DUMP TRUMP (previously 2020 candidates)
This body language analysis of the candidates at the last debate is fascinating, but does is predict outcome? What substance or value do you recognize here?
Decoding the Body Language of That Warren-Sanders Standoff
An expert in nonverbal communications takes us inside the silent 14 seconds that mesmerized the audience.
By PATTI WOOD | 01/15/2020 04:51 PM EST | Updated: 01/16/2020 05:44 PM EST
Scott Olson/Getty Images
There’s one moment from last night’s Democratic debate everyone is talking about: The tense exchange between Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren after the debate wrapped and the mics were off. As Warren approached Sanders, he held out his hand. She did not accept—beginning a 14-second, soundless dance with her holding and wringing her hands and him flat palmed gesturing, finger pointing and head shaking.
The two were probably talking about a disagreement they’ve had over the past couple of days—and one that continued during the debate. Warren maintains Sanders told her in 2018 that a woman couldn’t beat President Donald Trump. Sanders claims he never said that. (After this article was published, CNN released the audio from their exchange.)
Let’s break this moment down.
As a body language expert, I have been researching and writing about handshakes for over 30 years. Handshakes at the beginning of a competition are a part of gamesmanship, signaling, “Hey we’re friends but, after we shake hands the game begins and let’s see who wins.” Handshakes at the end of an interaction say, symbolically, “Game over. We are friends again, let’s go for drinks.”
First, we see Warren give Joe Biden an “I am here and powerful, notice me” pat on his outer arm. (Outer arm pats with the hand on the audience side show dominant power.) Then she moves toward Sanders.
She makes a choice and rebuffs his handshake. She wants to engage with him, but on her terms. Note how she faces Sanders but stops short and folds her hands in front of her body. By initiating engagement at a fairly close distance, just outside the “intimate zone” (a space of 14 inches), and pointing many vulnerable parts of her body—the top of the head eyes, mouth, throat, upper chest, knees and toes—towards him, she is preventing him from dismissing her. The folded hands, up in front of her chest, and her ever so slightly bowed head show a certain amount of deference to his power, but also very effectively block him from fully engaging in a handshake or touch. (Meaning, he can’t pat her to show he is more powerful.) She doesn’t look mean or rude, but this is her way of saying, “We played the game and the game is not over. No drinks with you, Bernie!”
He feels her rebuff. You can see him reach out and point downwards towards her several times in admonition and then point back at himself.
He is telling her off, dismissing her request or statement. You can see that by his emphatic, flat, downward hand gesture and his energetic head bob downward. At the same time, he gets slightly closer and pats his right hand down and toward her, which shows her and us that there is a friendship there—that there is intimacy of engagement. Notice how she keeps her hands interlocked and held high over her heart. Whatever they are discussing, it’s emotional and speaks to their friendship because she feels the need to protect her heart.
He keeps it up till she flings her fingers up and out to stay stop. But, instead, he points his right hand and jabs at her heart like a dagger, flings his hands fingers out and down to dismiss her and turns and walks away. We don’t have a full view of her face but see how she is making eye contact and is fully engaged. Finally, she gives a quick shake no as Bernie turns away.
I have been analyzing the before and after handshakes of the debates for decades, and this is a moment I have never seen before—two candidates with a friendship displaying a nonverbal rift onstage. Warren was careful to remain neutral, not giving up her power but showing the desire to test the rift. She initiated the interaction and then set boundaries.
This moment will also make a deep lasting impression. The very last thing a candidate does as we watch him or her onscreen carries what is called the “recency effect.” The moment lingers in our memories and has a powerful influence on our impressions of the candidates. In this interaction, Sanders came across as a negative and slightly aggressive; Warren came across a bit better as she sought the engagement through guarded caution, leaving us to think she might have put down her hands if he had been nice.
Think all this isn’t important? It is. We choose our candidates based on their non-verbal behavior. In a study, Harvard undergraduates who viewed soundless, 10-second video clips of unfamiliar candidates in real races were able to pick the winning candidate at a rate significantly better than chance. But when the sound was turned on and students could hear what the candidates were saying, they were no better than chance at predicting the winner. Certainly, words matter, a politician’s viewpoint and plans of action matter, but research suggests that the nonverbal behavior has 4.3 times the impact in a message.
