McCain vs Obama: Nonverbals in the Second Debate

The town-hall debate Tuesday night was another chance for Barack Obama and John McCain to try and relate to voters. The town-hall format allowed each candidate a unique opportunity to connect with actual people in the audience as well as those watching on television. The format also provided a rare occasion to watch their nonverbal behaviors in an environment with no podiums and voters closely encircling the candidates in the round.

There were distinct differences between Obama and McCain and their nonverbal behaviors Tuesday night. The first thing I noticed was how each candidate engaged the crowd when addressing a question. Eye contact is extremely important for these candidates. The American people want a leader who can connect with them, understand, sympathize, and empathize with them. Eye contact is one nonverbal way to do just that. Obama’s eye contact stayed focused on the person who asked the question, but he also talked to the section of people around the questioner.

McCain on the other hand, did a better job at connecting with the fuller audience of people in the round. He also talked directly to the person who asked the question, but then he walked around to other sections. He talked to more than just the person who asked the question or the section of people the questioner was in – and then he usually came back to the person who initially asked the question. It is very hard to be engaging with people in a round. McCain is noted as preferring this debating format, and he in fact seemed more comfortable than Obama in this type of atmosphere.

The second thing I noticed was what the candidates did when they were not talking. Candidates are always “on” and they are always communicating, even when they are not talking. In 1992, George H.W. Bush looked at his watch when waiting for a question, and without saying a word, viewers of the debate thought Bush was bored and did not want to be there. In 2000, Al Gore sighed and rolled his eyes while George W. Bush was talking. Though he did not say a word, many people saw this nonverbal behavior as condescending, and he became less likable in the eyes of voters.

When Obama was talking, McCain never paid much attention to Obama. He kept writing notes, not looking at him, not acknowledging him. Several times McCain would stand up, then sit down, then stand up again, even walk around while Obama was talking. This was distracting at times, and gives the impression of restlessness and impatience on the part of McCain. There is also a hint of a lack of respect for Obama because McCain did not look toward or acknowledge Obama while he was talking. For the most part, Obama, while McCain talked, sat still, looked at McCain and acknowledged his presence. That is a more respectful way to wait your turn to talk – an important and often overlooked nonverbal behavior.

Third, I noticed each candidate’s tone of voice. They are passionate about what they believe, but their tone of voice is different when conveying their passion. At times, Obama sounds “professorial” with his tone of voice, more matter-of-fact and direct. McCain at times sounds like a coach trying to give a motivational speech to his team; his voice tones are a bit softer and have a little more positive energy than Obama’s.

The last nonverbal behavior I noticed involved interpersonal distance (space) and touch. Gore in 2000 walked over very close to Bush during a town hall debate while Bush was talking. Invading someone’s space, as Gore did to Bush, can be seen as aggressive and disrespectful. Though neither candidate did this to each other, it was interesting to note how close the candidates came to each audience member. Both Obama and McCain stayed a respectable distance away from the audience members, nothing out of the ordinary. But, near the end of the debate, John McCain patted the shoulder of a veteran who asked a question, and the veteran initiated a hand shake with McCain. McCain was the only one of the two to go beyond the “boundary” of distance between a candidate and an audience member, and burst the interpersonal space bubble by a pat on the shoulder and a handshake. That was McCain’s moment to connect with someone, and it conveyed to the audience his respect for veterans. Both candidates said they respect and admire veterans and those who are in the armed forces currently. One candidate, through the nonverbal behavior of space and touch, accentuated his words and sentiments.

The last debate will be telling. Obama is in the lead in the polls. From a nonverbal perspective, for Obama to win he must continue to do what he has been doing – be respectful, wait his turn, and do not do anything nonverbally out of the ordinary like the elder Bush or Gore did. In some respects, for McCain to win things are out of his hands. He has to hope Obama does something out of the ordinary nonverbally – something very noticeable like Bush in 1992 or Gore in 2000 – to help – to help turn the tide against Obama.

Watch the interview I did with my local television station about the key nonverbals in last night's debate.

