Clinton spoke 5596 words
(applause) 3 times
Trump spoke 7184 words
(applause) 1 times
1.] Positive interpreted word meanings
2.] Negative interpreted word meanings
3.] Addressing Issues (no context with just the words considered)
Q: Where your interests addressed? That is what matters to most ...
Conclusions:
Trump was received poorly by the audience -- only one interlude of audience applause as compared to Clinton's 3 applause interludes -- 3:1 strong audience approvals.
Trump spoke more words and with more positive interpretations than Clinton.
Subjectively: Neither candidate offered anything new.
Opinion: Words matter. Trigger words speak to voter groups with intents and meanings of spoken words shortened semantically in voter groups' mindset -- that is why we have the 15 second commercial advertisement. The press will take a more intellectual and opinion biased overview.
Machiavellian or not, let us wait for the poll numbers in a few days.
Text transcript used by the Washington Post was used in the above word analysis -- they were first to publish. Text extractions available at https://jpst.it/NPFe
(applause) 3 times
Trump spoke 7184 words
(applause) 1 times
1.] Positive interpreted word meanings
a.) of Trump's own words: 56%
of Clinton's own words 48%
b.) globally(of both candidatates) of Trump's own words: 44%
of Clinton's own words 52%
of Clinton's own words 48%
b.) globally(of both candidatates) of Trump's own words: 44%
of Clinton's own words 52%
2.] Negative interpreted word meanings
a.) of Trump's own words: 44%
of Clinton's own words 52%
b.) globally(of both candidates' negative words spoken)--
Trump 19% -- Clinton 29%
of Clinton's own words 52%
b.) globally(of both candidates' negative words spoken)--
Trump 19% -- Clinton 29%
3.] Addressing Issues (no context with just the words considered)
grep -c 'tax' trump: 21 clinton: 20
grep -c 'mexico' trump: 6 clinton: 0
grep -c 'china' trump: 6 clinton: 3
grep -c 'isis\|terror' trump: 16 clinton: 12
grep -c 'guns\|shoot' trump: 9 clinton: 2
grep -c 'law' trump: 19 clinton: 5
grep -c 'security' trump: 1 clinton: 3
grep -c 'income' trump: 5 clinton: 7
grep -c 'jobs' trump: 18 clinton: 17
grep -c 'crisis' trump: 0 clinton: 2
grep -c 'order' trump: 11 clinton: 2
grep -c 'nafta' trump: 7 clinton: 0
grep -c 'trade' trump: 8 clinton: 7
grep -c 'mexico' trump: 6 clinton: 0
grep -c 'china' trump: 6 clinton: 3
grep -c 'isis\|terror' trump: 16 clinton: 12
grep -c 'guns\|shoot' trump: 9 clinton: 2
grep -c 'law' trump: 19 clinton: 5
grep -c 'security' trump: 1 clinton: 3
grep -c 'income' trump: 5 clinton: 7
grep -c 'jobs' trump: 18 clinton: 17
grep -c 'crisis' trump: 0 clinton: 2
grep -c 'order' trump: 11 clinton: 2
grep -c 'nafta' trump: 7 clinton: 0
grep -c 'trade' trump: 8 clinton: 7
Q: Where your interests addressed? That is what matters to most ...
Conclusions:
Trump was received poorly by the audience -- only one interlude of audience applause as compared to Clinton's 3 applause interludes -- 3:1 strong audience approvals.
Trump spoke more words and with more positive interpretations than Clinton.
Subjectively: Neither candidate offered anything new.
Opinion: Words matter. Trigger words speak to voter groups with intents and meanings of spoken words shortened semantically in voter groups' mindset -- that is why we have the 15 second commercial advertisement. The press will take a more intellectual and opinion biased overview.
Machiavellian or not, let us wait for the poll numbers in a few days.
Text transcript used by the Washington Post was used in the above word analysis -- they were first to publish. Text extractions available at https://jpst.it/NPFe
Comment