In my book SNAP Making the Most of First Impressions, Body Language and Charisma, I write about the four factors that affect our impressions of other people: credibility, likeability, attractiveness and power. How did the candidates do?
Sanders and Warren were in a race to convey the most power.
Part of what made the exchange at the end so interesting was that Sanders and Warren both conveyed the most power throughout the evening.
Research shows we choose political leaders who present the most powerful alpha characteristics—people who are taller and bulkier, with lower, deeper voices. Using broad, wide gestures and conveying anger also make people appear powerful. Research studies suggests that we perceive people who get angry as having more competence and leadership capability than people who are warm and nice.
Of course, female candidates are at a disadvantage here. One of the controversies of the last two presidential campaigns is whether we can overcome this primitive preference and put aside our ingrained gender biases. We know that women in general are physically smaller than men, and women can easily be perceived as too angry or too aggressive when they try to convey power.
Of all the candidates, Sanders showed the most anger; he glared, scowled, leaned forward and reprised his signature chopping and pointing motions. (Anger increases the heart rate and blood pressure of the angry person speaking and the listener.) Warren, too, often displayed the common angry expression: eyebrows pulled down and together, inner corners down toward the nose. Both Warren and Sanders had a great deal of powerful energy, volume and forcefulness, using dramatic gestures, often weapon-like, a la Trump.
Sanders and Warren, as well as Klobuchar, all used their gestures to convey power and to show honesty. Their wide hand motions, like a symphony conductor’s, came just before or just as they said their message—a sign of honestly. When someone is lying, the timing of their gestures is off, a bit delayed, because the person needs time to think about the expression or movement that should accompany the sentiment they are lying about.
Sanders showed the most alpha space invasion, gesturing out and toward other candidates as he talked with or about them.
Compare this to someone like Steyer, who didn’t appear as confident as he should have. For much of the debate, he didn’t seem to know where to look—un alpha-like—finally settling in many cases to looking straight at the camera. My thought watching him was “he’s all alone and doesn’t interact with the others,” even though in his verbal messaging he agreed several times with others candidate’s statements. But he did smile just enough to score some likeability points.
Gender was Warren’s ally.
Warren came out strong at the beginning of the debate and did not let up throughout. Vocally, she comes down firmly at the end of the sentence while at the same time, her head movement is forward, indicating assertiveness and confidence.
But she also knew when to change her tone. Warren had a striking moment in the debate when she displayed true authenticity. As she discussed health care, specifically for babies and mothers, she showed a different level of energy and emotion in her voice. Then, most remarkably, her voice broke. We felt not just her pain, but also, because of the anger and indignation that preceded, her strong powerful maternal energy. That crack in her strong delivery was a rare moment when we see the power that a woman candidate can have. This is something a male candidate would have had a hard time trying to copy because of our old stereotypes that alpha men can’t show pain and tenderness.
Pete Buttigieg was the most likeable.
Likeable candidates are those who smile easily, laugh easily, and show a broad range of authentic emotion. We loved it when Sanders was the first to crack a joke and break the tension. And when Warren made a joke, held for the laugh and smiled.
But it was Buttigieg who won the night on likeably. He smiled the most of all the candidates, using wide-eyed facial expressions to display confidence and high energy. He also had a composed manner and warm, sing-songy cadence strikingly similar to Barack Obama—a tone that makes us feel tranquil and safe. The audience saw him as open and accessible, also showing a “calm” that we didn’t see in any other candidate on the stage. The strength of his delivery comes in handy because his plans aren’t as specific as the others candidates’.
Buttigieg’s facial expressions also had bilateral symmetry, which research shows are more attractive and convey credibility.Klobachar showed a nice range of emotions, strength, power and humor, but when her mouth twisted into a smirk, and she leaned to the side, lifting one shoulder higher than the other, she looked off balance. This posture can alert our central nervous system that there is something amiss.
What causes this asymmetry of expression? When someone feels an emotion in their primitive limbic system, they may show it with one side of their face and body before the more logical neocortex can contain the emotion. So, one side shows what the primitive brain really feels before it can be controlled by the cortex.
Biden’s self-admonishment weakened him.
Credibility comes down to evolution. During a first impression, we are hard-wired to ask, “Can I trust this person? Can I feel safe in their presence?”
Joe Biden uses his deep knowledge to engender credibility in the eyes of voters. If you listened to what he said last night, he had thoughtful and learned responses and rational plans of actions that showed his experience.
