What’s the secret to a perfect presentation? Preparation, as Kamala Harris ably demonstrated, in her first US presidential TV debate. Only the right kind of preparation pays off. Get it wrong and you can fizzle into a mess of your own making, as Joe Biden did in the previous debate. So, what is the right kind of preparation?
There was no love lost between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump. They had never met until the live 90-minute TV debate on September 10th. Their family heritage, professional background, public record, and political priorities couldn’t be more different. Sparks were bound to fly.
Both nominees have their own communication style, driven by personality and experience. Trump likes to ‘play the player, not the ball’, undermining opponents. Harris, playing catch up and trying to prove her credentials as a potential commander-in-chief, was keen to show that under pressure she can hold her own.
Trump’s manner usually shapes things in TV debates. He shows no real interest in his opponent as a person, beyond attacking them. He shows no nerves, presenting a stone-faced look of purpose. His steely demeanour and expansive hand gestures typifying tactics that included a near total refusal to even look at Harris throughout the debate.
How to manage nerves in a presentation
In the opening seconds, Harris tried to crack Trump’s shell, striding over to his lectern and taking the initiative by introducing herself. It was perhaps a moment of clunky awkwardness, even so – Trump, a master of confidence, no longer owned the room quite as assuredly as he had a moment earlier.
It didn’t completely work. Facing a TV audience of more than 67 million people, Harris seemed nervous in her opening statements.
At Working Voices, we believe that before delivering a persuasive presentation, it’s important to dissipate any extra adrenaline through dynamic breathing exercises. Whether or not Harris did this beforehand, in the room she quickly needed to up her game. Wavering voters may select a candidate they may not like but who they think can get the better of leaders hostile to the US.
In the previous TV presidential debate in June, Biden over-rehearsed – which is the wrong kind of preparation. Stumbling over-pre-scripted lines, Biden, 81, came across as tired, halting, stilted and struggling to connect. He withdrew from the presidential race a month later.
Against Biden, Trump, 78, looked positively youthful. Facing Harris however, he had to present himself as capable, professional, and able to stick to policy – skills his team couldn’t take for granted. Harris had to appear as unphased, able to take on the world’s bullies, and basically better than Biden.
Both had much to lose. This might be their only TV debate, a single-shot chance to capture wavering voters and stake a claim to the most powerful post in the world. Personal presentations don’t get bigger than this.
Trump and Harris were working to different strategies. Hers was shaped by tactics designed to distract and destabilise Trump. His was more about disparaging his opponent and the things she stood for. In any presentation, it’s important to stick to your strategy regardless of distractions on the day. But strategy is only part of the story, the rest lies in the power of sentiment.
Building trust in a presentation
For audiences, a sentiment of confidence is essential. They need to feel assured by the person they’re listening to. They need to trust the presenter’s words, logic, and conclusions. Sentiment in a presentation isn’t about decks or data, it isn’t even a well-constructed argument. It’s a human sense of connection, it’s what the audience latch on to.
In any presentation, the speaker must own the room. If you don’t have confidence in what you’re saying, nor will anyone else. Conviction in your argument will always help to make the case, no matter how difficult your conclusions.
In TV interviews, Trump presents a consistent sentiment, somehow managing to pull off a rumbling sense of outrage. His aim is to express the frustration that his base feel and that many voters believe is overlooked by most politicians other than Trump.
Trump had prepared for the TV debate in detail, working with his team on maintaining focus. He sounded more balanced than he has in the past and potentially could have landed blows on immigration, inflation and the economy. That he failed to do so was testament to Harris’s strategy and preparation
Unpacking Harris’s strategy
The audience are looking to understand you, but what’s your understanding of them? It’s important to read the room. You can estimate ahead of time what the reaction will be to your comments. What will your audience find difficult to swallow? What will they like – what should you emphasise? What will they find confusing, what will you need to clarify in detail?
Harris aimed to present a sentiment of optimism, playing to her strengths while exploiting her opponent’s weaknesses. For example, when probed about her policies on immigration and illegal border crossings, Harris launched into a carefully prepared four-part answer:
1. Bio
Harris began by talking about her success “as the only person on this stage who has prosecuted trans-national criminal organisations.” This reference to her past work was aimed at voters in swing states who have said they don’t know enough about her background.
2. Progress
Harris then gave evidence of recent achievements, including the border security bill “that I supported” and which would have “put 1,500 more agents on the border.” This was in response to voters in swing states who have called for evidence of the Democrats’ policies and solutions.
3. Contrast
Harris then pointed to the contrast between her and Trump, asking “do you know what happened to that bill? Donald Trump called up some folks in Congress and said kill the bill.” She suggested that while she had been ready to act, Trump had delayed progress for the sake of personal politics.
4. Baiting Trump
Finally, Harris deflected away from a topic that was not her strongest by goading Trump. Pivoting to something she knew would provoke him, she suggested that people were “leaving his rallies early out of exhaustion and boredom.” Trump took the bait, taking up precious air-time by explaining that his events were the “most incredible rallies in the history of politics” and talking about immigrants eating pets in Ohio. Harris simply rested her chin in her hand and looked on with a smile.
In this short exchange, Harris introduced herself to the American people, talked about her actions and progress, demonstrated Trump’s shortcomings and goaded him into wasting time on valueless topics.
In the end, Trump’s falsehoods and unsubstantiated claims failed to cut through Harris’s careful strategy. And once he lost his discipline, he never really recovered, losing the argument and ultimately the night. The following day, most Republicans agreed that Trump came off second best. Meanwhile, the Harris campaign was quick to challenge Trump to a second debate.
5 tips for delivering a perfect presentation
The takeaways from the Harris/Trump presidential debate include universal truths that apply to all presentations. At Working Voices, our courses on presenting emphasise careful preparation and articulate delivery. They focus on a few simple rules, such as:
- Build trust. Does your body language match the words you’re saying? Do you appear authentic?
- Think about the audience’s needs. What will they understand? What will they struggle with?
- Harris painted an optimistic picture about the future. Trump gave a darker account of the past. People generally respond better to optimism, especially when you’re trying to persuade them of something. How realistically positive are your conclusions
- The currency of all communication is storytelling. What stories can you tell that will get your key points across?
- Is your presentation a calm, step-by-step journey towards a powerful conclusion? What are the weaknesses that might be tested in the room, and what should your responses be?
In the days after the debate, Trump said he was less inclined to go head-to-head on TV with Harris again. If that proves to be the case, focus will shift to the final verdict, to be delivered by the American people in November.
