{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.023277467411545624, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0111731843575419, 'mean_word_length': 6.026143790849673, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Evaluating Presidential Leadership Styles in Campaigning and Governing

Since 1932, presidents increased their reliance on their unique relationship with the public in order to exercise leadership. However, after 1992, the president could no longer dominate the public sphere as partisanship increased in intensity and media outlets proliferated. The change in environment yielded a change in leadership style, as the size and strength of the president’s electoral constituency inspires the approach to public leadership presidents could employ (Heith, 2013). An analysis of President Obama’s presidential speech, using DICTION’s five master variables, Activity, Optimism, Commonality, Realism, and Certainty, allows for the continued investigation into how presidents use different voices targeted toward different audiences. This chapter’s comparison of President Obama’s reelection and governing rhetoric indicates not only that President Obama abandoned a national voice during his reelection year, but also how different his campaign voice was from his governing voice.