This Week's Rep and Dem Debate Scores

I was watching the news the other night and came across someone from the Clinton team discussing Hillary and he said "The only candidate that is concerned about our national and domestic security is Hillary Clinton". Sure sure. I'm most positive that Bernie Sanders and all fifty-six candidates on the Republican side aren't even remotely concerned about security issues.

The truth is politics is all about marketing. They market their man (or woman) as the best possible candidate to be our next president. They have this down to a science and analyze everything. They know which areas certain candidates are strong in, and which areas they are week in. They attack each other in areas where others are weak, and hope they don't fuck up too badly during a debate.

It's rather sad really.

From what I have seen of the Rep. debated, they use Trumph as Wildcard to make the press talk about his person/drama, rather then the core Rep. politics or agenda.

I have only seen few Dem. debates, because they bore the shit out of me. It's like listening to an average of the last 30 years of Dem. presidents speak.

I lived in the US when Bill Clinton won the first time. He was just as dirty and slick like the rest of the candidates, but he is one smart motherfucker. But the talkingpoints in 1992-3 is the exact same as today. (and when Obama won the first time as well)

So I guess they havent fixed anything when they had the chance for 8 years.

For the general public, I dont belive the election really matters. It will more or less just keep it "status que"

I'm sure the word "the" and "and" were used more than any others.

That's why when you take the words and don't put them in context...they are meaningless.
What you posted are interesting stats that some guy put together to try and make himself look smart to his peers in the media.

Yep, they are interesting. Yep he looks smart to his peers.

But any person who actually just watched the debate for themselves already knows what the candidates were saying.

None of us need the media or any think-tank to explain to us what we are supposed to think.
The media is finding that out the hard way this year as the public's distrust of them grows.
Americans' Trust in Media Remains at Historical Low

Great observation.

It hasn't mattered who was President for the last several decades.
They go in to "solve" problems in govt. (lobbyists, corruption, etc.). And every year the Republican and/or Democrat says "Washington is broken, and I'm going to fix it".

Then they take office and immediately join in on the "business as usual" corruption in Washington and the lobbyists get more powerful, the debt grows exponentially larger (remember when candidate Obama said it was "un-American" to run up the debt?), and we get into more and more wars.

Meanwhile, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

You would think that at least one or two problems might get solved. Especially when legislation is passed.
Like "ObamaCare". Remember...it was going to save families an average of $2,500 per year off the cost that we were paying in 2009.
Well, now I am paying DOUBLE what I paid in 2009.

I'm unaware of any families saving money now. The costs of healthcare (that the President promised was going to go way down) have exploded upwards.

Typical politicians bullshit as the American people get ripped off and the giant insurance companies make billions more in profit.

'I'm sure the word "the" and "and" were used more than any others."

They were removed -- you are very wrong.

Further, using the same positive and negative word lexicons on both debate wordfiles:the negative and positive words that were used gave rather similar results.

Dem
130/287
Positive .45296167247386759581
157/287
Negative .54703832752613240418

Rep
114/259
Positive .44015444015444015444
145/259
Negative .55984555984555984555

I then tested that same methodology on 2 articles:
The first a NYTIMES article titled"In ISIS Strategy, U.S. Weighs Risk to Civilians"
20/55
Positive .36363636363636363636
35/55
Negative .63636363636363636363

Then a stock report titled "Forget the BBRY Stock Bears; Here’s Why BlackBerry Limited Could Soar"

22/28
Positive .78571428571428571428
6/28
Negative .21428571428571428571


the above test returned the expected results ...

The positive/negative word ratios of those debates were little more than 1% different with more negative words used. Scare politics ...

The time duration length and number of debate participants in each debate would not have influenced the positive/negative word ratios of those debates.

^^"That's why when you take the words and don't put them in context...they are meaningless.
What you posted are interesting stats that some guy put together to try and make himself look smart to his peers in the media. "

I programmed it myself.
The results are my own findings.

Actually, I have my own work related linguistics to consider this idea useful for

I could care less what the media thinks of this. If anything, the questions they (the media debate moderators) asked of the candidates debating influenced what they said. However, each candidate chose his/her words to influence potential voters and his/her supporters. Bernie's Commie and Trump's Fascist monikers are in the public’s interpretation of the words they have chosen amplified by the protagonist media; the conservative and the liberal press -- they live for this shit.

That's why I waited an hour until text transcripts were released -- I could pick through what was said to find what was relevant. Those debates are so boring because they are not real debates.

The Presidential debates will be more accurate and entertaining to dissect in this way.

So people didn't say the word "the" more times than other words in the context of a sentence?
If so, then I would assume that there wasn't much in the way of complete sentences that made any sense. lol

And my point is 100% correct.

Compiling how many times a word was said is interesting. But doesn't mean much without the context of how it was said.

A person is MUCH better off watching the debates and listening to the speeches given by the candidates VS being told what they are supposed to think and what the candidates "really" meant.

Much better straight from the horses mouth than through the filter of a third party.

For instance...I could say the word "war" 100 times in a speech. And you might see stats saying that "Robbie used the word 'war' 100 times". And that might lead you to believe that I was pro-war (especially if you are a low-information voter who doesn't actually hear the speech for yourself, but instead rely on the "analysts" to tell you what I said)

But in reality I could have said "I hate war and will never go to war" and mentioned that thought over the course of the speech several times.

Yes, words do have meaning (thanks Capt. Obvious), but context is the basis of intelligent communication.

Well.

My opinion that the context is subliminal -- all these guys are being coached so everyone will understand what they say in context.

If you said the word 'war' 100 times i would have seen how many times you

===rep===
grep -c "ground" sorted-debate.txt=33
70%
grep -c "air" sorted-debate.txt=14
30%

===dem===
grep -c "ground" sorted-dem-deb.txt=5
21%
grep -c "air" sorted-dem-deb.txt=19
79%

Pretty obvious to me ... I prefer inferences of speech.

I don't agree with a World War ISIS with a ground invasion -- the Republican party infers they do. I am just confirming patterns without all the drama.

What would be fun is to take some Press.tv, Thinkprogress.org, Americanthinker.com and other biased media outlet stories apart this way.

Yeah, the Republican candidates (with a couple of exceptions) are all ready to go to war and get people killed.

In my opinion, we should pull all of our forces out of there. We have no business being there at all.