19 Comments - Wensicia - Monday, May 21, 12 @ 12:48 pm: Not surprising, Joe Walsh sits at the bottom of the list. I guess he figures yelling at constituents makes up the difference. - wordslinger - Monday, May 21, 12 @ 1:00 pm: “Broadly speaking, the short words are the best, and the old words best of all.” Winston Churchill “We’re not one-at-a-timin’ here, we’re mass communicating!” ‘Pass-the-Biscuits’ Pappy O’Daniel. Generally, I think marketing and journalism worlds recommend you keep it an eighth-grade level to reach the masses. - Yellow Dog Democrat - Monday, May 21, 12 @ 1:03 pm: Like “media bias”, Congresscritters are just reflecting the leanings of their intended audience. Base voters on either side prefer simple idiom. - NIref - Monday, May 21, 12 @ 1:20 pm: The rankings are merely descriptive statistics in the full model, they do not explain much. The full analysis is interesting, but it looks like a starting point for a full analysis. Turning to the full model, the statistics are pretty weak, with adjusted R-squares hovering between 15% and 10%, meaning that the model accounts for 10-15% of the variance in member’s speaking level. Ideally, this number needs to get up to 30-40% before being absolutely worthwhile. - Ghost of John Brown - Monday, May 21, 12 @ 1:23 pm: As others have referenced above, perhaps not an indication of intelligence, more than a speaking style. For instance, Rand Paul is listed as one of the lowest ranked, but he has an M.D. from Duke University and scored in the 90th percentile on his MCAT’s. Lucille Roybal-Allard is listed as 2nd on the list and she has no more than a Bachelor’s from Cal State Los Angeles, but her career was in public relations for fundraising firms, so she spent a lot of time talking to the “money people” all the time. That said, it is a shame that political discourse has come to “dumbing things down” to a 30-second soundbite instead of being able to speak in detail about the subject matter. - amalia - Monday, May 21, 12 @ 1:26 pm: big words and complex sentence structure more valuable for government….silly. often, it’s just about blurring the facts or a pol blathering on in self congratulation. the formal efforts to simplify language in the federal government and in some court jurisdictions are truly necessary, especially when you consider that things have to be translated into multiple languages now and there can be no room for misunderstanding. - Ron Burgundy - Monday, May 21, 12 @ 1:35 pm: I don’t put too much stock in this. I’d prefer government officials to be somewhere in the happy middle… able to speak well enough to convey what they are working on and their positions, but neither resorting to base, lowbrow speech nor talking over their constituents in a professorial manner. There could also be a rural vs. urban component here as legislators from more rural areas are or try to be more “folksy.” I was taught in law school to speak to a jury as if they had an average of a fifth grade education to make sure your points are understood. Perhaps some of our representatives are taking similar advice when they speak. - Shore - Monday, May 21, 12 @ 1:42 pm: 1. this will lead on msnbc. 2. the walsh thing is hilarious, as is the fact that the former mtv star turned congressman is also at that level-kurt loder would be rated higher if he was elected. 3. I am not happy with the sunlight foundation. “Is congress getting dumber” is catchy but it’s also a stupid potshot. These are public servants who make sacrifices and if you’re going to be a serious organization you can use more class in coming up with a title. - Conservative Republican - Monday, May 21, 12 @ 1:54 pm: This is ridiculous. Danny Davis more articulate than Mark Kirk? Jesse Jackson than Dick Durbin? Luis Guittierez than Peter Roskam? And Walsh at the bottom? Not borne out by the evidence. List appears to be in reverse order. - collar observer - Monday, May 21, 12 @ 2:20 pm: Conservative Republican - be careful - your roots might be showing. - Logic not emotion - Monday, May 21, 12 @ 3:18 pm: I wouldn’t give any credence to the study other than general interest. As others pointed out, it is often recommended that you communicate to the level of your audience. There are some old quotes about true genius is the ability to make the complex simple; but any old fool can make the simple seem complex. A writing guide I read once admonished that one should review what they wrote to make it as simple as possible and then simplify it more. - Cal Skinner - Monday, May 21, 12 @ 3:20 pm: Does this mean Joe Walsh is easiest to understand? - TCB - Monday, May 21, 12 @ 3:32 pm: I find it very interesting (and I’ll admit a little surprising) that there are so many “(D)”s near the top of the list and so many “(R)”s near the bottom. - x ace - Monday, May 21, 12 @ 3:38 pm: US Constitution 17.8 Level today constantly attacked by “10th grade scholars” No wonder disaster looms - mark walker - Monday, May 21, 12 @ 3:44 pm: Simplistic, mythical solutions are easier to communicate than real, fact-based solutions. Some targeted audiences tend to prefer them. - Left Leaner - Monday, May 21, 12 @ 3:48 pm: Constitution is 17.8 and the Federalist Papers are 17.1. No wonder politicians are always misquoting or misinterpreting our “founding fathers” - they aren’t schooled enough to actually read them. Oh wait…I’m probably just being elitist. Ha! - dave - Monday, May 21, 12 @ 3:56 pm: **By comparison, the U.S. Constitution is written at a 17.8 grade level, the Federalist Papers at a 17.1 grade level and the Declaration of Independence at a 15.1 grade level.** There is a pretty big difference between how people talk and how people write. - Cheswick - Monday, May 21, 12 @ 5:35 pm: == Does this mean Joe Walsh is easiest to understand? == Yes. Also, to make clean out the garage if he wants to go to the mall this weekend. - Holdingontomywallet - Monday, May 21, 12 @ 7:47 pm: Bobby Rush 11.74? I stopped reading right after I saw that…. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.