Comments

[WPB]

Good article overall, but I respectfully and vehemently disagree with the major conclusion that was implied by the author -- that John McCain won the nonverbal portion of the debate. While McCain did connect with the audience fairly well, so did Obama. Also, McCain clearly demonstrated his disdain for Obama through his body language, and he did not appear nearly as presidential as did Obama. Please don't underestimate the importance of being respectful to one's opponent; this goes a long way with voters. As such, I'd argue that Obama won the "nonverbal" debate.

Additionally, while nonverbals are important, clearly McCain lost the "verbal" debate. He did not give any specifics on domestic issues like the economy, healthcare, energy, etc. This is what the American public cares about. Perhaps this is why virtually every political poll I've seen indicates that Obama won the debate, that he is more likeable, that he is a stronger leader, and that he is better on the economy. In fact, most polls even indicate that Obama is as strong or better than McCain on national defense.

[mjp]

Other experts on body language viewed the debate much differently. McCain looked and acted nervous--as if he were "looking for the door." McCain also stood too close to the audience on several occasions, which made them uncomfortable. McCain swaggered around the stage even when Obama was speaking. The after-debate body language was even more telling—McCain left almost immediately, while Obama stuck around to engage the audience even further, including the veteran that McCain had singled out.

Then, of course, there was McCain referring to Obama as “that one,” a gaffe that will go down in debate history alongside Bush’s looking at his watch and Gore’s sighs.

[Jlc]

Even the poll on the FoxNews website has Obama winning the debate.

[bmm]

It's amazing how differently this debate was viewed by many. From reading your article, it appears we both watched a very different debate. I, on the other hand, whole heartedly disagree with your points of view. Throughout much of the debate, I was experiencing a nervous breakdown watching Presidential Candidate McCain at his "worst perfomance" debate thus far. He lacked much confidence. He babbled way too much. He was way too close to the audience to the point where I even felt unconfortable for them. You can tell age is kicking in by his taking of notes almost entire debate. He appeared too intimidated. I learned that McCain was clearly "out of his league" and "that my friend" as McCain over stated last evening--is not the president you want taking over this country! And he is who is what we are supposed to think as a "Marverick!" Come on--give me a break.

[klm]

Historically, the candidate who wins the debates does not necessarily win the election--ask Al Gore. (Oh, that's right, he did win the election, just not the electoral vote).

[tlg]

Well, I'd like to defend this piece a bit. I thought the author was fair in his assessment of non-verbal behaviors -- citing several things he noticed about the debate without implying a "win" by either party. This was really only about the things that stood out as exemplars of non-verbal behavior. The omission of analysis on the comment "that one" (by McCain) was probably because that was a verbal behavior. If you want to talk about the tone with which McCain said it or the fact that he pointed at, without looking at, Obama while saying it, then I think that was covered less specifically in paragraph 4.

This is my assessment. And let me first say that I would imagine that our opinions are partly clouded by a bit of our own confirmation bias -- we see what we want or expect to see in the debate. -- I, for instance, (a conservative) noticed that Obama stayed behind to chat and take photos, but I perceived it to be a photo op (something you might see a celebrity do) and it annoyed me a little. I don't want a celebrity for a president. I want the guy who knows how to run the country. I also saw McCain's "swaggering" around the stage behind Obama at times, but I perceived that more favorably than the last poster, as a way of stealing power from Obama. Slightly aggressive, perhaps. Rude, nah.

What was much more interesting to me than any of this was the pace and fluidity with which the two men spoke. In this debate I thought McCain did a much better job of seeming genuine and authentic in his desire to lead America to change, as exhibited by his more fluid (though not perfectly so) answers and his voice inflection which got as low as a whisper at one point. Obama seemed to be bullet-pointing things as he spoke, saying "uh" a lot and sort of listing things he wanted to say, but with less genuine inflection, which made things seem a bit more rehearsed. I think that's what the author of this piece meant by professorial, which I find funny because I am a professor, and I hope I use more vocal range than that. I did hear on one post-debate news talk show that several people in the larger audience fell asleep to the debate. Maybe it was too professorial! Before I digress too far... Of course, there were times when McCain also seemed rehearsed (ex. he repeated lines like 'We're Americans and we can do this' over and over, which probably meant that he'd rehearsed them).

So, I don't know if Obama seemed more rigid to me because he's trying to remember WHAT to say, or just thinking about HOW he wants to say it. As I recall, when you are trying hard to remember something, your eyes roll up a bit as if you are somehow "accessing" the brain, correct?) I don't notice his eyes rolling upward... he just pauses a lot. So, what is that really about? Any thoughts?

