Kayla N. Jordan, UT Austin

In the seventh and most recent debate, six of the remaining Democratic primary candidates battled it out as the primary season finally ramps up to the Iowa caucus. While not much new substance was learned during this debate, the candidates’ use of language can illuminate insights into their psychological states. In this post, I examine where each of the candidate’s attention is and what implications that has by looking at seemingly unimportant words: pronouns (specifically I and We).

When people use I (or me or my), they are demonstrating a greater focus on themselves and their own circumstances. On the negative side, research has shown greater use of I-words to be associated with depression and insecurity. However, greater I-word use has also been found to be related to honesty and authenticity. Hence, political candidates showing such self-focus through the use of I may be seen positively by voters as straightforward and personal. At the same time, they may be also seen as lacking confidence.

When people use we (or us or our), they are demonstrating a focus on others and the groups they belong to. Additionally, greater use of we-words can signal leadership and confidence. Political candidates who use we more may be perceived as more attuned to and concerned with the needs and attitudes of the nation (and in the case of the primary, members of their party). Like I-words, the use of we-words has potential drawbacks. An excessive use of we may come across and inauthentic and dishonest. So, where is the focus of the remaining 2020 Democratic primary candidates?

The Me Candidates. Biden and Klobuchar stand out as the most self focused candidates. They (especially Klobuchar) use significantly more I-words than we-words. In the debates, these candidates have focused more on building a case as to why they should be the candidate. They want voters to know what they’ve done (e.g. ‘I’ve been in the U.S. Senate for over 12 years.’, ‘I led that effort.’) and what they think are the best solutions to today’s problems (e.g. ‘I have a plan for that.’, ‘I lay out how I’d pay for that.’). While their high use of I-words likely contributes to voter’s perceiving them as authentic, it also may betray insecurity. Biden, even though he is leading in most polls, continues to struggle to rise decisively above the other candidates, and Klobuchar seems to have little to no chance of victory. Such uncertainties seem to bleeding through in their debate language.

The We Candidates. Three candidates stand out for their group-focus: Warren, Sanders, and Buttigieg. They are focused on the concerns of the group (both the nation and the Democratic party) and what can be done to address these concerns. While they are making the decisions, they see themselves as part of a collective and confidently assert their leadership credentials to solve the country’s problems. They talk about the problems and solutions of the nation as affecting and involving everyone (e.g. ‘We have a problem’, ‘our campaign has the strongest grassroots movement’, ‘we could be using those dollars for something else’). Though these candidates might come across as more confident leaders, they also run the risk of inauthenticity. For example, all three of these candidates have been questioned on their ability to understand and relate to the concerns of African American voters perhaps making their use of we less than inclusive.

The Other Candidate. One candidate does not fall neatly in either of these categories. Tom Steyer, who has not made it into any posts so far but continues to qualify for debates, is equally self and other focused using I- and we-words at nearly identical rates. Steyer pushes his own experiences and ideas (e.g. ‘I understand how America interacts with other countries’, ‘I proposed a wealth tax’), but also talks about the concerns and responsibilities of the whole (e.g. ‘I know we can do it.’). Steyer seems to balance the best of both worlds conveying a sense of confidence and leadership along with a connection to the collective. While he still lags in the polls, perhaps this style will help him connect with voters as the primaries progress.

Note. The y-axis depicts the average percentage of the words in the candidate’s debate language that are either I-words (e.g. me, mine, myself) or we-words (e.g. we, us, our). Averages were computed across all seven debates since June 2019. LIWC2015 was used to analyze the debate language.

Summary. The remaining Democratic frontrunners are split between the me-candidates (Biden and Klobuchar), the we-candidates (Warren, Sanders, and Buttigieg), and the in-between candidate (Steyer). Biden and Klobuchar’s use of I suggest honesty but insecurity, while Warren, Sanders, and Buttigieg’s use of we suggest confidence but inauthenticity. Steyer’s use of both may help him avoid the pitfalls of a focus on one or the other. The primary contest is far from decided, and hopefully this new psychological look at the candidates helps readers gain a better understanding of these individuals as they decide who to vote for.

Contact: kaylajordan@utexas.edu