There are more Claude-isms in there than just rule of three (Hence -isms and not -ism), and while I'd generally agree that we generally shouldn't be superficial with our judgements, this particular heuristic has served me pretty well so far. I don't know what Talarico speech you are talking about, so i won't comment on that (But I'm not sure if political speeches are the best rebuttal to "I think obviously AI generated text is an indicator of low signal-to-noise ratio").

Edit re "equivalent to not liking the speaker's tie": This is not equivalent at all, this is a written blog post and I'm put off by the way it is written, not by say the URL or their chosen font. It's more akin to a speaker dropping an inappropriate joke at the start of their talk and leaving because of that

"Why XYZ still wins" is also a very common pattern for Claude. Granted it's also found in pre-Claude clickbait titles.

I think it's the combination of the profound writing style with the underwhelming substance that bothers people.

Speeches have always over-used these writing techniques. The problem is Claude uses them all the time, even when not writing speeches.