In "Ted Cruz as Beowulf: Matching Candidates With Books They Sound Like," the New York Times measured the candidates’ debate rhetoric by "both the complexity of their speech and the positivity (or negativity) of the words they use." The results were interesting, but the Times also used the opportunity to eager forward unchallenged stereotypes of so-called "simplistic" conservatives: "'Trump has the language of the board room, the language of entertainment,' [professor Sharon] Jarvis said. 'He really speaks to the conservative base who would prefer not to hear complex arguments.'"
Donald Trump falls somewhere between “Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” and the fairy tales of Hans Christian Andersen. Ben Carson resembles A.W. Tozer’s “The Pursuit of God.” Marco Rubio has a lot in common with “Journey to the Center of the Earth,” while Jeb Bush is a little simpler and sunnier -- closer to “The Life-Changing Magic of Tidying Up,” Marie Kondo’s tribute to decluttering.
Mr. Trump stands out as the simplest speaker by far and also one of the more positive. Though he is highly critical of his opponents and often rails against how terrible the world is today, he spends more time talking about how great America will be under a Trump administration. In the opposite corner of the matrix is Bernie Sanders, who prefers both complex language and dire descriptions.
The analysis got partisan, and came to a predictably slanted conclusion:
One striking aspect of the analysis is that the Republican candidates are debating in much simpler patterns than the Democrats. The only Republican who uses language as complex as the Democrats -- slightly more complex, in fact -- is Ted Cruz, a former solicitor general and law professor. His employment history shows in his debate rhetoric, with a level of complexity similar to “Beowulf.” (The speech patterns of President Obama in the 2008 debates were equally complex.) Hillary Rodham Clinton and Mr. Sanders have similar levels of complexity but are on opposite ends of the positivity spectrum: She is even more positive than Mr. Trump.
Katz suggested that Democrats were just too fond of complexity, while conservatives had to be spoon-fed ideology, and found a professor to emphasize the point.
The complexity gap between the parties may reflect their ideologies. Research on statements from senators dating to the 1980s, by the psychology professor Phil Tetlock, suggests that Republicans tend to be drawn to “cognitive simplicity.” Where liberals prefer contingency and context, conservatives prefer certainty and clarity. This gap is most evident in the debating style of Mr. Trump. “Trump has the language of the board room, the language of entertainment,” [professor Sharon] Jarvis said. “He really speaks to the conservative base who would prefer not to hear complex arguments.”
Katz let that pass, though he did suggest another possible reason for the GOP's "more simplified rhetoric":
There are also structural reasons for Republican candidates to embrace more simplified rhetoric. With 10 candidates on stage fighting for airtime, there’s increased pressure to speak in sound bites to get noticed...
