What Constitutes "Presidential"?

Now that we have had this week to try to digest the results of the second debate, the CNN version, the polls have suggested some movement.  Nothing seismic, of course, but in a few cases they are worth noting.  It does, after all, take a pretty substantially memorable performance to move the needle even a bit in such a large field.

We should, of course, start with this: CNN did a particularly poor job, if their intent had been to deliver information to the voting public.  If their intent was to sell advertising time, which is of course their raison d'etre, I suppose they'll call it successful down in Atlanta.  But as a concerned voter trying to decide whom to vote for next March -- and next November -- I have to say their delivery was just pathetic.

A quarter of the questions were about or mentioned Donald Trump.  Earth to CNN: I don't care if Trump is the leader in the polls.  My economic situation is problematic because of the guy in the White House now, not because of Donald Trump.  Because you asked so many questions about him, you short-shrifted what really matters, like the USA economy, national defense, Islamic terrorists, etc.  And that was with a debate that was an hour too long to begin with.

So what is this piece even about?

With eleven candidates across the stage, and with the moderators asking simply awful questions, we could see more of the person behind each lectern than we could what their plans or approaches might be.  We saw whether each was serene, or testy.  Or "presidential."

"Presidentialness" may mean different things to different viewers.  And it might not even be an indicator of whether someone would actually be, you know, a good president.  But I think I know what most people are looking for when you ask if a candidate appeared presidential.  Confidence in his or her demeanor.  A comfort level and command of the issues and an appropriate familiarity with the significant details (not a policy-wonk level of detail but comfort).

Absent substance in CNN's questions, we have to ask -- who came across presidential?

Granted, to whom questions were actually asked was really key.  How, for example, could Mike Huckabee, who has marvelous command of the issues and is a brilliant debater, show himself presidential in all of, what, three questions asked of him?

But I did think there was at least a little opportunity, and I thought a couple of the candidates came across that way.  I thought Carly Fiorina not only did a good job in an adversarial situation, but when able to deliver a point without interruption -- a rarity given the format -- she was in command, portraying leadership -- even defining it at one point.  Would you follow her if, for example, you didn't speak English but watched anyway?  I think you would.

The other who, in my view, led me as he spoke, should not be all that surprising, because it was Sen. Marco Rubio.  Rubio performed just as well in the first debate in the time he was given; this time he was seemingly able to have a fraction more air time, and he spoke with the command and confidence of someone fifteen years older.

I can't say Rubio hasn't been in the top tier of my consideration; he has. It hasn't been because of his personal story, or his Cuban roots -- none of that really matters to me.  I have just found the kind of compulsion in his presentations and his speech, that make me believe his conviction in what he is saying -- what I mean by "presidential."  I believe that people who need to follow him would be inspired to do so.  I believe his maturity belies his age -- more cubbyholes than someone his age should have, possibly because of his background.

The polls following the debate seem to reflect this; Mrs. Fiorina zoomed up into second place, while Sen. Rubio made a substantial break from the pack to challenge Dr. Carson in the upper tier.  I doubt that anyone can point to many specific policy points made by anyone that affected the polls that much.

But we are, indeed, susceptible to being influenced by someone appearing sufficiently more presidential in an environment where that quality is prized.  And I think two of the pack did so indeed.

Do you share that view?
 
Copyright 2015 by Robert Sutton
 Like what you read here?  There's a new post from Bob at www.uberthoughtsUSA.com at 10am Eastern time, every weekday, giving new meaning to "prolific essayist."  Sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at bsutton@alum.mit.edu.