[Bill Gentry]

These are really great comments and I appreciate and respect your viewpoints and opinions. One thing I have learned by doing this, and nonverbal communication research shows, is that people can read the same thing much differently, and context matters.

I have had a couple of people tell me about the post-debate; I did not notice because I was writing and turned the TV off, but people like MJP did notice that Obama stayed and shook hands with others - this scored points for Obama, particularly with the undecided voters that made up the audience. It was a good move on Obama's part. I also agree with MJP - McCain saying "that one" was disrespectful in my opinion.

Like I did, several of the commenters as well noticed how McCain was waiting to talk, and how distracting it was to see him stand up, sit down, even walk around.

[AJP]

People made some good points above, a few of which I'd like to address. First, the author did not explicitly mention that McCain "won" the debate, but I think it is fair to say that the author implied McCain won the nonverbal portion of the debate. To the author's point, people do read the same behaviors differently and context does matter. Perhaps this is what disturbs me a little bit -- that the author is clearly a Republican and his conservative views and affection for McCain have clearly biased his interpretation of the debate. In all fairness, however, I myself could not do an "objective" interpretation either -- it is really difficult to separate one's opinions from his/her political views. Perhaps the author's political affiliation should be acknowledged in future discussions.

Second, it was mentioned that Obama seemed more rehearsed. Given that neither candidate knows the specific questions that are going to be asked, I don't think they can be completely rehearsed. However, I do agree that at times both candidates go into "spills" that they have used at on the campain trail. Overall, though, I think Obama just seems more rehearsed to some people because he is much more articulate than McCain -- he is just better able to quickly synthesize information and formulate responses.

Finally, I was glad to see Obama hang around and shake people's hands. I don't think he's trying to be a celebrity. I think he's trying to win votes (obviously) and was trying to give the viewers the respect that they deserve and hear some of their concerns. I appreciate this because too many politicians today have forgotten who they work for -- us -- and I'd put McCain in this category. He has been in Washington so long (26 years) that he takes his office for granted. Nobody should be upset that Obama did this... afterall, McCain had the same opportunity, so there is an equal playing ground.

[ADK]

I agree that the author should have indicated whom he is supporting in the election--a disclaimer such as "The author is a supporter of John McCain for president." CNN and MSNBC do this for their commmentators. The danger of the above piece is that it is being presented as an objective, scientific analysis, when it is, in fact, an opinion piece.

[qbc]

With the latest Gallup poll showing McCain behind by 11 points, even a Clintonesque performance in the final debate probably wouldn't save McCain.

[tlg]

Wow, with respect, in response to the comment made by poster AJP:
"Perhaps this is what disturbs me a little bit -- that the author is clearly a Republican and his conservative views and affection for McCain have clearly biased his interpretation of the debate."

-- I am left asking the following 3 questions:

1) How do you know that the author is "clearly a Republican." Perhaps you know him personally?
2) is the author's political affiliation what really bothers you? Or is it that you felt he was truly biased in the piece?
3) Finally, I cannot see even an "implicit" statement by the author that McCain "won." The author gave a win to McCain for eye contact/connecting with the full audience, a win to Obama on showing respect (and even said McCain seemed agitated and restless when Obama spoke) and then finally, a win to McCain for breaking the space boundary with the audience. He finished by stating that Obama has the lead in this race and that McCain should only hope Obama makes a blunder because so far, Obama has done everything well. If you were keeping score, I hardly see how 2-to-2 score (2-to-1 score at worst) implies a "clear win" for McCain. The only thing clear to me is that this author mentioned a *few* things he "noticed" about non-verbal behavior from the debate. That's all. This is clearly and obviously not a comprehensive journal report or an empirical analysis. I viewed this as if the author is probably a subject matter expert "weighing in" on the debate to add color and discussion to the Center's website.

Are we so critical of the piece because we cannot stand to hear Obama criticized? Or is it because a "Republican" wrote it? Come on folks. I implore you to check your bias at the door. The piece is more than fair. It IS an opinion piece and never claimed to be anything other than that. If the Center didn't want opinion pieces on their website, they wouldn't allow pieces like this to be put there.

