It is hard to think of any public-speaking event in the world more difficult or high-pressure than the US presidential elections.
The audience is huge - tens of millions of TV viewers. The stakes are extremely high - a US presidency hangs in the balance. Half, or more, of the audience, not to mention your opponents, are actively hostile and rooting for you to fail, and will seize and pounce with glee on any errors that you commit in the debate. The questions are designed to put you on the defensive. You probably do not know what questions will be asked, or what will be thrown at you next. There is no external assistance possible - no teleprompters, no prompts to help you remember things, no one to help you once you’re alone by yourself on the podium in front of the cameras.
Is there any public speaking event which would be more rattling to one’s nerves? (I don’t think trial in the courtroom really counts, for this purpose.)
I don’t feel it’s as hard as you are thinking, though it is certainly very difficult and high-pressure.
You generally know what they’re going to ask, and you can prep for those. Trump’s tax returns, Clinton’s email, the Brooklyn explosion, gun control, etc. If you do get a strange question out of the blue, you just sort of steer it into your prepared talking points, like Marco Rubio clumsily did a bazillion times in the same exchange.
Personally, I think being on Whose Line is it Anyway would be more nerve-wracking. The stakes are obviously much lower, but I could never, ever, come up with that stuff on the fly. It amazes me how well they do that.
So you think this is worse than being accused of a capital crime and taking the stand, where if you mis-speak you may talk yourself into a death sentence?
As a person of like age, the worst part of that whole thing would be having to stand in one place for 90 minutes. I’m surprised either of them could walk afterward (and it did look like Hillary was being very careful). My back would have been screaming within 30 minutes.
Oh, duh. :smack: I should have realized what you meant but I’m such a provincial hipster jackass that I tend to think of Brooklyn and Manhattan as totally different places.
For a “normal” human being, perhaps. For those who end up representing the 2 major US political parties in the Presidential election, not so much. First, these are supremely self-confident people. Secondly, this is their daily life, and has been for decades. They talk, people listen. It’s what they do. They talk before huge crowds often, they are well practiced and well coached in answering critics, dodging uncomfortable questions and putting their spin on information.
I liken it to a well seasoned star athlete playing in an important playoff game. The stakes are higher than usual but they have performed so many times in front of so many people that nervousness, while probably there, is manageable.
Oral argument before the US Supreme Court would appear to be more rattling to one’s nerves. You must be accurate about the facts and the law, or you’ll be called out by the justices in a way that debate moderators never do. You also have to be familiar with the nuances of the statutes or case law at issue, as well as provide answers to hypothetical legal and policy questions raised by the justices.
I have only done oral arguments before the ninth circuit, and they were the most stressful “public speaking” events I’ve ever done. You’re not really doing a speech, but are instead being quizzed. I’d imagine that oral arguments before the Supreme Court is easily worse.
Prime Minister’s Question Time.
Questions without notice on any issue of the day facing the government
Midday every Wednesday when the Commons are sitting in the UKor similar arrangements in other parliamentary systems.
Concur that it’s not as nerve wracking for participants because it’s not a “once off” , the incumbents know this is an integral part of the job and just get on with it.
The audience is huge - tens of millions of TV viewers [check] News and current affairs programs are like seagulls over a chip on any stumble.
The stakes are extremely high - a US presidency hangs in the balance [check] The government lives or dies over the PM’s performance, and if your peers don’t like the performance you might be watching the next PMQ from the back benches.
Half, or more, of the audience, not to mention your opponents, are actively hostile [check]
You probably do not know what questions will be asked, or what will be thrown at you next [check]
There is no external assistance possible [check] It’s not as though it’s unreasonable to expect the PM to be across the details of their government.
Questions on any subject are limited only by time.
All done subject to interruption, interjection and points of order within the formal rules of debate and standing orders.
Most of the US presidential candidates of my lifetime would have gone into melt down under the scrutiny. Of course some could have learned the necessary skills but only those who could stand the pressure would be candidates.
Others would have absolutely thrived. You’d have paid good money to sit in the public gallery and watch Prime Minister Bill Clinton operate from the despatch box. Similarly Obama, JFK, FDR, Johnson and probably others.
And if you get rumbled telling the glib porkies that blight the US debates get you can find yourself being forced to resign over misleading the House.
I agree with OP, I can’t imagine the pressure. Every word, every step, every facial expression will be potentially life-altering. I guess they just have to put it out of their mind and plow through it.