Well, it’s something that can be improved. It’s possible to be coached and trained to improve your vocal delivery. It would, in my opinion, really improve her chances.
Is she going to do it?
I know if it was me in the position, I would be working like hell at it over the next year. Actors do it all the time. And she’s auditioning for a job that’s a hell of a lot more important than being an actor.
If she does that she’ll probably be criticised for being “inauthentic”.
She’ll already be criticized for anything and everything; it’s a moot point. That’s WHY her direct first-hand delivery, straight from her mouth to the voters’ brains, is so important. That’s why it’s important as hell for ALL the candidates.
So much this. I’m not that worried about her beating Trump, but by 2024 people are going to be incredibly tired of hearing her screechy-preach at them.
Even if true, so what? I don’t recall there being a Constitutional requirement to run for two terms – just a limit.
“So what”? 
(1) It strikes me as highly unlikely that she won’t run for reelection.
(2) Even if she somehow doesn’t, the scenario where her approval ratings have tanked and she pulls out of the race is not a strong one for Democrats–as Hubert Humphrey discovered.
(3) We will get a lot more done in Congress (maybe even holding it in the 2022 midterms) if we have a Democratic president people like to listen to.
…its nice to know that we are at the :: read notes :: “critique the women’s creaky voice” stage of the elections. Nice to know that people are focusing on the important things. Her first-hand delivery, straight from her mouth to the voters’ brains, is perfectly fine. Its perfectly normal.
LOL.
How many people are complaining about Warren’s voice? How is this even an issue? Just try googling “elizabeth warren’s voice” or “elizabeth warren’s vocal delivery.” Would it surprise you to find that almost nobody is complaining about her vocal delivery? It would be a disaster for her to “work like hell” on her voice for the next year to please a single person on the straightdope message board. That doesn’t make any sense. Her voice sound perfectly fine on the clip you posted. Absolutely fine. She didn’t sound like she wanted to cry. It didn’t sound weak. It wasn’t grating. I have no problems listening to her for long periods of time.
We get it. You don’t like Warren as a candidate. But that doesn’t mean you have to nitpick every single little thing about her. That says more about the person doing the nitpicking than it says about Warren.
:rolleyes: Sure, BB: go right for the gender defense even though both Lamoral and I have pointed out that we see no problem with a variety of other Democratic women’s voices. (And I have also said I do have a problem with Bernie’s voice, as well as someone like Robert Kennedy Jr.)
I actually have seen the voice thing raised quite a bit, but always by people making your case, that the criticism is sexist. But they generally say it’s something you hear from the hoi polloi at the Iowa State fair or whatever. And that’s a key point. It’s people who aren’t on Twitter, which is the key group in the general election.
Although there are presumably lots of people on Twitter as well who privately think this, but are not keen to get roasted/canceled.
I actually don’t think it’s likely she can change her voice much even with media training. But she clearly has already gotten training to counter her “resting grouchy face”. Take a look at all the forced smiles at the last debate compared to the first one. It does not look convincing, however.
There’s not a thing wrong with Warren’s voice except that she’s the front-runner.
Warren has been in the public eye for, what, a decade or more? Since she became a national figure with the Consumer Protection Agency and all the news surrounding that?
So if we were to look*, would we find posts from those criticizing her voice here, talking about her voice back then?
*in social media sources in general, given that not everyone complaining had an account on SDMB ten years ago.
…I made an observation of fact, that’s all.
I said nothing about sexism.
What people “generally say” is what is at issue here. What you are actually talking about is “the people that you hear.” The people that you are hearing might not be representative of what people actually think.
LOL.
You are a literal stan for “cancel culture.” If people get “cancelled” its because of people like you.
She doesn’t need to change her voice. I don’t see a difference in her face. You see what you want to see.
Pretty funny that BB claims no one is talking about this.
Start here, with too great a variety of characterizations of her voice for me to quote:
But there are a few others that do offer pithy excerpts:
https://www.thenation.com/article/elizabeth-warren-meets-the-lefts-circular-firing-squad/
https://www.telegram.com/article/20120916/COLUMN01/109169735/1246
First of all, an arched eyebrow and undirected accusations of inconsistency is a super lame “argument”. Secondly, some political appointee working on a specific policy committee does not get remotely the same attention or oratory critiques as a politician running for the presidency. You should know that.
…LOL.
Your very first cite is to a website called “Tiger Droppings”. Its a fucking messageboard about sports, with article like “Wow, Actress Kate Beckingsale Really Gets Stretched out before her workouts” and “Cincinnati fan cuts her jeans in the back to show off her Bangals leg tattoo” highlighted on their front page. Your second cite is to quora which uBlock Origin has got on its blocklist for bad trackers. Your third cites Dan Payne, a pundit who gets paid for “hot takes”, the fourth cite actually says the literal opposite of what you think it does, the fifth cite is from two-thousand-and-fucking-twelve and the fact that they may have done ads where she wasn’t talking *then *has no relevance to what they are doing now, the sixth cite was from a *challenger *to Warren, and I’m not going to click on the seventh because I only get three free articles from the Washington Post and I’m not going to waste a click considering how useless the rest of your cites have been.
But all of that is beside the point: because if you thought that I meant “literally nobody else on the planet has ever talked about Warren’s voice” then you are mistaken. I did a cursory google search. I found nothing. That means nobody of note is having this discussion. I’m sure SirWinston and Hemphead over at tigerdroppings.dot.com have strong opinions on Warren. But if you think that’s enough to swing an election then its over to you to make that case.
Amazing how far the goalposts have moved since earlier today. :rolleyes:
Her voice is part of the persona she projects and right now her persona is that of a Female Dukakis - a weak ineffectual old matron with little respect outside the 10-15% faithful who already support her.
Democrats can fumble this layup away if they don’t get behind someone who inspires confidence among the center and Obama has done his two terms.
…what goalpost have been moved?
You cited a guy named “Hemphead” posting on a place called “tigerdroppings.” You cited an opponent, an “ask questions” forum, a pundit and somebody from 2012.“Almost nobody is complaining about her vocal delivery” is a statement that is backed up by your cites, which shows a bunch of nobodies complaining about her vocal delivery. 
Actually, regardless of her speaking voice, she made a bad political mistake by wading into the mess of the the Chicago Teachers Union strike. I hope for her sake she knows what a hornet’s nest that strike is here. It’s fine to support them if you want. But they ain’t no cute and cuddly group of teachers who just want what’s best for the children.
BB, what happened to “a single person on the straightdope message board”? :dubious:
Regardless of how big its internet footprint is, the phenomenon exists. I’m not trying to convince anyone of anything. I’m just pointing something out.
…did you miss “Would it surprise you to find that almost nobody is complaining about her vocal delivery?” You quoted those words. I wrote those words. What is it, do you think I meant when I said “almost nobody?”
And did you miss the context of "“a single person on the straightdope message board”? Its seems that you did considering your decision to remove the context from that quote.
I said " It would be a disaster for her to “work like hell” on her voice for the next year to please a single person on the straightdope message board." The person demanding that Warren works like hell on her voice is here on this messageboard. It wouldn’t surprise me if you found a few others. But it should have been obvious that my statement was directed at the person on the straightdope messageboard or said Warren should “work like hell.”
No goalposts shifted.