IntenCheck Blog

IntenCheck Blog

Who Won the Third Presidential Debate?

donald-trump-hillary-clinton-3

The presidential race is quickly approaching the end. October 19th marked the third and final presidential debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. Just like with the first and second debate, we performed a semantic text analysis examining the speeches of both candidates using the IntenCheck technology.

Emotions

Similar to the second debate, Donald Trump’s main emotions were Anger, Sadness, and Surprise. However, the level of Anger had increased compared to the second debate:

“First of all, she wants to give amnesty, which is a disaster and very unfair to all the people who are waiting in line for many years.

So we have the toughest laws and you have tremendous gun violence. I am a very strong supporter of the second amendment.

She can say that her husband did well, but boy, did they suffer as NAFTA kicked in because it didn’t really kick in very much but it kicked in after they left.

But I will tell you what isn’t fictionalized are her e-mails where she destroyed 33,000 e-mails criminally, criminally, after getting a subpoena from the United States Congress. What happened to the FBI?

She’s guilty of a very, very serious crime. She should not be allowed to run.

And she wants to make it’s even worse. And it can’t get any worse. Bad Hillary Clinton — at the most we have to repeal and replace”.

Trump continues to criticize Hillary and everything that is connected to her.

emotions_3rd_debate

We found interesting results with Hillary Clinton’s emotions. During the first and second debates she was very discrete about her emotions, and in the third debate we can see a significant increase in Fear:

“I have met with women who toward the end of their pregnancy, get the worst news one could get, that their health is in jeopardy if they continue to carry to term or that something terrible has happened or just been discovered about the pregnancy.

Because I support the second amendment doesn’t mean that I want people who shouldn’t have guns to be able to threaten you, kill you or members of your family. And so when I think about what we need to do, we have 33,000 people a year who die from guns.

And using that kind of scare rhetoric is just terribly unfortunate.

Let me respond to that, because that’s horrifying.

He said if we have them, why don’t we use them, which I think is terrifying.

So let’s be clear about what the threat is and how we are best going to be able to meet it. And yes, some of that threat emanates from over in Syria and Iraq, and we’ve got to keep fighting”.

Therefore, we can say that Trump may have done better in this regard.

Attitude

The next analysis is in semantic differentials (Attitude).

attitude_3rd_debate

Just like in the second debate, Hillary scored highly in Positive and Strong attitude categories:

“We need to go after the leadership, but we need to get rid of them, get rid of their fighters, their estimated several thousand fighters in Mosul.

Fact is, he’s going to advocate for the largest tax cuts we’ve ever seen. Three times more than the tax cuts under the Bush administration.

He even supported shutting the government down to defund planned parenthood. I will defend Planned Parenthood. I will defend Roe v. Wade and I will defend women’s rights to make their own health care decisions”.

 

Trump, on the other hand, scored highest in the Passive category:

“You have mothers, fathers, relatives all over the county. They’re coming in illegally. Drugs are pouring in through the border. We have no country if we have no border. Hillary wants to give amnesty, she wants to have open borders.

We have to tell Japan in a very nice way, we have to tell Germany, all of these countries, South Korea, we have to say, you have to help us out. We have during his regime, during President Obama’s regime, we’ve doubled our national debt.

And you take a look at the people of Haiti. I was in little Haiti the other day in Florida. And I want to tell you, they hate the Clintons because what’s happened in Haiti with the Clinton Foundation is a disgrace. And you know it and they know it and everybody knows it”.

In regards to semantic differentials, Hillary outperformed Trump.

Communication style

communication_style_3rd_debate

Of the four channels of communication, it appears that Trump mostly used the Audial style:

“You read it in all the papers, going to potentially serve five years in jail for lying to the FBI. One lie. She’s lied hundreds of times to the people, to congress, and to the FBI.

So let me just give you one other thing as I talk about the corrupt media. I talk about the millions of people. I tell you one other thing.

We have to tell Japan in a very nice way, we have to tell Germany, all of these countries, South Korea, we have to say, you have to help us out”.

 

On the other hand, Hillary began using the Visual style much more since the second debate:

“I guess he believes it makes him look better now to contrast with me because I did vote for it.

That picture of that little 4-year-old boy in Aleppo with the blood coming down his face while he sat in an ambulance is haunting.

We stand up for the rights of people in the workplace, that we stand up and basically say the Supreme Court should represent all of us. That’s how I see the court and the kind of people that I would be looking to nominate to the court would be in the great tradition of standing up to the powerful, standing up on behalf of our rights as Americans, and I look forward to having that opportunity”.

We can say with a lot of confidence, that Hillary’s Communication Style was much more skillful.

