Biden’s main problem with his voice is that it communicates things in his head to an audience.
Our provinces do too, and tax rates can hit over 50% pretty quick (50% federal, up to 10% provincial I think), plus 20% VAT!
But what about Tootsie /sI often have cable news running in the background when I'm working. One thing I've noticed is the feeling you get just when hearing a candidate speak without seeing their face. A Presidential candidate usually needs either a strong, inspirational, or soothing voice. If a candidate can't fall into one of those categories, usually there's going to be problems. Personally, I think Kamala, Booty, and Beto have the best speaking voices in the 2020 field. Here's my ranking:
#1. Buttigieg - This guy has best speaking voice this side of Reagan. His speaking style is basically a combination of Obama and Reagan, embodying both inspirational and soothing. His meteoric rise is based purely off his ability to speak to people.
#2. Kamala - It's difficult for women to have a strong speaking voice without being perceived as sounding "shrill". But Kamala does just that, she has a strong authoritative voice both when speaking to large crowds or when she's interrogating a corrupt Trump official in a Senate hearing. I think she has the strongest voice in the field.
#3. Beto - He is pure inspiration, very Obama like. Beto is at his best when he's speaking to small/medium crowds. And even when's being idealistic, he sounds very authentic. He never sounds rehearsed. The jury is still out on how he does in one-on-one sitdown interviews. Similar to Obama's early days, Beto has been shying away from national interviews on cable TV and instead is just grinding in the field.
#4. Cory Booker - He has also an inspirational style with a dash of soothing. The problem for Booker is that he has a tendency to sound very inauthentic at times. It could be a combination of being over-rehearsed or just being contrived like his "Spartacus" moment. I think this is why Booker hasn't broken through similar to guys like Beto and Buttigieg who sound more authentic.
#5 (tied) Bernie Sanders - His voice style falls into the "strong" category. Problem for Bernie has a bit of a "cranky old man", "get off my lawn", tinge to his voice as well. So yes his style works when he's railing against income inequality. Classic populist style like Trump. But it's a poor fit when a conciliatory tone is needed to bring people together. Kamala has a strong voice, but she knows how to modulate it much better than Bernie.
#5 (tied). Biden - Very similar to Bernie. He's speaking style falls into the "strong" category with the similar drawbacks as Sanders. Biden has a slightly more empathetic voice than Bernie but he can also go too strong at times. So basically Biden hits the extremes on the spectrum a little more than Bernie.
#6. Warren - Her voice isn't bad actually. It just doesn't really fit into the three main categories of "strong", "inspirational", or "soothing". On her best days, she can sound a bit soothing but on her bad days she can verge on being "shrill". But overall she sounds wonkish. That isn't bad and doesn't sound offensive or anything, it's just we generally don't elect wonkish Presidents over the last half century. It's a shame because Warren probably has the most substantive campaign so far.
#7. Gillibrand - Every time I have the TV on the background and Gillibrand comes on, I thought a teenager was speaking. She has a very youthful sounding voice. I think it works in her favor when she's talking one-to-one with voters, but on TV and bigger settings her voice just doesn't have the gravitas and it sounds like my pre-teen daughter is running for President.
#8. Hickenlooper / Ryan / Delaney / Swalwell - All of these people have the generic white politician voice. If you hear them on TV, you won't even look up at the TV. And when they speak in front of crowds they go for "strength" but they often sound a bit stiff and robotic.
#9. Klobuchar - She has the worst voice by far particularly at speaking level in interviews. Her voice is shaky. In an interview yesterday I thought she was on the verge of crying the whole time (she wasn't). A shaky voice gives the perception of weakness which is a killer for a Presidential candidate. She actually has a pretty good voice when addressing crowds, her voice strengthens and becomes less shaky. Her snow speech was pretty good. But her voice is really shaky in small settings.
Agree or disagree with the list above? Subscribe to the channel and post in the comments below.
I've honestly never heard of Tootsie speak beyond a random Youtube video. I don't think she's done one nationally televised interview or gone on the cable news circuit. Even guys like Yang have done a segment on Morning Joe. Didn't Tootsie's campaign implode before even the new year started?
I still have a weird inkling that a gay white man might be more palatable to voters than a woman.
I would hesitate to say they’re in shambles because it’s a clear deliberate strategy to paint democrats as Ilhan, AOC, and Pelosi. And it’s working for the most part.
Sadly, I agree. I think all the solid blue states would gladly vote for him but those swing states I'm really not sure about. Especially after Fox News and the rest of conservative media start really highlighting his sexual identity. You'll see them plastering pictures of him kissing his husband or something to "gross" people out. Hell, Trump himself may directly attack him for being gay knowing that tens of millions of deplorables will cheer and agree with him.
That obviously depends on the person. Pete's military service and the fact that he's seen as "masculine" help him there.I still have a weird inkling that a gay white man might be more palatable to voters than a woman.
Voters only really see a gay man when his husband is there or when he talks about it. A woman is outwardly a woman every second of a voter’s interaction with them. Harder to forget.
I don’t think we have any metrics that suggest it’s “working” (i.e. hurting Democrats) at the moment.
Right. Not to play oppression olympics or anything but this particular context it’s just easier for Pete to literally look the part. Compared to Warren or Harris. You see them as women 100% of the time and then when you go to check that box there’s another reminder right there that they don’t fit with past presidents.
It’s almost as if when you blame all Muslims for terrorist attacks this is the result. Weird how Omar predicted these responses, it’s almost like she’s lived through them and has some expertise on the matter.
Yep, his being masculine and not effeminate matters far more than it should.
I guarantee you there exists a subset of otherwise progressive people who would balk at an effeminate gay candidate.
We also are not sure how a Gay presidential nominee would fare in minority communities. I can tell that there is still a bit of homophobia in Islamic community. The last poll done by Gallup said 51% to 30 something are ok with a Gay president and it was frankly disappointingly low if you ask me. But that was also done a few years ago against a generic nominee and Pete is anything but generic, so there.
He inflates his worth to get loans. His taxes would show that.
I dislike both intensely.
As someone who many in this thread would include in his "faction of supporters" (even though I've been very critical of Bernie, just as I am with anyone in government), I'm gonna say its a bit of both, but since they can't have a discussion with Bernie directly, their dislike for members here seems intensified.
Also very true. The NYT - you know, "FBI Sees No Clear Link," neo-Nazi puff pieces - has a vested interest in fomenting conflict among Democrats and boosting Strong White Daddy Republicans.
I think all news organizations have a vested interest in this.