Skip Nav
Valentine's Day
To All the Single Women Spending Valentine's Day Alone
Books
200+ of the Sexiest, Sweetest Books of 2015
Online Dating
20 Times Tumblr Totally Nailed What Dating Is Really Like

They Said What? Frequency of Words Used by the Parties

Now that it's all done but sweeping up the balloons, the New York Times, ever the data-doyenne, has a different way of looking at who said what these conventions. Bubbles of varying sizes show the amount of times per 25,000 words uttered, that certain phrases were used.

Interestingly, the "opponent's name" count varies pretty wildly — the Democrats used McCain's name 78 times to the Republican's use of Obama a mere 25 times. Up there for both parties? "Change" and "God." While the Republicans were twice as godly, and the Democrats three times as change-y, it seems like both have see the benefit to grabbing both traditional and forward-thinking tropes.

The graph also let's you see who said what — Obama used McCain's name 3.5 times more, and McCain grabbed the "change" mantel from Obama just over half as often. Watching the two conventions, do any of the results surprise you? What do you make of the disparity between use of the opponent's name?

Source

Around The Web

POPSUGAR, the #1 independent media and technology company for women. Where more than 75 million women go for original, inspirational content that feeds their passions and interests.

Join The Conversation
UnDave35 UnDave35 7 years
IMO - Any percentage that you are unwilling to pay is too much. Just because they have money is not a good reason to take it from them. Why do we insist on penalizing families who have made money?
Michelann Michelann 7 years
How much is too much of an increase in taxes for the rich? What percentage of their income would be too high to tax the wealthy annually? I'm just curious as to how you would answer that.
Frank-y-Ava Frank-y-Ava 7 years
"Please, not Paris Hilton and Cindy McCain. They didn't earn that money, and even if they did I think they can live without one more Chanel bag and a $300,000 outfit." This comment really bothered me. I don't know anything about either of these women's finances, but I don't think you can say somebody doesn't deserve money just because it was given to them by their parents or grandparents. Our forefathers believed in working hard and saving money so that THEIR children could have a better life. My own parents were not born wealthy, but they worked their way through college and worked hard their whole lives so that I can go to college and have it a little easier than they did. I will do the same for my children. Where does the idea come from that people shouldn't be able to pass their hard-earned money on to their families (or whomever they choose)?" I see people aren't understanding me, let me clarify. I think it won't hurt the rich for a bit of increase in taxes, sorry! I don't think they should bitch and complain about a few percent increase in taxes either, sorry again! And of course people are allowed to give their money to their children, I didn't say otherwise. Some people can make it, others can't. I think it will help the economy in the long run, if we help out the poor and give tax breaks to the middle class and increase the riches taxes, sorry one last time. Just my opinion.
Frank-y-Ava Frank-y-Ava 7 years
"Please, not Paris Hilton and Cindy McCain. They didn't earn that money, and even if they did I think they can live without one more Chanel bag and a $300,000 outfit."This comment really bothered me. I don't know anything about either of these women's finances, but I don't think you can say somebody doesn't deserve money just because it was given to them by their parents or grandparents. Our forefathers believed in working hard and saving money so that THEIR children could have a better life. My own parents were not born wealthy, but they worked their way through college and worked hard their whole lives so that I can go to college and have it a little easier than they did. I will do the same for my children.Where does the idea come from that people shouldn't be able to pass their hard-earned money on to their families (or whomever they choose)?"I see people aren't understanding me, let me clarify. I think it won't hurt the rich for a bit of increase in taxes, sorry! I don't think they should bitch and complain about a few percent increase in taxes either, sorry again! And of course people are allowed to give their money to their children, I didn't say otherwise. Some people can make it, others can't. I think it will help the economy in the long run, if we help out the poor and give tax breaks to the middle class and increase the riches taxes, sorry one last time. Just my opinion.
snowysakurasky snowysakurasky 7 years
Oh yeah, and it is so funny that 'hockey mom' was included. I just hated her dumb joke. Violence and/or rage is cool and funny for women when they wear lipstick?! oh lala this politician is making herself look very silly. She is going to need what few hockey moms like her lame jokes to vote for their phony team (w/mccain)... I would be shaking my head if i was one (and i probably will be.) ok it is late, and i hope that makes sense~~
snowysakurasky snowysakurasky 7 years
I LOVE this! And of course the republicans don't want to mention devilish Cheney! I don't know what they said about Bush though..
hausfrau hausfrau 7 years
As shown in that Vogue article from a few days ago....
Vespa Vespa 7 years
Mich, they're supposed to give it to the government! And then they will dole out handbags and earrings to the deserving poor.
chocolatine chocolatine 7 years
To explain my earlier comment regarding the frequent use of "God": I think the world be a much better place if religion were completely separated from politics. I would unequivocally support the Republicans if it weren't for their 18th century views on sexuality and reproduction. I like their views on the economy and taxation (and I'm far from rich, I just think that everyone should be allowed to keep most of the money they earn), but I hate to be told what to do with my body.
