Can a speech by a candidate change your vote?

[makattak]

I've been seeing lots of reactions from both the left and right to Donald Trump's speech last night.

The left showed some fear (see Sally Kohn) and some on the right are saying that it really impressed them and that they can now vote for Mr. Trump.

I'm unmoved. A speech is good, but it's a show. I'm very glad Mr. Trump can talk a good game, when he chooses to, but nothing about his character and background have changed. I still am left without any means of testing his sincerity. (For example, I'm pretty sure Tom Cruise could give a very impassioned speech... and I'd still have no idea what he really thinks.)

I'm the same on Rubio- the man can give a good speech. He's shown he's a traitor, though, and unless he provides concrete action to show he has changed, I will not trust him.

So, to APS, is a speech enough to change your mind on a candidate?

[41magsnub]

No - with enough coaching even I could give a kick ass political speech and I'm not articulate at all. 

[Perd Hapley]

Depends on how much I already know about the candidate. First impressions and stuff.

[wmenorr67]

A speech in of itself won't change my mind.  It may however have me look closer at someone and do more research if I didn't already know the individual.

[TommyGunn]

Depends on how much I already know about the candidate. First impressions and stuff.

Yea, pretty much this.

Earlier, when Jeb Bush was running, he gave a speech or two I thought was a real powerhouse.   I was quite impressed with it and thought ....maybe ...maybe, if he keeps this up, he can overcome the "sick&tired of the Bushes" syndrome and make a go of it.
But he fizzled out.  Ho hum.  Just as well  I guess.
Also, as we know, a great speech doesn't mean he'll follow through ....or even that if he does, the congress will entertain his agenda.   There's a lot of "what ifs..." there.

[KD5NRH]

Yes, though almost never in favor of that candidate.  Heard plenty of candidates say stuff that got me to vote for their opponent...or occasionally none of the above.

[Ron]

I really really try and focus on what they have done, are doing and who they surround themselves with in work and play.

Speeches are a powerful form of influence and propaganda. A candidate can get up there and effectively spread pretty lies and influence people or set narratives. Even if he gets called out on it after the fact the damage will have been done often.

[Hawkmoon]

I've read a LOT of political commentators today, all of whom seem to be in lock step agreement that Trump's speech was "dark" and pessimistic, thereby proving (to them) that he shouldn't be president.

I think the whole crew are in denial -- and in the tank for Hillary. Trump is telling the country nothing they don't already know -- we have a crime problem, we have a terrorism problem, we have an economy problem, we have an immigration problem. The fact that the media hated his speech is just proof to me that he's on the right track.

[TommyGunn]

I've read a LOT of political commentators today, all of whom seem to be in lock step agreement that Trump's speech was "dark" and pessimistic, thereby proving (to them) that he shouldn't be president.

I think the whole crew are in denial -- and in the tank for Hillary. Trump is telling the country nothing they don't already know -- we have a crime problem, we have a terrorism problem, we have an economy problem, we have an immigration problem. The fact that the media hated his speech is just proof to me that he's on the right track.

I think it's been pretty previous for a time the media has been "in the tank"  for Hillary.   Rush Limbaugh has been preaching the media has been having an apoplexy over Trump's "full of hate" speech.

[Scout26]

A speech in of itself won't change my mind.  It may however have me look closer at someone and do more research if I didn't already know the individual.

This.

Or it may cause me to not support that candidate and look elsewhere.

[T.O.M.]

This.

Or it may cause me to not support that candidate and look elsewhere.

What he said.  I have listed to speeches and walked away, so to speak, from a candidate as a result of what he/she said.  Mainly at the local level.  And, also at the local and state level, I have listed to a speech and decided to look further into a candidate.

[AJ Dual]

Yea, pretty much this.

Earlier, when Jeb Bush was running, he gave a speech or two I thought was a real powerhouse.   I was quite impressed with it and thought ....maybe ...maybe, if he keeps this up, he can overcome the "sick&tired of the Bushes" syndrome and make a go of it.
But he fizzled out.  Ho hum.  Just as well  I guess.
Also, as we know, a great speech doesn't mean he'll follow through ....or even that if he does, the congress will entertain his agenda.   There's a lot of "what ifs..." there.

Please clap...

Sorry, was that mean? 

Anyway, a speech isn't too likely to influence me, other than perhaps as seeing their suitability to sway or impress those who are going to be changed by speeches or presentation.

I'm much more of a policy/platform guy... well in the case of Trump, if I can actually find/understand one. And I'm also swayed by the people a candidate is networking with, or placing around them in the campaign and as advisors.

Which frankly is the best thing I've seen about Trump so far. Pence as VP is "good" insomuch as wondering what kind of off the wall 'tarded pick Trump could have made. And on the econ side, he's working with mainstream conservative Austrian School/Supply Siders at least. And his SCOTUS list was actually dang good. Sykes as a woman and conservative/originalist would really P.O. the Left, almost as bad as Thomas did..., and on the circuit level, she's delivered great things for RKBA vs. Chicago etc.

The only thing I know for sure is I'm voting against Clinton. What exactly that will mean come Nov. 1 is still up for grabs.

[BlueStarLizzard]

The better they speak, the more I am disinclined to like them, too be honest.

I appreciate it when they are well spoken and articulate, but the more charisma, the less I trust them.

I'd rather base my vote on what they have done and how they present themselves when off stage.

[Angel Eyes]

(see Sally Kohn)

Topic drift: some of the replies to Kohn's tweet are hilarious.

No, speeches don't sway me one way or the other.  I look at a candidate's track record.  Acts, not words.

[MechAg94]

The better they speak, the more I am disinclined to like them, too be honest.

I appreciate it when they are well spoken and articulate, but the more charisma, the less I trust them.

I'd rather base my vote on what they have done and how they present themselves when off stage.

Agreed.  I tend to distrust salesmen and people that seem to be trying to sell me something.  Also when politicians speak a lot of words, but say very little which is most political speech these days.  I would rather they say nothing at all.

[Blakenzy]

These days, the expectations are so low, simply speaking some truth is enough to put a candidate leaps and bounds ahead of the mainstream.

So yeah, a speech can definitely shake things up if the candidate addresses reality for a change.

P.S. I'll take some of that pie if it is fresh.

[BobR]

P.S. I'll take some of that pie if it is fresh.

Depends on the pie.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zb1qsVqjwg

bob

[seeker_two]

No. Actions speak louder than words.

[Blakenzy]

Depends on the pie.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zb1qsVqjwg

bob

Hmm, I thought only cows made pies 

[Perd Hapley]

How would this conversation differ, if we were discussing Cruz's convention speech? 

[roo_ster]

How would this conversation differ, if we were discussing Cruz's convention speech? 

Heh.