That pretty interesting, my thoughts from the snippets I caught was that the Right hit "Obama" pretty often. Really does look like the Republicans gave the more rounded speech; that isn't necessarily a good thing however, as what I see as the important issues make up the larger bubbles on the Democrats side.


Very interesting, changed my internal dialogue a bit.

The apparent well-roundedness of the Republican bubbles may also be a sign of their being less consistent in their message throughout the convention -- e.g. McCain's "end partisan rancor" speech vs. the other speakers' attacks on Obama.

Obama said 9/11 once more than Giuliani. Nice.

And Joe Biden won the "change" derby, how poignant.

The GOP is using an interesting tactic.

They have figured out that the average American just believes what they hear so they are delivering pure fabrication.

This election will be the true test of this nations ability to see past the headline.

So far, all of the strides the GOP has made in the past week is from distorting the truth about their opponents.

Democrats:
1. Change
2. John McCain
3. Energy
4. George Bush
5. Jobs

Republicans:
1. God
2. Taxes
3. (tie) Business
3. (tie) Change
5. Energy

Interesting. Considering the NObama campaign that the Republicans are running, and how many times I heard him from the keynotes, that doesn't seem quite right. The fascination with someone who won't cast a single vote is interesting though.

I would think "Obama" was the one for the Republicans. He was almost all they talked about.

Every time I hear the taxes argument I think of the simpsons....

Krabappel: "We're doing it for your children."
Skinner: "We have a very tight budget-in order to give the teachers a raise, we'd have to raise taxes."
Krabappel: "It's your children's future."
Skinner: lifts his hand in view of the parents and simply rubs his thumb, forefinger and index finger together and the parents murmur and grumble, "oh, no-more taxes".

I think maybe the Republicans sidestepped the cloud counting whatever by using "our/my opponents" instead of Obama or Biden's names.

Outlaw_Rudy: I think maybe the Republicans sidestepped the cloud counting whatever by using "our/my opponents" instead of Obama or Biden's names.

I still want to know how much total time was spent talking about McCain's time as a POW. Every damn speech I saw...it was like 40% of each speech. HOW many times can you tell the same story without it becoming boring as shiat? I feel like an expert McCain biographer (in regards to his time in the service and as a POW) after this week. I know more about the stripper in Florida that he dated than any significant bills that he passed while in the Senate for 26 years.

I counted Palin referring to Obama at least 5 or 6 times.

Clouds are part of the liberal media and evil.

Down with clouds!

This isn't a total tally. This is per 25k words.

Noun, verb, POW..

Dick Cheney = 0

Classic.

Brettster808: I would think "Obama" was the one for the Republicans. He was almost all they talked about.

It was. They seem to think Obama has some sort of God complex.


/most of them weren't stupid enough to say "uppity."

I don't see "community organizer" on there.

Probably as much as "Hockey Mom."

I think this word cloud underestimates the references to Obama. A lot of them were made without explicitly mentioning his name.

It was silly to have included "hockey mom." I'd never even heard of the term until Ms. Palin was nominated by the Republicans. Why would the democrats have used it at all?

GAT_00: Democrats:
1. Change
2. John McCain
3. Energy
4. George Bush
5. Jobs

Republicans:
1. God
2. Taxes
3. (tie) Business
3. (tie) Change
5. Energy

Interesting. Considering the NObama campaign that the Republicans are running, and how many times I heard him from the keynotes, that doesn't seem quite right. The fascination with someone who won't cast a single vote is interesting though.

Won't cast a single vote? Mind backing that one up with some numbers, chief?

rackrent: It was silly to have included "hockey mom." I'd never even heard of the term until Ms. Palin was nominated by the Republicans. Why would the democrats have used it at all?

*points to the 0 next to the words "hockey mom" on the democratic side*

Um..they didn't dude. If you'll notice, each side has the exact same words on it, and in roughly the same configuration. It shows which words were also spoken by one side and not another.

Please go back and look at it again.

Decados: GAT_00: Democrats:
1. Change
2. John McCain
3. Energy
4. George Bush
5. Jobs

Republicans:
1. God
2. Taxes
3. (tie) Business
3. (tie) Change
5. Energy

Interesting. Considering the NObama campaign that the Republicans are running, and how many times I heard him from the keynotes, that doesn't seem quite right. The fascination with someone who won't cast a single vote is interesting though.

Won't cast a single vote? Mind backing that one up with some numbers, chief?

When is the last time God (fictive character) voted?

I'd like to see how this was formed, but just from what I was shown, I'd have to hand it to the Republicans for toning down the "talking about nothing but the opponent" bit, and chastise the Democrats for succumbing to it.

I'm at least glad the Democrats appeared to touch more on more serious issues, but that's an awful lot of yelling-at-the-other-guy being shown.

I missed chunks of a lot of the speeches, so I can't really go with what I remember from them.

Er, wait.. this cloud didn't work the way I thought it did. It's instances per 25,000 spoken words. Fair enough, but is there an overall word count for each speaker to help me figure out what that means?

DeRosso: Decados:
Won't cast a single vote? Mind backing that one up with some numbers, chief?

When is the last time God (fictive character) voted?