Michelann Michelann 7 years
"Please, not Paris Hilton and Cindy McCain. They didn't earn that money, and even if they did I think they can live without one more Chanel bag and a $300,000 outfit." This comment really bothered me. I don't know anything about either of these women's finances, but I don't think you can say somebody doesn't deserve money just because it was given to them by their parents or grandparents. Our forefathers believed in working hard and saving money so that THEIR children could have a better life. My own parents were not born wealthy, but they worked their way through college and worked hard their whole lives so that I can go to college and have it a little easier than they did. I will do the same for my children. Where does the idea come from that people shouldn't be able to pass their hard-earned money on to their families (or whomever they choose)?
Michelann Michelann 7 years
"Please, not Paris Hilton and Cindy McCain. They didn't earn that money, and even if they did I think they can live without one more Chanel bag and a $300,000 outfit."This comment really bothered me. I don't know anything about either of these women's finances, but I don't think you can say somebody doesn't deserve money just because it was given to them by their parents or grandparents. Our forefathers believed in working hard and saving money so that THEIR children could have a better life. My own parents were not born wealthy, but they worked their way through college and worked hard their whole lives so that I can go to college and have it a little easier than they did. I will do the same for my children. Where does the idea come from that people shouldn't be able to pass their hard-earned money on to their families (or whomever they choose)?
esk4 esk4 7 years
Its not suprising that the dems used Mccains name so much, they are trying to discredit, and turn him into a bush part 2, so that all of the lesser informed, media influanced voters don't even give him a chance. And I'm not trying to say all dem voters are like this, but ti seems that most people my age consider themselves dem because its "cool", when questioned most of them have no idea about any of the key issues.
esk4 esk4 7 years
Its not suprising that the dems used Mccains name so much, they are trying to discredit, and turn him into a bush part 2, so that all of the lesser informed, media influanced voters don't even give him a chance. And I'm not trying to say all dem voters are like this, but ti seems that most people my age consider themselves dem because its "cool", when questioned most of them have no idea about any of the key issues.
Vespa Vespa 7 years
I skipped to the end, so sorry if someone already said this, but I wonder if the "opponent's name" bubble includes times when they said, "my opponent" without using the actual name, because it seems like the dems were more likely to use McCain's name while the pubs were more likely to say "my opponent."
chancleta chancleta 7 years
more "God" and "Character" on McCain's sidelove it ♥ ♥ ♥
chancleta chancleta 7 years
more "God" and "Character" on McCain's side love it ♥ ♥ ♥
raciccarone raciccarone 7 years
Uh - oh, the heavy, thud of irony has again landed.
organicsugr organicsugr 7 years
"IMO, this was completely due to deregulation of credit oversight which lead to the sub-prime market failure." I'm with you man. The federal government doesn't regulate the interest rates in order to keep them artificially low so that credit is unnaturally cheap. This doesn't encourage poor investing, because the government can just print more money when the bottom falls out. Yes, we need more regulation of our central economy.
organicsugr organicsugr 7 years
"IMO, this was completely due to deregulation of credit oversight which lead to the sub-prime market failure."I'm with you man. The federal government doesn't regulate the interest rates in order to keep them artificially low so that credit is unnaturally cheap. This doesn't encourage poor investing, because the government can just print more money when the bottom falls out.Yes, we need more regulation of our central economy.
hausfrau hausfrau 7 years
rac - I can see your point. I think we just disagree to the extent of which Bush had a hand in the credit crisis.And you bet get on the haus train!
hausfrau hausfrau 7 years
rac - I can see your point. I think we just disagree to the extent of which Bush had a hand in the credit crisis. And you bet get on the haus train!
lilkimbo lilkimbo 7 years
I am all for overhauling the way the government works, mostly to get back to the original, true ideals of the Republican party: smaller, more efficient federal government.
lilkimbo lilkimbo 7 years
And is anyone saying that the elderly need jobs?I really think that it would serve everyone to be around people from "the other side" more and actually pay attention to what they are saying. I have been reading so many odd distortions of conservative political thought lately.
lilkimbo lilkimbo 7 years
And is anyone saying that the elderly need jobs? I really think that it would serve everyone to be around people from "the other side" more and actually pay attention to what they are saying. I have been reading so many odd distortions of conservative political thought lately.
raciccarone raciccarone 7 years
Adren, excellent point. We forget that the government says where the money goes and they are not as fiscally responsible as I'd like them to be these days. I think we need to start reprioritizing spending away from the military and back to domestic programs. Our roads are falling apart, schools have nothing to work with and health care needs a complete overhaul.
Latest Love
X