GOP Primary Debate Scorecard

I’ve looked around the web, and although there are many articles entitled “GOP Debate Scorecard”, none are actually what I would consider a scorecard, that is, a card with the names going across one way, various categories going across the other way, and marks where the rows and columns intersect.

Like so:

Romney Brownback Gilmore Huckabee Hunter Thompson McCain Paul Giuliani Tancredo
Repeal Roe v. Wade •/-
Disbelieve evolution
Ban stem cell research
intervene in schiavo case ND ND ND ND
slag Mrs. Clinton
pardon Libby ND ND ND ND
cut taxes without mentioning reducing spending
support flat tax/"Fair" tax or repeal AMT
talk about iraq in terms of winning instead of leaving ND ND
slag Bush
namecheck Reagan
set up a national ID system ND ND ND
start WWIII ND ND ND
admit to beliefs dictating lawmaking ND ND ND ND ND ND
believe there is no consensus on global warming ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
wall off Mexico ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
said
"they do it too" in response to ethics questions
ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Have Charisma ND ND ND

Key:
• Candidate made statements to that effect
-Candidate disagreed with statement
ND Candidate didn’t take a position

You can visit their website to get their supposed platform and stand on common issues; what is represented here is only what they actually said during the debate itself.

Caveats: I’ve used my own glib shorthand to refer to some issues. I’ve selected all the issues they all took a position on, but selected others according to my interests. The last row is my opinion only. Giuliani expressly said he was pro-choice, and only that it would be “OK” if it were overturned.

“It’s an issue for the states” was a common phrase, and it seems to have been used most commonly to try to hide lack of support for a mainstream position. For example, saying “It’s an issue for the states” in regards to abortion, means “Overturn Roe v. Wade” whereas “”issue for the states” in regards to the Schiavo case meant “I personally would have intervened”.

As you can see now that it’s all laid out, the only candidate remotely mainstream is Giuliani. The Right is pushing Romney, but it’s clear from his statements regarding the Schiavo case and the role of his faith in lawmaking that he’s just a puppet to steal get “compassion conservative” votes from Giuliani. McCain is close to mainstream, but way too hawkish to be trusted. Likewise, Ron Paul is close to mainstream, but extremely libertarian with regard to governmental services such as healthcare, welfare, and so on. The rest of the lot are absolutely off-the scale radicals. Brownback, Tancredo, and Huckabee make Pat Buchanan look like a centrist.

Word Frequency Analysis of 2007 GOP Primary Debate

I had a chance to look at the GOP primary debate this weekend between going to the amazing shows that come to town during the weeks surrounding Jazzfest.

I thought it would be fun to do a little analysis of word frequencies:
The number in parenthesis is the word count.

  • would(88)>should(67)>can(57)>want(55)>need(52)
  • think(102)>know(52)>>believe(4)
  • Governor(89), States(49)
  • Romney(50)>McCain, Giuliani(49)>Tancredo(42)>Gilmore(33)>Brownback(32)
    >Huckabee(31)>Paul,Reagan(29)>Thompson(27)>Hunter(21)
  • Faith(19)>God(7)
  • Iraq(33), Iran(19), Policy(18), Foreign(17), Nuclear(14)
  • Reagan(29)>Clinton(13)>Rove(9)>Bush(8)
  • Win(22)>Troops(7), Home(8), Leave(6)
  • No(51)>Yes(21)
  • Below I’ve generated a simplistic “most significant” measure, by computing the ratio of the word frequency in the debate transcript to the word frequency in a corpus of spoken English. The number in the first table is the ratio, whereas the number in the second table is the word count. I’m going to get this in Exhibit and have a play with some neato visualizations as soon as I get a chance.

    Here are the caveats: The word frequencies I’m using in the first table are actually from the British National Corpus, so many of the words in the speech transcript are highly represented simply because they’re speaking American English, and in the second table, using the ANC Corpus, many words are highly represented because they represent current events that hadn’t occurred when the corpus was compiled and because debates are part speeches, which are more like written English. I’ll update it when I find a better reference.

