Semantically, Trump ''won'' the debate

[Barry-xlovecam]

Clinton spoke 5596 words
(applause) 3 times
Trump spoke 7184 words
(applause) 1 times

1.] Positive interpreted word meanings

a.) of Trump's own words: 56%
of Clinton's own words 48%
b.) globally(of both candidatates) of Trump's own words: 44%
of Clinton's own words 52%

2.] Negative interpreted word meanings

a.) of Trump's own words: 44%
of Clinton's own words 52%
b.) globally(of both candidates' negative words spoken)--
Trump 19% -- Clinton 29%

3.] Addressing Issues (no context with just the words considered)

grep -c 'tax' trump: 21 clinton: 20
grep -c 'mexico' trump: 6 clinton: 0
grep -c 'china' trump: 6 clinton: 3
grep -c 'isis\|terror' trump: 16 clinton: 12
grep -c 'guns\|shoot' trump: 9 clinton: 2
grep -c 'law' trump: 19 clinton: 5
grep -c 'security' trump: 1 clinton: 3
grep -c 'income' trump: 5 clinton: 7
grep -c 'jobs' trump: 18 clinton: 17
grep -c 'crisis' trump: 0 clinton: 2
grep -c 'order' trump: 11 clinton: 2
grep -c 'nafta' trump: 7 clinton: 0
grep -c 'trade' trump: 8 clinton: 7

Q: Where your interests addressed? That is what matters to most ...

Conclusions:
Trump was received poorly by the audience -- only one interlude of audience applause as compared to Clinton's 3 applause interludes -- 3:1 strong audience approvals.

Trump spoke more words and with more positive interpretations than Clinton.

Subjectively: Neither candidate offered anything new.

Opinion: Words matter. Trigger words speak to voter groups with intents and meanings of spoken words shortened semantically in voter groups' mindset -- that is why we have the 15 second commercial advertisement. The press will take a more intellectual and opinion biased overview.

Machiavellian or not, let us wait for the poll numbers in a few days.

Text transcript used by the Washington Post was used in the above word analysis -- they were first to publish. Text extractions available at https://jpst.it/NPFe

[C H R I S]

Except the rules of the debate was that the audience was to remain silent, thus negating this rubbish.

[Phoenix]

Originally Posted by C H R I S

Except the rules of the debate was that the audience was to remain silent, thus negating this rubbish.

i don't think it matters too much about audience applause, the data was constructed looking at the meaning of the words spoken

i could be wrong

[Barry-xlovecam]

Never overestimate the intelligence of the American (*or any other) voting public ...

The is only one rule -- there are no rules.

Words are heard without context. People react to this (a word without context) -- you can see it everyday if you bother to look.

[mineistaken]

I like it how you include applause here. It was not allowed to applause and the fact that hilary's guys broke this rule 3 times and Trump's 1 time has absolutely 0 to do with anything in terms of who did better.
But since you include that that shows a lot about your analyzing skills...

[Barry-xlovecam]

Awww, they broke the rules -- that is rather significant -- mass debate "disobedience."

Obviously, the candidates moved the audience to applause in spite of the rules.

How the audience was selected might be fair game but they did what they did.

[Joshua G]

so what the data says is trump is a better speaker, better salesman.

& will win the election because of it.

[Relic]

These universities are no longer a credible environment for an impartial debate.

[mozadek]

That's it! I am voting for Drumpf, the carnival barker.

[Joshua G]

Originally Posted by mozadek

That's it! I am voting for Drumpf, the carnival barker.

WTF is a rockefeller republican in 2016? they dont exist. name some GOP that you support & are rockefellers, like you.

why would nelson rockefeller oppose trump? explain that.

i myself am a teddy roosevelt republican. down with standard oil! yes to national parks!