The Words That Win Local Elections: Why Most Candidates Sound Competent But Not Electable
By Vanessa at The Right Influencer
Here's a stat that should change how every local candidate approaches their next forum, mailer, or social post: Research shows that simply changing your verbal cues can shift voter perceptions of your warmth by 11.5% and your competence by 15%.
In local races—where margins are tight and voter familiarity is everything—that's not a minor advantage. That's the election.
After analyzing countless candidate forums, campaign communications, and voter interactions, I've noticed a pattern that keeps repeating: most local candidates are losing winnable races because they sound qualified but not likable.
They're over-indexing on competence while leaving warmth—and charisma—on the table.
The Two Dimensions Voters Are Judging (Whether You Know It or Not)
Every time you speak, voters are unconsciously evaluating you on two dimensions:
Warmth: Do I trust this person? Do they care about people like me? Would I want to grab coffee with them?
Competence: Can this person actually do the job? Do they know what they're talking about? Will they be effective?
Here's what most candidates get wrong: they assume competence wins elections. So they load their speeches with budget numbers, infrastructure plans, policy positions, and credential drops.
The result? They sound like a resume, not a leader.
Voters don't elect resumes. They elect people they trust AND believe can deliver.
The Charisma Sweet Spot
The candidates who win—especially in local races where personal connection matters most—are the ones who hit what I call the charisma sweet spot: the intersection of warmth and competence.
Warmth Words
These build trust and connection.
Together • Trust • Community • Support • Family • Help
Competence Words
These establish credibility and capability.
Data • Budget • Expert • Effective • Strategic • Plan
Charisma Words (The Sweet Spot)
These blend both dimensions—making you memorable AND credible.
Exciting • Excellent • Confident • Creative • Great opportunity • Looking forward
When you only use competence words, you sound capable but cold. When you only use warmth words, you sound friendly but lightweight. When you blend both strategically, you become memorable—and electable.
The Danger Zone: Words That Hurt Your Campaign
Just as important as knowing what to say is knowing what to avoid. Certain words and phrases push you into what I call the Danger Zone—language that makes you sound negative, combative, or overwhelmed.
Danger Zone words to eliminate:
"Problem" (reframe as "opportunity" or "challenge we can solve")
"Fight/fighting" (sounds combative; try "standing for" or "protecting")
"Struggle" (signals difficulty, not leadership)
"Complicated" (voters want solutions, not complexity)
"Can't" (limitation language kills momentum)
I recently analyzed a local forum where one candidate used the word "problem" five times in a single response. Another repeatedly talked about "fighting." Neither realized they were verbally programming voters to associate them with negativity and conflict.
The fix is simple: For every problem you identify, immediately pivot to your solution. For every fight you reference, reframe it as protection or advocacy.
The 10-Word Rule: Your Opening Is Everything
Here's a principle that applies to forums, mailers, emails, and social posts alike: your first ten words determine whether voters keep listening.
Yet most candidates waste this prime real estate on sterile, forgettable openers:
"Good evening. My name is..."
"Hi, I'm [Name] and I live in..."
"Thank you for having me here tonight."
These openers communicate nothing. They don't build connection. They don't signal warmth OR competence.
Charismatic alternatives:
"Great to be here with you tonight."
"I'm excited to talk about our community's future."
"What an honor to be in a room full of neighbors who care."
The difference seems subtle, but it's not. The first set of openers puts you in the "dismissed" category before you've even made your case. The second set immediately signals warmth while positioning you as someone worth listening to.
The Postscript Principle: Closers Matter More Than You Think
Research on written communication shows that the postscript is the second most-read part of any message, right after the opening. The same principle applies to verbal communication.
Your closing statement carries almost as much weight as your opening—yet most candidates undersell it completely.
Weak closers I hear constantly:
"Thank you. My name is [Name]. I'm asking for your vote."
"I hope I earn your vote."
"Thank you very much. I appreciate it."
These are competent but not warm. They close the conversation without creating connection.
Charismatic closers:
"I'd be honored to serve you."
"Looking forward to working together for our community."
"Excited to earn your trust."
Notice the difference? The charismatic closers include warmth words (honored, together, trust) while maintaining confidence. They leave voters with a feeling, not just information.
