Economics professor Bruce Sacerdote and Owen Zidar '08 found that the frequency with which politicians use certain words is indicative of themes and rhetorical styles of their speeches in a study that examined the word content of each speech delivered by the 2008 presidential candidates in the past two years. Sacerdote and Zidar were able to draw conclusions about candidates' similarities to famous orators in the study, published in January.
The study, titled "Campaigning in Poetry: Is There Information Conveyed in the Candidates' Choice of Words?" found that the mention of an opponent is almost universally used in a negative context and that Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., use these mentions less than other candidates, averaging two per 10,000 words. Conversely, Gov. Mitt Romney, R-Mass., was the most negative, mentioning his opponents 8.5 times per 10,000 words, followed by Sen. John Edwards, D-S.C., who mentioned his opponents 6.6 times per 10,000 words.
Comparing candidates' speeches with those of past presidents and social activists, the study found that the speeches of Obama and former Gov. Mike Huckabee, R-Ark., most resembled those of Martin Luther King Jr., with frequent usage of the words "black," children" and "dream," among others.
"Using our metric, [Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.,] and Mitt Romney are the most like Ronald Reagan," the study says. "Hillary Clinton is by far the candidate closest in oratory to Bill Clinton."
Zidar said he was surprised by some differences the study revealed between the historical figures candidates said they admired and those they resembled in their speeches. Former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, R-N.Y., for example, claimed more than any other candidate to admire Ronald Reagan, but was not similar to Reagan in his rhetoric.
"In likeness to Reagan, Giuliani was in the middle of the pack, behind Edwards," Zidar said.
Although similar studies of textual analysis have been done in the past, Sacerdote said he and Zidar believed they could fill a niche by analyzing the current presidential campaign, since no one had yet used textual analysis to study the primary candidates.
Their work reflects a larger trend in the media toward evaluating candidate speeches more objectively than traditional political analysis has in the past. The New York Times website contains a program that counts how often primary candidates mention each other. The website also set up a "transcript analyzer" after the Oct. 21 Republican debate that compares the number of words spoken by each candidate during the debate and allows viewers to search for key words in the debate transcript.
Zidar and Sacerdote came up with the idea of the study after meeting one another at various political events this fall. The two brainstormed ways to use objective, mathematical analysis to examine speeches.
"We started thinking about how we could use data in a way that would be interesting and useful," Sacerdote said.
Zidar researched computer programs that could be used for textual analysis, and he and Sacerdote began analyzing transcripts of speeches they found on the candidates' websites and in the Congressional Quarterly, a news publication.
Sacerdote said that this type of study could be used in the future to establish a negativity index of candidates in presidential races.
According to Sacerdote, working with Zidar was a good example of how students could get involved in the research process, even as undergraduates.
Overall, the study met positive responses, Sacerdote said.
"We're not saying anything terribly controversial, we're just doing something new and fun and different."
