[September 21, 2015] Recently, the Republican candidates for President debated in their second televised debate. I rounded up a few more people to provide some senior leadership analysis and insight into how successful leaders viewed the debate. While their views are insightful, they do differ from the common view on who came out on top and on how well each candidate conducted themselves.
Hosted by CNN, the number participating grew to 11 total, which included the addition of Carly Fiorina. I spoke with 13 senior leaders who are willing to tell me their opinion but, of course, they prefer their name not be used due to the delicacy of their positions.1 None of them were the same leaders I interviewed after debate #1. Their input is strictly based on debate #2 and not based on either the first debate or candidate actions or comments at a later date.
There were a couple of trends they pointed out. First, they generally thought that CNN moderators were weak, especially Jake Tapper who was working to goad candidates into name calling and picking a fight with others on the stage. CNN certainly didn’t do itself any favors from this format but to be fair it was likely designed to increase ratings; but only sacrificing substance and real issues. Our senior leaders were consistent on this issue as something that might have been designed to benefit Donald Trump.
Second, the two topics that generated the most debate were immigration (in particular illegal immigration into the United States) and Planned Parenthood (defunding it because of the sting videos showing the selling of fetus body parts). All were for doing something to slow down illegal immigration and promise to defund Planned Parenthood. While the answers were good none of the candidates had a real breakaway moment with their answers.
The big question I’m always asked is who we think performed the best in debate #2. The “best” performance here will be defined as anyone who gave the most substantive answer and kept their cool while avoiding being trapped into a display of anger. This standard, it should be pointed out, differs on how most people see the debate winners. Senior leaders don’t see a winner in someone who has the most air time or how they look.
As in the first debate, there was no consensus on the candidate that performed best and that by itself means that no one person was substantively better than the others. According to the senior leaders, the top three were Cruz, Christie, and Paul. Rand Paul made the list by controlling his temper and staying out of the catfights. Chris Christie and Ted Cruz were consistently able to articulate a clear argument for all their answers. Trump again showed his penchant for insulting others and saying – I am paraphrasing here – “I’m great, trust me.” Carly Fiorina did not make the top three because of her showing anger (as opposed to passion) and her over-rehearsed answers.
The election is more than a year away and much can happen in the timeframe. The Republicans can be confident that they have fielded a good group of people and continue to test them in debates. These debates are good for helping us understand both the candidates and important issues of the day.
[Don’t forget to “Like” the Leader Maker at our Facebook Page.]
—————-
- Of the 13, five are military, three senior officers in commercial companies, two retired CEOs; one senior education official, and two from non-profit organizations. My question to them was the same in the first debate, “Can you tell me your thoughts about any of these men or woman if they were to be elected President of the United States.” They were to consider any information they have about the candidates but were to restrict themselves to the debate as the sole source of opinions.
[Disclaimer] I have no affiliation with any presidential candidate, nor do any of my relatives. I’m a registered Republican with a history of voting. The views here are mine and mine alone and I am responsible for any errors contained in my blog.