But his body language did not show the relaxed, calm confidence that he has displayed in past political races. He had very low energy out of the gate. His eye focus was odd all evening as his eyes were squinted, perhaps from the glare, which left him looking less powerful than the other candidates and at times vulnerable. I always watch the debates a second time with the sound turned off. If you had, you would have seen moments in which Biden paused, squinted and lowered his head—those were times when he made a verbal errors and had to correct himself.
Biden has dealt with a stutter all his life, which is a great challenge under stress. I studied audiology and speech pathology as part of my nonverbal communication graduate program and I am always impressed with someone who can work through this. But last night, as I discussed with public speaking trainer Steve Cohn, Biden was having more trouble controlling himself than usual. For example, there was an incident about half-way through the debate where Biden had to self-correct. He had said “poking our eye” when he meant to say “poking our finger in the eye.” When he self-corrected, his head went down and his eyes closed tightly (self-admonishment, internally going “oh no!”). There was a stutter that showed a very visible effort to center himself again. Biden did this over 5 times in the debate.
This is something I’ve also seen Trump do many times—much more frequently than Biden. Except when Trump does it, rather than self-correct, he stops, pauses, and changes the subject completely. Biden keeps going on topic on point, which makes him look not sure of himself. There seems to be some pain around it.
Patti Wood is a body language expert and the author of SNAP: Making the Most of First Impressions, Body Language, and Charisma.
drummerboy said:
The Times endorses Liz and Amy.
wut?
Ensures maximum outrage and getting talked about. Ingenious!
nohero said:
drummerboy said:
The Times endorses Liz and Amy.
wut?
Ensures maximum outrage and getting talked about. Ingenious!
The Bernie Bots are already whining.
And Tulsi the Invisible didn't even sit with the Times editorial board for an interview.
Dark days in a couple of local homes.
mtierney said:
Decoding the Body Language of That Warren-Sanders Standoff
The Politico link:
I've been wading through the Times interview with Biden and it backs up a lot of what I've been saying all along. He straight up lies about his role in suppressing witnesses for the Clarence Thomas hearings. In other places, he gets lost trying to evade questions and ends up babbling in a way that calls his mental acuity into question.
sbenois said:
nohero said:
drummerboy said:
The Times endorses Liz and Amy.
wut?
Ensures maximum outrage and getting talked about. Ingenious!
The Bernie Bots are already whining.
There are a segment of the “Bernie Bros” doing even worse, threatening journalist and anyone who doesn’t agree with Sanders.
There were two journalists on Morning Joe this morning talking about their experiences. These BB’s are no better than what the clown in the White House loyalist followers (MAGA bots) are doing. It’s been silence by Bernie to curb the attacks and intimidation against anyone who disagrees with him by the BB’s.
“Bernie Twitter operates under the self-righteous guise of being the true progressives of the internet. But their harassing tactics are anything but progressive.”
It’s probably why the Iowa paper who endorsed Sanders in the past, are now endorsing Klobuchar.
Klinker said:
I've been wading through the Times interview with Biden and it backs up a lot of what I've been saying all along. He straight up lies about his role in suppressing witnesses for the Clarence Thomas hearings. In other places, he gets lost trying to evade questions and ends up babbling in a way that calls his mental acuity into question.
Not exactly.
“The New York Times said it was time for Joe Biden to "pass the torch" to a new generation of politicians as it endorsed his 2020 primary rivals Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar for the Democratic nomination.
The newspaper's editorial board said the former vice president was standing on a platform of "merely restoring the status quo," and argued that his lead in national polling could be the result of "familiarity as much as voter intention."
https://www.newsweek.com/nyt-endorsement-biden-pass-torch-voter-familiarity-klobuchar-warren-148299
It’s called, passing the torch. Get it straight. I know you have a personal hatred and distain for the man but your reasoning is not why they made their endorsements.
I admire the NYT choice. At the end I hope whether it Pres. or VP, I would love to see a woman on the ticket.
phenixrising said:
There are a segment of the “Bernie Bros” doing even worse, threatening journalist and anyone who doesn’t agree with Sanders.
There were two journalists on Morning Joe this morning talking about their experiences. These BB’s are no better than what the clown in the White House loyalist followers (MAGA bots) are doing. It’s been silence by Bernie to curb the attacks and intimidation against anyone who disagrees with him by the BB’s.