    Top 100 Words in GOP Primary Debate 2007

    Top 100 Words in GOP Primary Debate 2007
    sorted by appearance ratio

    GOVERNOR 589.4664
    IRAN 335.5764
    IRAQ 174.853
    CLINTON 137.7629
    FEDERAL 90.07577
    TAXES 84.77719
    COALITION 79.47862
    STATES 74.18005
    READER 74.18005
    BUSH 70.64766
    CALIFORNIA 61.8167
    AMERICANS 61.1374
    BORDER 57.06157
    NATION 56.51813
    BELIEFS 52.98575
    DIPLOMATIC 52.98575
    EXPORTS 52.98575
    MILITARY 49.86894
    UNITED 47.09844
    SPENDING 46.07456
    WASHINGTON 45.41635
    DEMOCRATS 44.15479
    PROGRAM 39.73931
    SECURE 39.73931
    ACQUIRE 39.73931
    DEFEAT 39.73931
    KOREA 39.73931
    NUCLEAR 39.04213
    WEAPONS 38.53509
    PRESIDENT 38.34495
    MAYOR 37.84696
    ISRAEL 37.09002
    ACQUISITION 35.32383
    AUTHORS 35.32383
    JOURNAL 35.32383
    LIMITATIONS 35.32383
    PRESIDENTIAL 35.32383
    TROOPS 33.7182
    FOREIGN 33.3614
    GLOBAL 33.11609
    AMERICA 32.99113
    AMERICAN 32.75483
    VALUES 31.79145
    GAINS 31.79145
    SUPREME 31.79145
    GREATEST 29.80448
    SERVING 29.43653
    FAITH 26.49287
    ENTIRE 26.49287
    CONSTITUTION 26.49287
    ILLEGAL 26.49287
    CATHOLIC 26.49287
    COMMANDER 26.49287
    ACCOMPANIED 26.49287
    JUDICIAL 26.49287
    VIEWED 26.49287
    WALKER 26.49287
    PROTECT 25.43316
    THREAT 24.93447
    CELLS 24.45496
    GRADE 24.08443
    CANDIDATES 23.54922
    WEAPON 23.54922
    CONCERNING 22.70818
    JUDGES 22.70818
    BILLS 22.30979
    ELECTED 22.30979
    WELFARE 22.07739
    STABILITY 21.1943
    ADMINISTRATION 20.60557
    FORMER 20.18505
    DEFICIT 19.86966
    CELL 19.52106
    SOLVE 18.92348
    VOTED 18.92348
    PROUD 18.54501
    LEAD 18.1267
    MIDDLE 18.1267
    TAX 17.82698
    CRITICAL 17.66192
    FREEDOM 17.66192
    CONSISTENT 17.66192
    PRINCIPLES 17.66192
    TRANSFER 17.66192
    EXPERIMENT 17.66192
    INTELLIGENCE 17.66192
    ROMAN 17.66192
    SUCCEED 17.66192
    DISCRETION 17.66192
    ENEMY 17.66192
    STUDIED 17.66192
    WEALTH 17.66192
    COLLAPSE 17.66192
    CONCLUDED 17.66192
    CONVICTION 17.66192
    HUMANS 17.66192
    PAKISTAN 17.66192
    REVEAL 17.66192
    SEPARATION 17.66192
    WIN 16.89401

    Top 50 Words using ANC Corpus
    sorted by appearance ratio

    9 KARL
    7 OPTIMISM
    21 RONALD
    4 CONFRONT
    4 SCOOTER
    9 ISLAMIC
    3 ALTERED
    3 CONSERVATIVES
    3 VETOED
    3 DIPLOMATIC
    7 REGIMES
    7 REPEAL
    12 STEM
    4 AISLE
    4 HYDE
    4 STRENGTHS
    2 BATTALIONS
    2 CURES
    2 FLATTER
    2 GOVERNS
    2 HOSTILITY
    2 JUSTICES
    2 NOMINEE
    2 PARDONS
    2 SECRECY
    2 UNIFY
    2 EXPORTS
    6 CELLS
    6 ENGAGE
    3 CONSERVATISM
    3 CRITICIZED
    15 ID
    4 IRANIANS
    5 BIN
    5 STRENGTHEN
    5 CELEBRATE
    4 MISMANAGED
    3 RACISM
    2 ABORTIONS
    2 COMMUNION
    2 CONVEY
    2 CROSSES
    2 CURING
    2 ENDORSE
    2 GOVERNED
    2 IMPERATIVE
    2 TAMPER

    Active voice is what should be used in scientific writing.

