Creation of an Outrage Scale for evaluating candidates

Warren valence: Hot Outrage

     "Some like it hot. 
      Some like it cold." 

Some candidates speak in a shouting voice and express outrage. Others speak with quiet intensity. Some are matter of fact.

This campaign needs a new scale.

This blog will create and describe candidates along a scale that evaluates the drama and emotional outrage that is expressed in their public presentations. I will assign a 1 to 10 number to each candidate.

.

The emotional valence is a key element of political communication. Some voters want high drama and some politicians give it to them. They want to see outrage and anger. Democrats who are unhappy with Trump, government in general, or conditions in general want to see a candidate who rages against the machine, against Trump, against injustice. They perceive a roll-up-the-sleeves get to work matter of fact calm demeanor as someone who doesn't get it. Or is actually a Republican-lite. Or is moderate, or incrementalist, or just like Hillary, i.e. not good enough. If you aren't angry, the idea is, then you don't understand what is going on.

Others look for something else.

Some see the high drama of Trump as itself part of the problem, and in wanting to change from Trump, they want to get away from toxic high drama. Some in this group, too, consider shouting and sharp-toned condemnation as utterly counterproductive to positive change because it hardens the opponents and makes actual legislative change impossible. They consider it unproductive grandstanding. They use descriptors like "show horse" meant in negative contrast to effectiveness, i.e. "work horse." There are candidates who talk, not shout.

Gabbard: quiet intensity

While here in New Hampshire I try to see two or three events a day, and the candidates are here, generally within 50 miles of my outpost in Manchester. I watch them, and then write about what I thought I saw.

 On this trip I have seen, up close and with a selfie: Democrats John Delaney, Jay Inslee, Marianne Williamson, Beto O'Rourke, Tulsi Gabbard, Eric Swalwell, Pete Buttigieg, and Elizabeth Warren. I also saw William Weld, a Republican challenger to Trump.  Nine people overall. About eighteen events.

I note that they each have a different position on the high-drama/low-drama scale. There are other scales out there, starting with identity scales. Who is white and who is brown or black. Who is male and who is female. Who is heterosexual and who is openly homosexual. Who is old and who is young. 

Then there are political scales: populist vs. establishment. There is also the left-to-less-left scale, generally with Bernie on the left side of the scale. There is a scale of implied or assumed "woke-ness" on issues of gender, with Gellibrand on the left of the scale.

I am adding another scale: At its simplest, it is who speaks in a shout and who speaks in a normal tone. It is who speaks with a raised arm and shaken fist, and who speaks with hands at the waist. More important is the tone of speech content, i.e. who projects outrage vs who projects disagreement and dismay.

I just returned from two events by Elizabeth Warren. In television interviews she would generally be a 5 on the scale. People who see her in TV context would be missing part of the picture. But there are also live events, and here in New Hampshire, Saturday, she was a 9 or 10, i.e high on the scale of outrage. 

I will describe her and others in their live-event performances more detail in future posts.