Smile. Look energized. Don’t blow it.
By Todd Graham on CNN.com
Nothing says the 2020 presidential election is heating up like the arrival of the first primary debates. And we've got some whoppers, with 20 Democratic contenders facing off this week in two separate groups determined by a randomized draw.
The debates, hosted by NBC, MSNBC, and Telemundo will take place in Miami on Wednesday, June 26 and Thursday, June 27.
What should we expect in these bulky debates?
Surface level analysis. Stories about everyone's childhood. Emotional anecdotes about candidates' careers. In other words, all the parts of "Shark Tank" and "Chopped" that I use my remote to skip forward 30 seconds. You shouldn't expect a quality debate. It's simply impossible with 10 people on stage. Wait, did I say 10? There's one other thing holding back the candidates. The moderators.
Apparently, inclusiveness to the point of overpopulation is a thing now. There are five moderators for the Miami debates. Whatever slim chance we had for depth is gone now, since each moderator will cover a range of topics with little chance for a second line of analysis or follow up questions. It's almost as if the Democratic National Committee (like the Republican National Committee four years ago) doesn't want a real debate -- at least not yet.
Please lower your expectations. The first debates may not move public opinion much. If you're tuning in to see a home run, you may be disappointed. The size of the field, along with time constraints and similarities in positions might make it difficult to distinguish the vast differences between each candidate ... unless the Democrats find their own version of President Trump.
While the overall quality of large-field debates might pale in comparison to smaller ones, they are still valuable. Debates force candidates to think on their feet in a way that speeches, ads, and even interviews don't. They also encourage a truthful contrast to emerge between the candidates. Due to the popularity of the format, debates draw way more potential voters than any other means.
What can they learn from the 2015 GOP 10-person debates?
Don't be Jeb.
How should the candidates approach a large-field debate?
With only a few minutes of speaking time per debater, each minute counts. Think of it as speed dating for president. Preparing a ton of policy analysis is useless, as are attacks against a particular opponent. Yes, candidates should spend some time researching the positions (and flaws) of their opponents in case something comes up organically. However, they'll mostly be focused on sharing their own positions, answers and stories.
What are some specific things candidates should avoid?
Try not to be too bland. Often, debaters don't even know they're losing, since they might not have made any glaring mistakes. That's the trap, especially if the candidate isn't a frontrunner. Staying close to the pack doesn't do a lower-tier candidate any good. "Steady as she goes" only works if she's going great.
As for the favorites, my advice is don't blow it. Unfortunately, this is much harder than it sounds. Candidates tend to overcompensate their own boorish personalities with canned lines, forced humor and awkward aggressiveness. That's a mistake politicians never seem to learn from.
By the way, it's easier for the favorites to lose a crowded debate than to win one. There's more pressure, and they simply have more to lose.
I also advise candidates to avoid singling out the frontrunners and attacking them by name. Why? Once a candidate is personally disparaged, he or she is provided extra time to respond. This can easily double the frontrunner's speaking time, which is a tragedy for everyone else in the field. Any specific and pointed criticisms should be held off for future debates. Besides, there's simply no evidence that attacking the leader this early in primary debates is helpful to the aggressor.
Sounds reasonable. What are your more positive suggestions for the candidates?
Smile. Appear energetic. Control the room with verbal and nonverbal assertiveness. Look and act like you belong on stage with these people. Get noticed, but not in a bad way. Be funny, but don't force it. (I once wrote out a bunch of jokes for my debaters, but they just couldn't pull it off. Even with practice and imitation, humor is hard to teach.)
For the frontrunners, it's important to be more generic about policy positions since there's no need to risk getting into the weeds just yet. Remember, these early debates matter for the top tier because they're the ones with a real shot at winning the 2020 nomination. Everyone else on stage should just be themselves and maintain a positive attitude.
Is it an advantage or disadvantage to debate on the first night?
I say disadvantage.
Let's begin with "don't do that." I'm famous for this coaching strategy. I watch other debate teams, learn from their mistakes, and then go back to coach my team with the "don't do that" strategy. For the upcoming presidential debates, the Thursday night debaters would do well to apply that same technique. Watch Wednesday's debate, pore over news and social media the next day and whatever went wrong, don't do that.
Another benefit of getting up on stage the second night is the possibility of addressing any breaking news. If something happens between the Wednesday and Thursday debates, it should steal some of the thunder from Wednesday's group. Moderators will likely add questions addressing the issue ahead of Thursday's debate, making it exclusive to the second group.
What about Elizabeth Warren? Does it help that she's not debating against the other top-tier candidates?
Yes and no.
It's good to go first. Some think Warren lost the draw because she's not debating the frontrunner, Joe Biden, so she can't contrast her ideas with his. I disagree. First, Biden can't hit back at Warren if he's not debating her. Biden is a solid debater. Don't underestimate him. Warren will get her chances later, so it's an advantage to avoid him for now.
Being the center of attention is a double-edged sword. But I must state the obvious: It's a huge advantage to be the focus on stage. If Warren has a killer debate on that first night, then the public's first impression will go a long way for her candidacy.
Unfortunately, the downside is this: What if Warren's debate goes south? Democratic primary voters will rightfully think, "If she can't beat Bill de Blasio, how can she beat Trump?"
Plus, sometimes it's hard to relax under the spotlight. I once had a terrific debate team make the final round of the national championship only to have one of their worst debates ever. I could only stand by and watch as their nerves frayed under the pressure of having the biggest audience and most important debate of their lives.