“Bernie Twitter operates under the self-righteous guise of being the true progressives of the internet. But their harassing tactics are anything but progressive.”
It’s probably why the Iowa paper who endorsed Sanders in the past, are now endorsing Klobuchar.
Trump acolytes and Bernie Bots.
Both are sides of the same coin. Purists who will try to impose their will on all of us, no matter what it takes or who they hurt.
phenixrising said:
Not exactly.
“The New York Times said it was time for Joe Biden to "pass the torch" to a new generation of politicians as it endorsed his 2020 primary rivals Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar for the Democratic nomination.
The newspaper's editorial board said the former vice president was standing on a platform of "merely restoring the status quo," and argued that his lead in national polling could be the result of "familiarity as much as voter intention."
https://www.newsweek.com/nyt-endorsement-biden-pass-torch-voter-familiarity-klobuchar-warren-148299
It’s called, passing the torch. Get it straight. I know you have a personal hatred and distain for the man but your reasoning is not why they made their endorsements.
I admire the NYT choice. At the end I hope whether it Pres. or VP, I would love to see a woman on the ticket.
Sure, that's their gloss on it but read the interview. The guy does not come off well. Too old, too conservative, to stupid and too damn misogynist.
Also this: Joe Biden has a corruption problem – it makes him a weak candidate
ETA: Warning - Written by a Sanders supporter
phenixrising said:.
At the end I hope whether it Pres. or VP, I would love to see a woman on the ticket.
Too much to hope for both spots I suppose....
mrincredible said:
Too much to hope for both spots I suppose....
Warren/Klobacheur would be a very balanced ticket both politically and geographically.
If Booker had campaigned with this kind of intensity, he might still be a candidate.
https://twitter.com/JasonOverstreet/status/1219153345153101824?s=20
(twitter embed didn't work.)
Warren has always been my top pick but I intended to post the other day, that Klobuchar was a good alternate choice. I felt after the debate that she was on the rise and was perfect for the centrist lane. My sense is that she is a good compromise between Biden and Buttigieg, using the Goldilocks argument. One is a bit too old and one is a bit too inexperienced but Klobuchar is just right.
There were plenty of reasonable centrists who never caught on, Bennett comes to mind. But she works well and satisfies my conviction that it is time to elect a woman.
They were my first and second choice and I'm happy that the Times got the memo.
DaveSchmidt said:
mtierney said:
Decoding the Body Language of That Warren-Sanders Standoff
The Politico link:
I hop mtierney learns from you how to post a link rather than copying s complete article.
BG9 said:
Trump acolytes and Bernie Bots.
Both are sides of the same coin. Purists who will try to impose their will on all of us, no matter what it takes or who they hurt.
Are we sure that the so-called Bernie Bots are not really Russian trolls?
STANV said:
I hop mtierney learns from you how to post a link rather than copying s complete article.
I think she does it for people who can't get through the pay wall.
Klinker said:
I think she does it for people who can't get through the pay wall.
There’s no Politico paywall.
(The main reason I added the link was that the paste job didn’t identify the source publication at all. The secondary reason was that the source publication deserves the clicks.)
lord_pabulum said:
Also this: Joe Biden has a corruption problem – it makes him a weak candidate
ETA: Warning - Written by a Sanders supporter
The article is so bad, even Bernie disowned it.
After his press secretary and senior communications person spread it around. And he saw the reaction. Sanders apologizes to Biden for surrogate's op-ed alleging he has a "big corruption problem" https://t.co/O7pL3hefnP pic.twitter.com/Nm7JzsiBoC
More on that "Biden corruption problem" op-ed:
MSNBC’s Katy Tur spoke with Bernie Sanders national press secretary Briahna Joy Gray this afternoon and pressed her on what their campaign’s message is about Joe Biden.
Specifically, Tur took note of Sanders speechwriter David Sirota touting an op-ed from Zephyr Teachout arguing that Biden has a “big corruption problem” that may hurt Democrats in the general election.
...
Tur asked again, “What about saying he has a corruption problem?”
“I think that how you characterize that is up to the voter, and that’s fine for them to decide. But what’s important is for us to have a conversation on TV not about a conflict between candidates…” Gray started.
Tur jumped in and asked, “What does that mean, to let the voter decide about a corruption problem? Your speechwriter is promoting this op-ed that’s written by a surrogate that says Joe Biden has a corruption problem. Is that a campaign-sanctioned thing? Does the campaign believe Joe Biden has a corruption problem?”
