Be It Resolved

For those who are worried about apathy in politics, the

viewership of both conventions and debates should be
heartening. The history and role of debates is often misun-
derstood, so what follows is a guide to preparing for, and
scoring, leaders’ debates.
Political debates aren’t really debates. Some years they are several
simultaneous news conferences, and other years they are shouting
festivals. The first debate, and the first one televised, was in 1960.
It was not a decisive win for Kennedy—after all, it preceded the
narrowest victory to that date in US presidential politics. Although
Kennedy was more attractive than Nixon, his mouth did foam up with
spittle and his hands visibly shook as he punched the air with gestures.
Kennedy’s eyes darted around as much as, or more than, Nixon’s did.
Surveys showed that radio listeners were more likely to think Nixon
won. Nixon was mobbed at airports the next day and kissed by young
women. But it has become folklore that Kennedy won. Americans
didn’t hold another televised presidential debate until 1976—all candi-
dates were scared of them.
Studies show there are usually no new issues raised in debates. Voters
watch because they like the “one-stop shopping” for campaign infor-
mation. There are usually no big blunders and no knockout punches.
Sometimes a dramatic moment looks like a blunder or knockout after
a few days of media analysis. Some voters pay little attention to some
aspects of debates until news reports tell them to.
Conventional wisdom is that the media shape people’s perceptions
of debates during three to five days of coverage following the event.
I think fragmented and new media now have their say in hours rather
than days.
When we prepare a candidate for a debate, we use the same methods
for local cable as we do for a nationally televised leaders’ debate. We
don’t want rehearsal to degenerate into a meeting or policy briefing.
Candidates attract subject-matter experts who want to provide brief-
ings. By rehearsal time, it’s way too late for briefings.
Proper rehearsal is “gavel-to-gavel,” meaning for long periods of time
without stopping. The candidate must feel the thrill of delivering a
great answer. She must also feel the heart-pounding trepidation when

BE IT RESOLVED 47
the mind goes blank, and then the confidence of having recovered.
Staffers interrupting to give positive feedback and advice destroy these
moments. Feedback, corrections and the injection of new facts should
only occur after a good 20 minutes of rehearsal on video. Ideally, the
candidate should not know the people playing her opponents. This
adds a little surprise and a greater degree of difficulty.
Successful debate preparation has several goals. The most obvious is
having answers, command of the facts and legitimate criticisms of
your opponent. Also obvious is producing clips to be played repeatedly
on radio, TV, social-networking websites and quotes for print media.
Less obvious is the rehearsal of stagecraft—shaking hands with oppo-
nents, getting on and off set gracefully, making eye contact with ques-
tioners, opponents and the camera at appropriate moments. Toughest
of all is reacting.
The cliché from the theatre arts is that acting is actually just reacting.
It’s certainly important. Look at the bit players in a play or movie. The
good ones are reacting. The poor ones are waiting to deliver their lines
or walk off. Candidates in debates must act as if they’re always on.
Looking, thinking, nodding (yes or no) are a start. Video will show what
versions of these reactions are most credible.
Movements for television should be bigger and more deliberate, but
slower, than in real life. You can make eye contact with the person who
asked you the question or the one to whom you are speaking. This
means you should treat the camera lens like any other set of eyes in
the room. Candidates can add semantic reference to “the people
watching,” “average voters here tonight,” or “my opponents,” for clar-
ity. Gestures can emphasize the audience that the message is intended
for. Standing or walking out from behind the podium can be very
effective, if practiced.
Then there are UFOs—unforeseen occurrences. In the 1976 Carter-
Ford debate, a faulty piece of equipment cut the sound. The two candi-
dates stood there in silence for 27 minutes. Neither one had the pres-
ence of mind to continue engaging each other, journalists or the audi-
ence. In one Canadian debate, a journalist fainted and the candidates
stood there watching while others tried to help her. None had the
composure to assist.
Contrast this with Obama speaking in Berlin, Ohio. Someone fainted in
the audience and he stopped his speech, which was being carried live
on a couple of cable networks. He asked the crowd to give the person
some air. He called for medical aid. After calling for water, he immedi-
ately realized that he had a bottle at the podium, tossed it into the
crowd and asked them to pass it back. It can be an interesting defining
moment when things go wrong. Rehearsal and thinking ahead can
help a candidate stay ready.
48 BE IT RESOLVED
My trainers and I have identified several ways to judge how a candi-
date will perform in a debate, what analysts will say and which clips
will be used. When there is a televised leaders’ debate, we arrange for
several college interns to observe each leader and record certain
elements of their verbal and non-verbal communication styles.
Here are the criteria we use:
1. N>P. A negative is greater than a positive. In the political
context, “I am not a crook,” “No new taxes,” “I had no option”
and others are famous negatives that have backfired. Among
the reasons why negatives backfire is that they breed further
negativity and they are often absolutes (never, nothing, none).
Negative political advertising and slogans work in the short
term, lowering the esteem in which all politicians are held
in the long term, but electors prefer to vote for a positive
message and vision. So, negative attacks on opponents gather
attention but must be followed up by positive policies that
present an alternative.
Incumbents should be more positive about existing programs,
and challengers must walk a fine line between using enough
negatives to garner attention but not so many as to sound
carping.
Our researchers count negative words used (no, not, never,
nothing, none), words with negative prefixes (un-, dis-, in-,
non-) and words with negative connotations (stupid, poor,
unhealthy, etc.).
Candidates should strive to use three times more positives
than negatives, and incumbents should err on the side of the
positive more than challengers do.
2. EC=E-4. Effective Communication (EC) equals the Education (E)
level achieved by the audience minus four (-4) years. Nowadays
a typical viewer of the debates has some post-secondary
education, and the parties need to decide whether they are
trying to appeal to a demographic that is slightly higher or
lower than the average. Regardless, the level of communica-
tion should be about Grade 9 English. This is not the Lowest
Common Denominator (LCD) theory—it simply reflects the
imperfection of the mouth and the ear as instruments of
communication. This also captures a compelling communi-
cations theory—the need for simplicity.
Our researchers count any words, phrases or concepts they
did not understand. Candidates with low scores are deemed
to have communicated most effectively.

