This is kind of a take off thread from the one over Zell Miller's speech in which an interesting question arose to me. How much does the speaking style of a politician matter? Maybe not for the people here who like issues, but in general to the majority of the population?

Every politician develops their own style I think. Some are like a fire and brimstone preacher like Zell Miller, others like a down home nice guy like Jimmy Carter, or a friendly evangelical preacher like Bill Clinton. Reagan had a controlled air of confidence that he was right and the list goes on.

Others haven't been quite so "inspiring" for lack of a better term. Al Gore was criticized for being "too stiff" and Bob Dole for not being friendly enough.

So, the question for debate is.....


How important is the speaking style of a politician to their success? To you and to what you consider the American voting public, and why?

How important is the speaking style of a politician to their success?
To many politicians the speaking style they hold is the make or break in their political career. Speaking style made Bill Clintons career, yet i do not think it made Dubya's .

To you and to what you consider the American voting public, and why?
I do not understand the question TO YOU?

The speaking style is very important, no doubt. If a politician has a lively voice and can make things sounds sincere or exciting or, most importantly, believable then they're on the fast track. I think one of the main reasons Dubya did so well is they way he speaks. Make no mistake, he's not eloquent, but the way he makes everything sound personal and sincere (which I actually don't like about him), I believe, has helped him keep some credibility.

Whereas if you take someone like Gore who had a very monotonous voice and made issues sound the same. Same as Ross Perot, with that mousey voice and his short sentences and such.



I'll hazard an answer here. I think the voting public pays more attention to the style of a speech than the content. Sometimes when I listen to Bush I'm sometimes tempted to think he's doing a good job just by what he says and how he says it, but then I snap out of it. Anyway, I think that a speaking style can make up for a politician's lack of other qualities.

You are right, Nivekelly, it is a poorly phrased question. My apologies. What I meant to do with this phrase was to differentiate between the participants in the AD forum who are far more politically inclined and aware than the average American voter. Face it, here on AD we're pretty high on the political junkie scale and tend to look at politics in a different way than most would I think. So my purpose in the question was for people to consider how others might view the issue as opposed to the way they view it.

Yes, the speaking style of the politician is directly related to their success. As Devils Advocate pointed out: Gore didn't exactly endear himself to the average person by sounding like a droning college professor. Gore is a lot more popular now with his base, because he's gotten into more fiery rhetoric. What's ironic about Gore was that in private conversations, people generally will tell you he's a very funny person. We just didn't see that person on the stump and that would have helped his election prospects.

And Bush actually has an excellent speaking style for his constituents and Kerry will never win over those people by sounding like the smartest person in the room. The average person is just that -- average. Average intelliegence, average life. Uncomplicated speaking style.

Bush Jr. and Clinton both understood that if you want to reach the average person, you need to address them on their level and not try to bring them up to your own. College professors have trouble speaking with people, but no trouble speaking to them. But people are less likely to vote with you if you speak to them.

Yes, I want my politicians to be knowledgeable about a lot of things, but I don't want them to sound like they're the smartest person in the room, because that has its own set of negative connotations during public discourse. We're not exactly a nation that highly values intellectuals.

How important is the speaking style of a politician to their success?

Extremely important. We don't have the ability to sit around and watch every movement of a politician, so people base their judgements on the politicians mannerisms, speech, and style.

This is why I feel Kerry will have a hard time in the debates. Kerry's speech is impersonal and feels like a person who is talking down to you rather then rationalizing with you. The part that I think makes it worst with a talk down attitude is the fact that he tries to tell people what they are thinking. "Bush is taking away your jobs." Well actually my jobs have seem to grown, it is that person of there who lost his jobs.

In California, there is a campaign to remove a Republican House of Representatives member to send a message to Washington to increase security at the border. The votes of the people do not seem to be based on voting record, but on the means they deliver their message. Those who seemed 'cocky' about their record are higher in the polls to be removed from office, then those that understood the frustrations of the people.

I'm forever amazed that politicians, especially after Reagan's success, aren't part-time theatre performers. At least take some acting lessons, people!

I liked Clinton's style of speaking but not the great lengths of his orations. He could have lost the thumb-fist gesture. Gore, as has been said to bromide status, wasn't an exciting speaker. Kerry seems okay enough to take on GWB, who simply irritates me to no end.

But then others seem to like his strong/silent/hardheaded act. They must be happy with the way things have turned out, or maybe that makes not difference. Maybe it's simply loyalty? A strong/silent/hardheaded loyalty? Seems that way, but I bet this is an anomoly.

For me it's the message and not the speaker when it comes to political choices. Policy counts more than personality.

How important is the speaking style of a politician to their success? To you and to what you consider the American voting public, and why?

If the exaggeration of Bush’s drawl the further south he goes is any indication, it’s a key tool in the speech arsenal. How important speaking style is depends on the listeners. For myself, I want the person to be articulate (I absolutely HATE mispronounced or made-up words), interesting and not shifty or fidgety. I don’t want to see them lying all over the podium like their shoes are too tight, or making broad, hand-flapping gestures. I want there to be a clearly-defined theme or purpose to the speech, no um’s and er’s, and I’d like to think the speaker was prepared enough and familiar enough with the material to not be obviously reading from a teleprompter. I’d like the speaker to be able to answer questions about the points brought up in the speech, just to prove that they weren’t just reciting what their speechwriters wrote.

The fire-and-brimstone-preacher style turns me off, especially if the subject is serious. It makes me (an agnostic) want to jump up and wave my hands above my head and shout “Praise Jaaayyyyysus!!!” ...either that or put in a rabid animal call in to the SPCA. Knowing when to shut up is important, too. Some speakers seem to be in love with the sound of their own voice, oblivious to the fact that they are alienating or boring their audience to tears.

I don’t want to fire up the Clinton-haters, but in my opinion, that man can speak. He has enough of the “friendly” southern drawl to pull in the regular Joes, but is intelligent and well-spoken enough to appeal to “intellectuals”.
Example:

And then he goes on to expand on those three points, and ties the whole theme together (I can't post all the topic resonses without violating the rules).

As for what others want in a speaker; I don't know. I could speculate that as long as the speaker says what they want to hear, then he's a good speaker.


Every politician seems to use that gesture nowadays (it’s eerie to see how many)… maybe it has replaced pointing with the index finger as being more polite? I don't like it-it's very artificial.

Interesting observation and there actually have been a few actors who did go into politics. Reagan obviously, but Fred Grandy (from the Love Boat), Fred Thompson, Arnold, and I think George Murphy was once a Senator from California, but I'm dating myself.

It also works in reverse, actors study politicians, particularly the ones who are good speakers. My son is a professional actor in Southern California, and he watched the conventions with particular attention to the various speaking styles and body language they used to present their story to the audience. It is after all what an actor does.



That's not going to fire me up at all, and I never cared for Clinton's politics. But, no question his is an excellent public speaker, best one the Democrats have had in a long time. I think the key to his style, as it was with Reagan, is that it's HIS style and thus comes across as truthful. I think when a politican tries to force a style of speaking that really doesn't match them, they tend to come across as phony and that detracts from their message. I remember shortly after Dole lost in 1996 and went on the talk show circuit, he lightened up considerably and was actually a pretty funny and likable guy. I wish he'd have done his speeches that way in the campaign.