[November 17, 2015] The second Democratic debate was held this past Saturday. There are a number of well constructed analyses of the debate but I will depart from them, as I’ve done before here at theLeaderMaker.com, and provide a senior leader analysis. Remember that senior leader input will likely differ substantially from public opinion polls.1
The broadcast network CBS sponsored the event and their moderators did a much better job than the unprofessionalism of CNBC two weeks ago in the Republican debate. The two purposes of the debate are first to inform Democratic voters of their party’s candidate’s qualities and second to enlighten the general public about important issues.
The Paris tragedy where Islamic terrorist killed over 120 people the evening prior forced a small change in the format by placing a greater emphasis on foreign policy. Inclusion of this change without much notice helped give viewers a better idea of how the candidates react under pressure and on a complex, controversial subject.
The most common theme, coming from the words of the senior leaders, has been consistent throughout … the Democrat candidates want to “give away” stuff to garner votes.2 Senior leaders understand that this might win a few votes but will not lead to anyone to respect them more; that requires a display of leadership. Again, Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton dominated the stage. Martin O’Malley has yet to demonstrate that he can either debate better or have ideas that make him more desirable than Sanders and Clinton.
A number of gaffs and missteps by each of the candidates happened but this is to be expected. For example, Clinton was using the “woman card” but this is easily overlooked yet more critically she appeared a little confused at times. On the more important topics like foreign policy, the candidates did not seem well prepared. Certainly not normally a strong point for Democrats, but Clinton was expected to do very well yet she was a disappointment. For example, she refused to use the term “Islamic terrorists” or “radical Islam” to describe those who were responsible for the Paris attacks.
Not unexpectedly, none of the senior leaders I spoke to said they had trust and confidence in Clinton. Most used the term “untrustworthy” multiple times in their description of her. Sanders, by contrast, was seen as “professorial” but “nutty” and clearly incapable of winning the election due to his socialist ideology baggage. The most acceptable of the three, for the senior leaders, was O’Malley who was appeared to be honest but failed to capitalize on a number of opportunities to distinguish himself or demonstrate that he can lead.
I’ve mentioned before that there should be more Democratic debates which will be very helpful in getting to know them better. Also the debates should not be held on a Saturday evening when it competes with other popular programs or personal social events. Why this debate and future Democrat debates are scheduled on Saturday shows a bit of cluelessness on the part of the Democratic party unless they are trying to protect their candidates from too much exposure.
Who won the debate? If we use the standard of trustworthiness and confidence in their leader abilities, O’Malley won and Clinton lost. That is not how the American public sees it and unfortunately that shows the distance between senior leaders in our country and the public.
[Don’t forget to “Like” the Leader Maker at our Facebook Page.]
—————-
1. Of the 21 senior leaders who provided input, 12 are military officers, six senior officials in commercial companies, two current CEOs, and one senior manager from a non-profit organization; none of them from prior analyses. They differ from all those I’ve asked in the past for their opinions on either the Democratic or Republican debates. It should be noted that over half are senior military officers and that will skew the results somewhat. My question to them, as in the previous Democratic 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 twp debates as the sole source of opinions.
2. This is the second time the “give away” theme has arisen here. No one should be surprised by it or by the veracity of the belief that there are Haves and Have-Nots and the government should be the vehicle to level the playing field.
[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.