BE IT RESOLVED 49
 3. Word Count. Studies show that even university graduates
have difficulty comprehending sentences longer than
18 words.
Researchers record any long or rambling statements by
candidates that they either cannot follow or judge are over
the optimum length. This may also capture the research
which indicates that the optimum length of an answer is
45 seconds, with the maximum being 2 minutes.
Our researchers make a judgment call in real time; so we are
adding a qualitative or focus-group element, debriefing a key
youth demographic for the parties.
4. Repetition. Among the most important elements in effective
oral communication is repetition. The framework of “primacy,
recency and frequency” means that what a communicator
says first, last and most often has the most impact. In a lead-
ers’ debate, up to 80 issues may get raised, and there may be
several dozen speaker turns. Few viewers will remember who
spoke first or last, but they will remember repetition. Most
studies show about 80 percent of all messages transmitted
are misunderstood, forgotten or not received at all.
Our researchers will count words and concepts that the candi-
dates repeat. Candidates should try for a high score in this
category.
5. Eye contact. One of the most commonly understood non-
verbal messages is focused eye contact. Speakers must look
at the person they are speaking to. If that’s the television
audience during opening and closing statements, the camera
should be the focus. When you speak to or about opponents,
they should be the focus. Occasionally a candidate may want
to look away from the opponent towards the audience at
home, but only if the verbal message justifies it (“... and I
want voters to know...”). Novice television performers may
have trouble knowing which camera is on, so this is a tricky
move.
Our researchers record how often a candidate looks equivocal,
fidgets or displays darting eyes. Candidates should aim for a
low score here.
6. Body language. As in personal communication, candidates
should lean into the communications encounter by 1 to
3 degrees off the perpendicular. Erect posture looks neutral,
and leaning back looks standoffish. The latter two postures are
acceptable when listening to another speaker, but more active
body language is required to reinforce messages.
50 BE IT RESOLVED
 Our researchers look for active body language when candi-
dates are speaking versus passive or negative when they are
listening. Researchers award a pass/fail grade.
7. Gestures. Among the most commonly understood gestures in
Western culture is the open, double-hand gesture with elbows
at 90 degrees and palms rotated at a 45-degree angle to expose
the forearms. Hands raised above the chest and pointing with
the palm down are interpreted as highly aggressive.
Our researchers will record whether candidates use this posi-
tive gesture and whether the number, kind and duration of
negatives are appropriate. Candidates will be awarded
pass/fail grades.
8. Facial expression. A closed-mouth smile and a pleasant facial
expression are commonly interpreted as positive. Tension in
the brow or jaw can be seen as pensive when thinking or
reacting to the speech of another, but when you are speaking,
viewers will react well to a pleasant expression.
Our researchers record whether candidates use positive
expressions when speaking to the viewing audience and
whether they use negative expressions appropriately when
reacting to or confronting an opponent. Candidates are
awarded a pass/fail grade.

BE IT RESOLVED 51