Ahhh.. oh.. sorry.. I thought you were refering to Obama. It's late and I'm short on caffeine. That's my excuse. I misread what you were going for there.

Decados: rackrent: It was silly to have included "hockey mom." I'd never even heard of the term until Ms. Palin was nominated by the Republicans. Why would the democrats have used it at all?

*points to the 0 next to the words "hockey mom" on the democratic side*

Um..they didn't dude. If you'll notice, each side has the exact same words on it, and in roughly the same configuration. It shows which words were also spoken by one side and not another.

Please go back and look at it again.

But 'Hockey mom' isn't really a part of the political vocabulary - only Palin uttered the word. Cheney, however, is someone it makes sense to mention, since he's been a power figure for several years.

If the word was 'Soccer mom' I could see the point in bringing it up, but the only things this newfangled 'hockey mom' makes me think of are stiff nipples and hot cocoa..

Decados:
Ahhh.. oh.. sorry.. I thought you were refering to Obama. It's late and I'm short on caffeine. That's my excuse. I misread what you were going for there.

Well... thanks - I think I'll take it as a compliment to be mistaken for GAT_00

I would have thought that Ron Pauls would have been something like freedom, liberty or some other stupid issue.

Got to thinking, and I might have helped figure PART of why this seems off to me out, I think:

It doesn't take these kinds of things into account (quickly snipped from Palin's speech because I happened to have it at hand):

"And since our opponents in this presidential election seem to.."
"I guess -- I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a community organizer..."
"I might add that, in small towns, we don't quite know what to make of a candidate who..."
"Our opponents say..."
"And now, I've noticed a pattern with our opponent..."
"But listening to him speak, it's easy to forget that this is a man..."
"This is a man who can give an entire speech ..."
"When that happens, what exactly is our opponent's plan? "

Etc. That's from about a page and a half of speech, and it isn't all of them IN that page and a half.

I'm guessing those don't get tallied under "Opponent's name," despite the clear connection, because there are a farking TON of them.

I am sure the Dems had SOME of those, too, but I have to wonder if the sheer volume of those don't balance this out a bit.

Wow. Having reread the whole thing, she only used Obama's name once, and used adjectives or other terms "our opponent/the Democratic nominee/he/his/etc" every other time, and there are a LOT.

Wait,no Mavrick?

DeRosso: But 'Hockey mom' isn't really a part of the political vocabulary - only Palin uttered the word. Cheney, however, is someone it makes sense to mention, since he's been a power figure for several years.

If the word was 'Soccer mom' I could see the point in bringing it up, but the only things this newfangled 'hockey mom' makes me think of are stiff nipples and hot cocoa..


There go my nipples again...

democrats love god more!

know what else we really love?

bush

Relatively Obscure: Wow. Having reread the whole thing, she only used Obama's name once, and used adjectives or other terms "our opponent/the Democratic nominee/he/his/etc" every other time, and there are a LOT.

I counted 24 references to Obama, or instances where his name could've been used. (This is the first time I actually read her address and it is seriously filled with bullshiat...)

PicoDelSol:
There go my nipples again...

First I was like ??? - then I googled for sealab
Now I'm like !!!
(Thanks :)

ninjakirby: Really does look like the Republicans gave the more rounded speech; that isn't necessarily a good thing however, as what I see as the important issues make up the larger bubbles on the Democrats side.

Well there you have it. They have more rounded speeches because they so seldom have a point.

lexshine: The GOP is using an interesting tactic.

They have figured out that the average American just believes what they hear so they are delivering pure fabrication.

It's nothing new, they're just way behind. Kind of like Hillary's sniper fire, they're counting on getting away with the same old bullshiat that used to work before it was so easy to fact check.

Also, since that's about all they have at this point, that makes it easier.

"Prayer, the last refuge of a scoundrel."
-Lisa Simpson

Ron Paul advocates following the Constitution, preserving the value of our dollar, and letting workers keep the fruits of their labor? I guess I am also crazy.

Cousin Walter: Ron Paul advocates following the Constitution, preserving the value of our dollar, and letting workers keep the fruits of their labor? I guess I am also crazy.

McCain's improving.

No stats on POW?

INteresting. What I get out of that is that it was the dems who spent more time talking about McCain with pointless attacks. Heck, I'm surprised Obama didn't yell "pancakes," since he's owned by the nutroots.

Whereas the republicans actually talked about energy plans, helping businesses create jobs, etc.

I have no idea who could take changey hopey-hopes platitudes seriously. Change is not a plan. Hope is not a strategy.

Don't know how they tallied this but there's no way that the Republicans mentioned 9/11 only twice, or half as much as the Dems. Also there should be a tally for the number of times they told or invoked McCain's POW story.

DrillSergeantPoopyPants: INteresting. What I get out of that is that it was the dems who spent more time talking about McCain with pointless attacks. Heck, I'm surprised Obama didn't yell "pancakes," since he's owned by the nutroots.

Then you weren't paying attention to the convention. The Republicans hardly ever mentioned Obama by name, preferring instead to say "my opponent", or "my colleague on the left" or "community organizer". The entire second day involved tearing Obama apart without even mentioning his name.