    I will endeavor to write more in active voice, but I think it’s appropriate to shift focus from who’s doing the action to what’s being done in some cases.

    Case 1:Writing up your results for publication. Use active voice, because it makes for more natural sounding, easier to read sentences.

    We assayed the samples for calcium, alkaline phosphatase, and osteoprotegerin.

    The samples were assayed for calcium, alkaline phosphatase, and osteoprotegerin.

    Case 2:Writing a grant proposal. The focus should be on what’s going to be done, rather than who’s doing it. Passive voice works here, because active voice would just be a bunch of, “We will …” phrases stuck on the beginning of every sentence, not adding much.

    The choline deficiency model of hepatocellular carcinoma will be used to generate malignant cells.

    We will use the choline deficiency model of hepatocellular carcinoma to generate malignant cells.

    Where do we go to find answers to the kind of questions you don’t get taught?

          It used to be that people would wander in the dusty stacks of the library or old bookstores in search for arcane lore. More recently, it’s been indie artists who seed obscure references into their music, and even more recently, independent films or TV series such as Twin Peaks. The most difficult thing has always been that it takes a certain amount of commercial success to get your work seen by a large number of people. Writers have always struggled to find publishers, musicians have always wrestled with how to get a recording contract without sacrificing artistic integrity, and TV shows have had much the same problem. The problem has gotten successively worse as the cost of producing a single work has gone up from print to film. In all media, pulp has been the predominant output, be it trashy romance novels, boy bands, game/reality shows and soap operas. But now there’s a new game in town.

          For less than it costs a publishing company to run a small pressing of books, anyone can share lessons learned from life experiences. Any kind of arcane or abstruse discovery now has an unlimited production run, in almost any language, too, thanks to text translation tools such as Babelfish(itself an arcane reference to THE answer) or Google’s Language Tools. I’m talking mostly about blogs.

          Here’s my bit of arcane lore: This is why we as a nation have become increasingly shallow through the last half of this decade. We’re predominantly exposed to more and more shallow media just due to the economics of the situation. Information we receive about “how life is” comes from more shallow sources. There’s been a resurgence of the nerd, a person deep in at least some respects, precisely due to the fact that blogging about “how life is” isn’t subject to nearly as strong of economic forces. (This revival of the nerd started before blogging became a phenomenon, but it does closely parallel the development of computing.) Instead of “Everyone Loves Raymond” for everyone, there’s millions of different ways people can see other people getting through life, making mistakes and learning from them. I think this is so big, it has the potential to restore my faith in the human race.

    Of course, the primary output of internet media is still pulp, too.

    Open Access to Scientific Literature

    From HubLog via Open Access News: Physiological Genomics is adopting the Prosser Method of offering open access: Pay to have your article published, leaving all text, figures, and supplementary material open access, or let the article be published under a standard subscription(including page charges too, I’d guess). It’s clearly the way to go for someone who believes “free and unfettered exchange of information” is crucial to the scientific process.

    Most people at most research institutions can get a hold of an article if they want it, because the institution will have a subscription. My undergraduate institution didn’t have online access to anything but pubmed, though, so you had to schlep down to the library and copy it, if you wanted the full article. It was like the internet didn’t exist to these people, ironically called the Information Science group. Then there was the time they canceled their print subscriptions to Science, Nature, and PNAS because they were too expensive….

    In the near future, when trackback enables a ubiquitous commentary system, we’ll wonder why it took so long.