Is Candidate Rhetorical Tone Associated with Presidential Vote Choice?

Abstract

Can voters be persuaded to support a candidate based on a candidate’s rhetoric instead of a candidate’s issue positions? Combining theoretical insights on voter decision-making drawn from valence theories of candidate position-taking with insights from theories of rhetoric and persuasion, the authors argue that candidate rhetorical tone can sway voters to a candidate’s side. Using DICTION 5.0, the tone of candidate speech in U.S. presidential elections is examined from 1976-2012. Candidates who present themselves using language that draws on themes of commonality, activity, and realism are more likely to win a citizen’s vote in elections. Rhetorical tone can sway voters, but only those moderate voters who are distant from both candidates. Rhetorical tone is unlikely to have an effect on voters who perceive high ideological agreement with the rhetorically-disadvantaged candidate.

Actions speak louder than words : policy legitimation and the national security strategy

“…Similarly, Grose and Husser determined that the rhetorical tone of U.S. presidential candidates can sway moderate voters (Grose & Husser, 2014). However, the majority of the existing literature has little to say about the nexus between policy legitimation and the microfeatures of political rhetoric.…”

“…In ancient Greece, the ability to speak convincingly was key to political power (Ponton, 2016). Aristotle contended, "It is not enough to know what to say; we must also say it in the right way" (Grose & Husser, 2014). Rhetoric thus evolved as the practical art and science of the persuasive use of language.…”

“…Realism captures expressions of tangible, immediate, and practical issues. It indicates an inclination to manage policy issues in a forthright, honest, and uncompromising manner (Crew & Lewis, 2014;Grose & Husser, 2014;Hart, 1984;Kaid & Holtz-Bacha, 2008).…”