What Donald, Hillary, and Bernie Taught Us About Presentations

This U.S. presidential election was like no other. Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump went head-to-head in a heated debate with more twists and turns than a roller coaster ride. The ongoing soap opera kept people riveted to their screens -- sometimes inspired and other times disgusted. Regardless of the outcome, there were lessons learned about public speaking.

Here some presidential guidelines to deliver winning presentations:

Deliver a  Message that Resonates -- To be effective in any presentation, a public speaker must have a message that resonates with the audience. While sizzle is important, if the message doesn’t speak directly to the self interests of the audience, it won’t be remembered and it won’t move the crowd.

Both Sanders and Trump leveraged the emotions of the audience and spoke directly and specifically to their frustrations, problems, and concerns. To resonate with an audience the presenter needs to speak simply, use shorter words, and to tell stories that relate to what the audience believes and experiences. When the presenter speaks their language, the audience feels heard, understood, and connected. And that builds trust.

Smile and Deflect -- At some point every public speaker will encounter resistance or hostility. The worst approach is to get defensive. When you play your opponent’s game, you lose. The debates got nasty at times. When Trump attacked Hillary, she reacted by smiling until it was her turn to rebut. Hillary showed poise under pressure. In situations other than a debate, the presenter can involve the audience to deflect hostility. There’s nothing more powerful than peer pressure.

Do the Unexpected -- Attention spans are growing shorter. There’s now research that states that the attention of a goldfish is one second longer than that of a human. Yikes! To keep an audience engaged and attentive, be different.

Trump broke the rules. He was unpredictable and said things that were politically incorrect. The audience found it refreshing because he said what they were thinking. When presenters avoid naming the elephant in the room, the audience retreats and resists. It’s difficult to be influential if you tiptoe around the truth. (Yes, he went too far, and lost credibility for being inappropriate to say the least). When used appropriately, the element of surprise will keep the audience with you.

Get Personal -- All three candidates showed a personal side of themselves by involving their family and sharing stories. Every audience is thinking three things subliminally -- Who are you? Who are you to tell me? What’s in it for me?

An audience first wants to know the presenter as a person, not as a talking head. Sharing personal stories and talking about one’s family humanizes the speaker. Substance without personal connection will not yield results. An audience relates to people they know, like, and trust. Never underestimate the likability factor.

Be Gracious Victory and Defeat -- Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. It’s true in politics, sports, and at work.  A gloating winner or a sore loser will cast themselves in a negative light. What separates the ordinary from the great is how a presenter handles victory and defeat. When Donald won the election, he complimented Hillary on her toughness, hard work, and service. Bernie and Hillary were gracious when they conceded the election. Hillary’s concession speech inspired the country to unite and paved the way for a new administration. This is truly the mark of leadership.

Most of us will never run for office but we can take a page out of the election playbook and remember to apply the good, and eliminate the bad and the ugly.

Fundraising Presentations? Father Knows Best

Political candidates spend millions of dollars on advisers, media training, speech coaching, and advertising campaigns. They curry favor with influential movers and shakers to get them to speak on their behalf. But the best political strategy is rarely utilized. Robert F. Kennedy used it. George W. Bush used it. Even Andrew Cuomo used it. A political candidate's best bet is often a public speaker in his or her own backyard. When Robert F. Kennedy's campaign was floundering, he brought in Rose Kennedy who quickly took the mic. Jenna and Barbara Bush both spoke on behalf of their dad, George W. Bush. Andrew Cuomo had his younger daughter speak about his softer side (kids are often the best fundraisers). All three candidates won.

You don't need professional speakers. Have your family speak on your behalf.

Public speaking is not simply about good rhetoric. The messenger is as important as the message. I was reminded of this when I received this fundraising email from a candidate's father. While this is by no means a political endorsement, I do admire and commend the approach and the message. This is more powerful than any other kind of presentation, whether spoken or written. It's all about family.

Diane,

I’m just a few moments away from boarding a plane bound for Uganda. This is the first time my family will set foot in this country since we were expelled in 1972.My daughter, Reshma, can’t be with us today because she’s in New York fighting for people like me, like us.

I came here as a political refugee. I had to change my name from Mukund to Mike, so I could find work. It wasn’t easy for us.

Reshma saw us struggle, and she learned to fight to create better opportunities for families like ours.

Now, Reshma’s opponent has launched the first attack in the Public Advocate campaign. She’s saying that Reshma is out of touch with working people.

