeches. His great power is in debates. He utilizes strong body language, presenting a confidence to the people, while at the same time an openness and understanding of the issues. His greatest strength is the almost glee he has for answering questions. He never has the need to point to his credentials, and uses subtle reference to accomplishments that give him credibility to answer a question more than other candidates.
The Loser of the Night was Rick Perry. Never doing anything to recover from the gaff, the rest of his message becomes impendent and weakened.
From anchoring, to punctuation ambiguity, to simple reframing, the techniques used by these candidates were impressive, those who lacked them, or misused them, seemed to also be those whose points were the least likely to gain traction for the fact that they were usually in agreement with their fellow candidates.
