Leadership X-ray? Why presidential debates reveal less than you think
Presidential candidates Heather Humphreys (left) and Catherine Connolly (right) with RTE presenter David McCullagh ahead of their debate on RTE Radio One on Sunday, October 12. Final debates don’t measure attributes like empathy or moral authority, but observant voters can still spot hidden character clues — easier in a two-horse race.
Presidential debates deliver gripping drama. But do these contrived performances really reveal leadership capability?
While debates set agendas and increase familiarity, they’re poor auditions for Áras an Uachtaráin. They’re more political theatre with slick soundbites and polished performances than reliable assessment tools. No wonder long-term interest has dampened, with 18% of Irish voters now undecided.
Most candidates mature into the office. After all, there’s no MBA equivalent for presidents. What matters is who exhibits the most potential. Tuned-in voters can still gain helpful character clues — if they strip the signal from the noise.
This ambassadorial role relies on personal power, not positional power. So voters choose on popularity — a function of likeability, familiarity, and credibility. Popularity begins with first impressions. Many voters, like hasty jurors, tend to confirm their instincts throughout entire campaigns.
Take the first Irish debate. Every detail was scrutinised. Tightly-clasped hands and static poses revealed nerves. Just as viewers once fixated on a black fly trapped in US vice-presidential candidate Mike Pence’s silver hair, Irish viewers pondered Catherine Connolly’s Bic biro, Heather Humphreys’ yellow notepad, and Jim Gavin’s use of ‘permit’ as both a verb and noun.
Appearance shapes impressions further as the messenger often eclipses the message. Well-cited studies show that attractive candidates appear more intelligent and trustworthy, winning more elections. Even the first televised debate favoured John F. Kennedy as Richard Nixon appeared visibly unwell.
Voters unconsciously evaluate non-verbal signals — yawns, grins, headshaking, and handshaking. In 1992, George HW Bush checked his watch, interpreted as disengagement. In 2000, Al Gore sighed and rolled his eyes, hinting at condescension.
And in 2008, vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin was widely mocked for winking six times before 70 million viewers. Each candidate lost. While no single moment determined election outcome, each coloured cumulative perception.
Like recruiting managers, voters simply ask: Can I imagine this person in the role? Can I trust them? The answer depends not only on what they see but also what they hear, in debates, media commentary and marketing campaigns.
Some historians argue that debates are won on form not substance, thanks to great actors with great voices. Accents create psychic proximity or distance from voters, whether a Monaghan twang or Galwegian lilt.
Tone can also incur a penalty. Leaders from Margaret Thatcher to Theresa May took voice coaching. Few crave a high-pitched squeak or fast-talking figurehead.
Most people expect inspiration with a hint of Bill Clinton-style charisma. Despite intense pressure, candidates must articulate compelling messages. While Michael D. Higgins offered a presidency of “ideas”, the 60-second pitches defaulted to wishy-washy platitudes.
Humphreys promised “honesty, compassion, and service”. Gavin called himself “determined, active, and positive”. Irish-speaking Connolly left viewers to decode, later advocating for “courage” and “peace”.
No wonder 49% of citizens don’t feel represented by any candidate.
Absent any legacy-defining qualities, humour always aids connection. Seventy-three-year-old Ronald Reagan oozed confidence over 56-year-old Walter Mondale.
“I will not make age an issue .... I am not going to exploit, for winning political purposes, my opponent's youth and inexperience.” His wit neutralised age concerns, making him instantly more likeable.
Presidential impact isn’t only about style. Competence is non-negotiable. Gerald Ford’s mistaken 1976 claim that Eastern Europe was not under Soviet domination hurt his credibility.
In 2008, John McCain’s reference to Barack Obama as “that one” jarred at a time of racial tension. These memorable blunders affect narratives about leadership fitness.
In business and politics, bias “deaf spots” derail candidate judgement. Like blind spots, these emerge when leaders hear what they want, ignore advice, and dismiss inconvenient truths.
Tuning into the right voices facilitates unity and connection. Today, it’s both a defining and differentiating skill on a polarised world stage.
As election day nears, exhausted candidates present their best selves. Final debates don’t measure attributes like empathy or moral authority, but observant voters can still spot hidden character clues — easier in a two-horse race.
Consider evidence, not inference. Listen for exaggeration, interruption, generalisation, deflection, and weasel wording. Do participants respect or talk over each other? Do they rewrite history?
Consistency matters. Constantly changing perspectives give voters whiplash. Over-rehearsed replies may comfort candidates, but they sound robotic. Newstalk’s Pat Kenny chastened Humphreys and Connolly for serial answer dodging. It irritates audiences.
Do candidates leak aggression or tone-deaf leadership? Such traits alienate voters and reveal diplomatic risks. Conversely, composure communicates gravitas and emotional intelligence, especially when attacked by hostile moderators or opponents.
For example, in France’s 2017 debate, Emmanuel Macron’s calm demeanour and rhetorical control solidified his advantage against Marine Le Pen’s confrontational accusations. Similarly, Frank-Walter Steinmeier‘s moderate steadiness secured the German presidency.
Grandiosity is a rookie error that usually backfires. In 1988, vice-presidential candidate Dan Quayle compared his congressional experience to Kennedy’s. Lloyd Bentsen famously retorted: “Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy ... you’re no Jack Kennedy.”
Can candidates conceal irritation? When CNN asked Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis if he would support the death penalty should his wife be raped and murdered, he curtly replied “no”, and referenced statistics. Voters condemned his disdain as clinical.
Late-stage smear tactics invariably damage momentum. Few voters decode these in time. Fianna Fáil’s Sean Gallagher struggled when confronted with false allegations, losing a monumental lead over Higgins.
Tuned-in voters can spot these credibility killers. Reinterpreting both what we see and hear can prevent misjudgement — a central theme of my book, . Moreover, addressing deaf spots can disproportionately swing elections.
While presidential candidates can’t win elections with one debate, they can lose them with a bad one. Debates remain a leadership weathervane — an imperfect, if sometimes useful, barometer of potential.
Use them to test your judgment, not rubber-stamp it.
- Nuala Walsh is a former FTSE 100 Chief Marketing Officer, board advisor, award-winning author and adjunct professor of behavioral science at Trinity College Dublin. Her book is available now. Nuala is the guest on Tuesday's episode of The Deirdre O'Shaughnessy Podcast.
CONNECT WITH US TODAY
Be the first to know the latest news and updates