Out of touch? Not my daughter.

Reshma is a former Deputy Public Advocate, and the founder of Girls Who Code. Reshma has spent her life fighting to create better opportunities for underserved and disadvantaged people.

She needs your help right now to fight back. Will you help her out?

Sign up now and tell your family, friends, and neighbors that Reshma is committed to fighting for opportunities for all New Yorkers.

If you can’t volunteer, will you please donate $19.72 now to help her out?

Thank you for supporting my daughter.

Best, Mukund Saujani

Political Presentations: The Double Standard Continues

In June, I blogged about Michele Bachmann and the double standard for women politicians. It seems that the media continues to display sexism toward women candidates. Whether it's Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, or Michele Bachmann there seems to be an element of sexism even as we approach 2012. First we had to hear the commentary each time Hillary had a new hairstyle. While this may be appropriate for a First Lady, when a woman is running for political office she ought to be taken more seriously. How often do we critique a male candidate's hair? (Donald Trump doesn't count).

During the Republican debates, Michele Bachmann was accused of not knowing her facts - even when she did. In one debate, she bested Newt Gingrich regarding his involvement in Fannie Mae, yet the media did not make much of her win.

The most recent sexist remark was by John McLaughlin of the McLaughlin Group when he said we have a "Gal Candidate".  A GAL?  A friend asked me if I would find it offensive if his 87 year old father referred to a woman as a gal. I replied, "No. He's a product of his times. But a journalist and moderator knows better. He's on national TV and is subject to professional standards.  He didn't refer to 'guy candidates'".

Language is a mirror into how one thinks. It's difficult to be taken seriously as a woman candidate when you're called a "gal". It's amazing that this kind of double standard is going on in the U.S., when other countries have elected a woman president or prime minister.

As a public speaker and debater, Michele Bachmann has handled  herself well by sticking to the facts and not showing a lot of emotion.  Will gender always be a factor?  Is it possible to evaluate the candidates on their merits, without considering gender?  Or will it always color our perceptions?

Leave a comment.

Sexism and Sarah Palin's Voice

This morning as I was watching Morning Joe on TV, a clip was played of Sarah Palin.  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789/#39684087

The discussion was facilitated by Mike Barnicle who asked that the clip be played again, but this time we should listen to the tone. After listening for a second time, Barnicle asked the group, "Do you want to listen to that for four years?" While I agree that Palin sounded a little shrill and high pitched, that was not the issue. The issue was the way the question was asked.   Barnicle's question was judgmental. Let's ask it a different way.  "What do you think of her voice? Do you think she loses credibility? How will that impact her on the campaign trail?"

This is a different kind of question and a valid one at that. The voice is 38% of the message according to a UCLA study. The meta message is in the tone and not the words. Hillary Clinton  lost credibility when she gave vent to her anger and passion in the form of an escalating tone.  She has since found her voice.  Men have an advantage over women in the vocal arena. A deeper or lower pitched voice will be perceived as more authoritative.  While using the upper range of her pitch level doesn't serve a woman candidate, it seems that there's a double standard when it comes to men.

Former Mayor Koch of New York City has a nasal sounding voice and uses /um/  after almost  every other word. This is how he spoke during his administration and he still uses this speaking style. Yet, we didn't hear comments such as "Could you listen to him for another four years?"

The points made during the discussion regarding tone were valid. What some people don't get is that there is a tone to language. And I heard an element of sexism in Barnicle's comment. What do you think?

Who Let the Dogs Out?

There was a popular song years ago that went " Who let the dogs out?" And that's a question that's apropos this week in the media. The answer is President Obama let the dogs out in his recent speech in Milwaukee. Alluding to his opponents he said, 'They're talking about me like a dog." What does this tell us? Language reflects thought. While some studies state that words are only 7 per cent of the message, words are powerful. They give us insight into what the speaker believes and feels. In this case, Obama is saying he feels like a victim. The key is the wording "They're talking about ME". It's something that is happening to him. It's not the language of leadership. There is a difference between being genuine and appearing weak. Former Mayor Giuliani showed genuine sadness during the bombing of the World Trade Center but he never spoke like a victim.

The dog statement was not written in the speech. He acknowledged that he went off message. When giving a formal speech that's televised it's best to stick to the script especially if the speaker is in an emotional state. Otherwise, you might end up in the dog house.