Timeline

During the third debate, Trump began discussing his plans for not just the past, but also the future which has been a drastic change from his previous speeches. He reviewed his plans for what he is going to do if he becomes president which turned out to be more interesting than in the past.

timeline_style_3rd_debate

“One of my first acts will be to get all of the drug lords, we have some bad, bad people in this country this have to go out. We’ll get them out, secure the bothered and once the border is secured at a later date we’ll make a determination as to the rest. But we have some bad hombres here and we’re going to get them out.

I’m going to renegotiate NAFTA. And if I can’t make a great deal, then we’re going to terminate NAFTA and great new deals. We’ll have trade, but we’ll terminate it, we’ll make a great trade deal. And if we can’t, we’re going to go a separate way because it has been a disaster. We’re going to cut taxes massively.

We’ll cut business taxes massively. They’re going to start hiring people. We’re going to bring the $2.5 trillion that’s offshore back into the country. We’re going to start the engine rolling again because right now our country is dying at 1 percent GDP.

We’re not going to let our countries be raided by other countries where we don’t make our product anymore. It’s very sad. I’m going to create a kind of country that we were from the standpoint of industry.

If we put another two or perhaps three justices on, that will happen. And that will happen automatically in my opinion because I’m putting pro-life justices on the court. I will say this, it will go back to the states a tornado states will then make a determination.

I’m cutting tax. We’re going to grow the economy. It’s going grow at a record rate.

We are going to appoint justices. This is the best way to help the second amendment. We’re going to appoint justices that will feel very seriously about the second amendment. That will not do damage to the second amendment.

I will do more for African Americans and Latinos than she can ever do in ten lifetimes. All she has done is talk to the African Americans and to the Latinos. But they get the vote and then they come back — they say we’ll see you in four years. We are going to make America strong again. And we are going to make America great again.

They have no idea where they come from and you see, we are going to stop radical Islamic terrorism in this country. She won’t even mention the words and neither will president Obama.

You read it in all the papers, going to potentially serve five years in jail for lying to the FBI”.

In this regard, Trump showed himself to be better than Hillary.

Motivation

Scores of Toward and From suggest what motivates the speaker, Toward – is a score of the pursuit of new goals. From – focuses on mistakes and how to fix them.

motivation_direction_style_3rd_debate

Despite the fact that Hillary did not talk about the future as much as Trump, her motivations were more Toward, although in the past when she was more From:

“So I’m happy to compare my 30 years of experience, what I’ve done for this country, trying to help in every way I could, especially kids and families get ahead and stay ahead with your 30 years. And I’ll let the American people make that decision.

We need to go after the leadership, but we need to get rid of them, get rid of their fighters, their estimated several thousand fighters in Mosul.
Fact is, he’s going to advocate for the largest tax cuts we’ve ever seen.

I do have investments, investments in new jobs, investments in education, skill training and the opportunities for people who get ahead and stay ahead”.

Perceptual Positions

The Position scores are established by calculating the frequency of pronoun usage based on the study by James Pennebaker.

perceptual_position_3rd_debate

According to the results, people who develop problems, begin to pay more attention their inner world. This is reflected in the language they use as they increase the use of pronouns such as «I, me, myself». These words make up Position-I. People who are more confident in themselves and their abilities tend to use the pronouns «we, our, us» wich is Position-IV, or you, he, she which is Position-II.

There is a change in Hillary’s use of the words «I, my, me, myself» (Position-I) and the use of «we, our, us» (Position-IV) since the first and second debate. This tells us that Hillary may be less sure of herself since the first two debates:

“I’m against it now, I’ll be against it after the election, I’ll be against it when I’m President.

That’s how I see the court and the kind of people that I would be looking to nominate to the court would be in the great tradition of standing up to the powerful, standing up on behalf of our rights as Americans, and I look forward to having that opportunity.

So when I talk about how we’re going to pay for education, how we’re going to invest in infrastructure, how we’re going to get the cost of prescription drugs down, and a lot of the other issues that people talk to me about all the time, I’ve made it very clear, we are going where the money is”.

Trump on the other hand, begins speaking more confidently, using more often Position-IV:

“We’ll get them out, secure the bothered and once the border is secured at a later date we’ll make a determination as to the rest. But we have some bad hombres here and we’re going to get them out.

We have to tell Japan in a very nice way, we have to tell Germany, all of these countries, South Korea, we have to say, you have to help us out. We have during his regime, during President Obama’s regime, we’ve doubled our national debt.

We have to use our great people. We will create an economic machine the likes of which we haven’t seen in many decades.

We have the greatest people on Earth in our military. We don’t take care off our veterans. We take care of illegal immigrants better than we take care of our military”.

This is why the position analysis favors Trump’s speech rather than Hillary’s.

Conclusions

In conclusion, there is a slight favoring leaning towards Trump. He showed that the eccentric portrayal of him by the media may not accurately portray him and his true qualities.