The "I" vs. "We" Shift
One of the fastest ways to add warmth to your communication is shifting from "I" language to "we" language.
Instead of: "I've balanced budgets and cut spending." Try: "Together, we've stretched every taxpayer dollar."
Instead of: "I have a plan for infrastructure." Try: "Here's how we'll tackle roads and drainage as a community."
Instead of: "I've served for eight years." Try: "Over eight years, we've accomplished this together."
This isn't about diminishing your achievements—it's about framing them as shared victories. Voters want to feel like partners, not spectators.
Story Is Strategy
The most charismatic moment I've observed in any local forum wasn't a policy position or a credential drop. It was a candidate telling a story about a constituent whose husband had chest pains—and how that interaction shaped their commitment to improving emergency response times.
The story worked because it combined warmth (emotional connection, real human stakes) with competence (developing a concrete plan to solve the problem). It was memorable in a way that "I support better EMS funding" never could be.
Every local candidate has these stories. The neighbor who couldn't get a permit resolved. The business owner struggling with regulations. The parent worried about road safety near schools.
Find your stories. Lead with them. They're your most powerful charisma tool.
Case Study: Grading a Real Local Forum
To show this framework in action, I recently conducted a Verbal Charisma Audit of the Denton County Commissioner Precinct 4 Forum. Here's how each candidate scored:
Candidate Charisma Scorecard
Candidate Warmth Competence Overall Charisma Letter Grade
Quick Breakdown
Gerard Hudspeth — C+ (7/10) Highest charisma score. Strong competence signals through his mayoral experience, but combative language ("fighting," "sweeping them out") undermines warmth potential. Closest to the sweet spot but needs softer framing.
Dianne Edmondson — C (6/10) Highest competence score (9/10) but lowest warmth (4/10). Over-relies on "I've done" language. Her EMS story was a standout charismatic moment—she needs more of those and fewer defensive critiques of opponents.
David Wylie — D (4/10) Lowest scores across the board. Heavy problem-focus, sterile opener, and unprofessional language hurt his positioning. Has warmth assets (family in law enforcement) but doesn't leverage them into stories.
Valerie Roehrs — C (6/10) Most balanced profile between warmth and competence. Her humor and storytelling (farm-hand resignation, biofuels facility) hit the charismatic sweet spot. Tentative closer ("I hope I earn your vote") holds her back from a higher grade.
The Takeaway
No candidate scored above a C+. That's not a criticism—it's an opportunity. The charisma gap in local races is real, and the candidate who closes it first gains a measurable advantage.
Practical Application: The Charisma Checklist
Before your next forum, mailer, or social post, run through this quick audit:
Opening:
[ ] Does my first sentence include a warmth word?
[ ] Am I connecting before I'm informing?
Body:
[ ] Am I balancing competence words with warmth words?
[ ] Have I eliminated Danger Zone language?
[ ] Am I using "we" more than "I"?
[ ] Have I included at least one humanizing story?
Closing:
[ ] Does my closer create connection, not just ask for action?
[ ] Am I ending with confidence AND warmth?
The Bottom Line
Local elections aren't won by the candidate with the longest resume or the most detailed policy platform. They're won by the candidate voters trust AND believe can deliver.
That requires charisma—the strategic blend of warmth and competence that makes you both likable and credible.
The good news? Charisma isn't a personality trait you're born with. It's a communication skill you can develop. And it starts with being intentional about every word you choose.
Your voters are listening. Make sure you're saying something worth hearing.
References
The warmth/competence framework and verbal cue research referenced in this article is adapted from:
Van Edwards, V. (2022). Cues: Master the secret language of charismatic communication. Portfolio/Penguin.
ISBN: 978-0-593-33219-1 (Hardcover) | 978-0-593-33220-7 (Ebook)
Vanessa is the founder of The Right Influencer, a digital marketing consultancy helping local candidates and small businesses stand out through AI-powered marketing strategies. Based in Flower Mound, Texas, she specializes in turning underfunded campaigns into competitive forces.
Ready to audit your campaign communication? Contact The Right Influencer to discuss how strategic messaging can give you the edge in your next race.