Additionally, although it wouldn't have hurt, I cannot imagine that EVERY op ed author states their political affiliation in their pieces.

Having said all this, I completely agree with poster AJP that it is virtually impossible to separate our own opinion from our "objective" analyses. Most scientists agree that *completely* objective analyses may not even exist. We are human and we bring that unfortunate characteristic to every analysis we do. We can only strive to become more objective. I think this author did about as good a job of that as any CNN or MSNBC commentator I've seen as of late.

Respectfully,

[APJ]

In response to TLG, no, I do not know the author personally. However, it is not difficult to know the author's political affiliation given that he has written two previous pieces for Business Week. Did you see the first of these articles? It was clearly biased in favor of McCain. Look at the comments associated with this article. Many, many people called the author on being a Republican, so I think this is a logical conclusion if you read that piece.

Second, I have no problem with the author's political affiliation per se. It's just that it is obvious that this has clouded his interpretation, making him overlook key negatives for McCain. For example, what about the eye rolling and facial expressions that showed disdain for Obama when McCain called him "that one"?

Third, if this is presented as an opinion piece, then I have no problem with this. However, the fact that the author portrays himself as a "nonverbal communciations expert" gives the impression that this is an objective, scientific analysis. Moreover, the author cites research as to try to make this peice more objective. Also, if this were an opinion piece, why is it not my right to voice my opinion on the author's work?

Finally, I actually enjoy blogs/reports like this, as long as they are presented as for what they are... opinion pieces... this should be made clearer, and the author should disclose his political affiliation in the future. I also think when one writes a piece like this, he or she must expect a lot of feedback, good and bad. This is an emotionally charged topic.

I think this is a healthy dialogue. I look forward to future blogs.

[mjp]

tlg wrote:

"Are we so critical of the piece because we cannot stand to hear Obama criticized?"

Come on, tlg. It's not the criticism of Obama that people disagree with. It's the overly-positive view of McCain's performance.

Google "Obama McCain debate body language" and you'll see that almost all of the other analysts agree that Obama won on both the verbal and non-verbal aspects of the debate.

[qbc]

Based on the points made in this blog, McCain won 3-2 if you count McCain's wondering around as a negative, something the author doesn't make clear. The three positives for McCain are:
McCain on the other hand, did a better job at connecting with the fuller audience of people in the round

McCain at times sounds like a coach trying to give a motivational speech to his team; his voice tones are a bit softer and have a little more positive energy than Obama’s.

One candidate [McCain], through the nonverbal behavior of space and touch, accentuated his words and sentiments

[Bill Gentry]

Wow, this is so great to see people respond to the blog posting. I’ve had several people tell me (on the blog, and in person) I was right on, and several people tell me I was completely off on the nonverbal behaviors of the candidates. Nonverbal communication, much like leadership, and beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. It is truly a great thing to see/read/hear what people saw. I hope this continues to spur interest.

As I said in my post, I believe if Obama stays the course, acts like he has throughout the debates, it would more than likely spell victory for him in November. McCain has to hope for a nonverbal faux pas (or two, or several) from Obama, and not do one himself to have any chance of winning. Historically, it’s not necessarily the candidate who does well nonverbally that wins, but people usually associate the loser with the nonverbal blunders and mistakes (Nixon, Dukakis, Bush Sr., Gore). There’s research that backs it up as well, from me and others in various other fields.

Over the past debates, Obama has been the more steady of the two; combine it with Biden, the Democratic ticket has been the more steady in terms of nonverbal behaviors, nothing totally off-putting or abnormal (as was in my BusinessWeek.com articles, I wrote that Obama won the first debate and Biden won his based on nonverbal behaviors). Both McCain and Palin have been more up and down, and there have been more errors from both – Saturday Night Live accentuated the nonverbal errors of the Katie Couric interview with Palin, and did a great take last night on McCain walking around while Obama talked – like I said in the blog, distracting and disrespectful.

What do people think they will see next week? Are you excited about the next one, or totally sick of it all? What nonverbally will you be paying attention to?

[supra for kids]

HHH Yes, the design of national policy is important, how our economic development plans for the next five years, how the implementation, how to make our economy even faster. Are designed to advance our focus to invest money in what ways it should be carefully arranged.