Gray ripped Biden again for making deals with Republicans to “cut Social Security and raise the requirement age.”
“Is that corrupt?” Tur asked.
“If someone wants to describe that as corrupt, that is up to them. But what I’m saying right now is that instead of trying to instigate disputes between candidates…”
“I’m not instigating it. It was written in the Guardian and promoted by your speechwriter,” Tur responded.
And see prior post re: Bernie apology.
Lying? Say it isn't so, Uncle Bernie -
While the news media has been focused on the “spat” between Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, something much more serious has been taking place between the Sanders campaign and Joe Biden. Not to sugarcoat it: The Sanders campaign has flat-out lied about things Biden said in 2018 about Social Security, and it has refused to admit the falsehood.
This is bad; it is, indeed, almost Trumpian. The last thing we need is another president who demonizes and lies about anyone who disagrees with him, and can’t admit ever being wrong. Biden deserves an apology, now, and Sanders probably needs to find better aides.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/20/opinion/biden-sanders-social-security.html
STANV said:
BG9 said:
Trump acolytes and Bernie Bots.
Both are sides of the same coin. Purists who will try to impose their will on all of us, no matter what it takes or who they hurt.
Are we sure that the so-called Bernie Bots are not really Russian trolls?
There's too may Bernie Bots or Bros. You can also see by the vote shift during elections when they were insulted because their leader was not nominated. Russians can't vote.
Many far right and left purists are highly socially disaffected. Which is why they can be easily manipulated and led. Its emotion.
BG9 said:
Lying? Say it isn't so, Uncle Bernie -
While the news media has been focused on the “spat” between Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, something much more serious has been taking place between the Sanders campaign and Joe Biden. Not to sugarcoat it: The Sanders campaign has flat-out lied about things Biden said in 2018 about Social Security, and it has refused to admit the falsehood.This is bad; it is, indeed, almost Trumpian. The last thing we need is another president who demonizes and lies about anyone who disagrees with him, and can’t admit ever being wrong. Biden deserves an apology, now, and Sanders probably needs to find better aides.https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/20/opinion/biden-sanders-social-security.html
This was a terrible self-own by the Bernie campaign, because there is plenty of evidence showing Biden supporting SS cuts through the years. Whoever put this video together should be fired.
STANV said:
I hop mtierney learns from you how to post a link rather than copying s complete article.
I “hop” you understand that I have been asked by a few posters, when possible, to offer a complete article, or longer excerpts, due to paywall issues.
If you had been paying attention, you would know I have, for sometime here, posted a variety of links of interest to me and others on animals, gardening, senior interests, religion, health, etc.
A lot of hate for Bernie supporters here.
BG9 said:
Many far right and left purists are highly socially disaffected. Which is why they can be easily manipulated and led. Its emotion.
An interesting point in the context of Biden and the "electability" issue. It seems to me that more than a few Biden supporters are "easily manipulated and led". There are tools and halfwits in every faction although, it must be said, most factions don't choose a halfwitted tool for their leader.
I believe overall - the Bernie Bros do more harm then good for Bernie. Bernie does a much better job talking on behalf of himself then his surrogates do.
I do think his choice of Sirota was disappointing. Hiring a guy who deletes thousands of tweets attacking your opponents does not show his embrace of full transparency in the election process. Why not hire a guy who can actually let his past actions stay in the public sphere?
BG9 said:
There's too may Bernie Bots or Bros. You can also see by the vote shift during elections when they were insulted because their leader was not nominated. Russians can't vote.
Many far right and left purists are highly socially disaffected. Which is why they can be easily manipulated and led. Its emotion.
it should go without saying that Twitter isn't the real world. In 2016, roughly 40% of Democratic primary voters cast a ballot for Sanders. Almost all of the them were normal mainstream Democrats who just had a different view of what the party should stand for, compared to Clinton supporters. It's the same thing this year, the loudest voices notwithstanding. Comparing Sanders supporters to MAGAs is both counter productive to the unity so many mainstream Democrats are calling for, as well as wildly inaccurate. Sanders isn't my guy at this time, but I don't see what's gained by stereotyping them all with a largely inaccurate description.
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
Rentals
Advertisement
The Times endorses Liz and Amy.
wut?