Right from the very start of the second US presidential debate on Sunday night, Donald Trump was playing a power game. His entry into the debating hall was ponderously slow – noticeably slower than Hillary Clinton’s. Psychologists have discovered that people who move and speak slowly are generally seen as bigger, more substantial and more powerful – characteristics that the Republican was clearly doing his utmost to project throughout the entire debate.  When Clinton was asked a question by a member of the public she would often walk over towards the person, endeavouring to show that she was approachable and willing to engage with people – a trick, incidentally, that was used to great effect by Bill Clinton when he debated George Bush Sr.  But when Trump was talking, his Democratic opponent remained respectfully stationary. Trump, on the other hand, made a point of moving around – not only when he was purportedly answering questions, but even while Clinton was holding the floor. Was this because he finds it so difficult to keep still or – what seems more likely – because his prowling was surreptitiously designed to unsettle Clinton and throw her off balance? The fact that Trump also made a habit of standing unusually close behind Clinton when she was speaking certainly adds weight to this interpretation of his behavior.  She seemed to be aware of his close proximity (“He was very … present,” she told reporters afterwards), and the millions of viewers watching the debate would certainly have noticed his readiness, not only to take the argument to Clinton but also to intrude upon her personal space.  When Clinton is surrounded by her supporters she’s normally extremely animated, especially in her facial expressions. During this debate, however, her facial behaviour was much more muted, largely because, presumably, she was trying to come across as serious and presidential. There were several times when she smiled – typically when Trump was launching a verbal attack or accusing her of something which she considered to be ridiculous. Trump’s facial demeanour was almost the exact opposite of Clinton’s. He hardly produced any smiles at all – just the occasional wry half-smile of self-congratulation when he thought he’d notched up another point in his favour. That’s because smiling is basically an appeasement signal, and the last thing that Trump wanted to do is appease anyone in public, least of all Clinton.  Trump also displayed his other hallmark facial features – the narrowed eyes, the lips clamped tightly together and the occasional jut of the chin. These are all macho signals, designed to convey an impression of someone who’s naturally dominant and comfortable about exercising power. During the debate there were several moments when Trump jabbed his index finger accusingly at Clinton. This was designed not only to point the finger at Clinton, but also to deflect attention away from himself – which, given the tasteless disclosures of the last few days, was probably his most urgent strategy. There were also occasions when Trump came in for criticism, and where he reacted by licking or pursing his lips. Here was nonverbal evidence that, for all his bluster, he was feeling very uncomfortable and, for the moment at least, had decided that he should say as little as possible.  • Dr Peter Collett is a body language expert and author of The Book of Tells.
Donald Trump played the power game by intruding on his opponent’s personal space, while Clinton aspired to show she can engage with the people