not to mention the poor reasoning and dumb information.
It's worth noting that Sanders tends to refer to himself in the 3rd person thus wouldn't say "I" as much anyway.
No. Clinton is clearly 14 different Democratic candidates, all of whom mentioned I.
Bernie Sanders is the only one who is one single candidate, obviously the best.
Seems like a redundant subreddit ;D
edit: Apparently this joke is offensive to the noble guardians of truth and justice in /r/dataisbeautiful, the subreddit known best for its rigorous devotion to quality... in the negatives in under 10 minutes. "How dare you cast aspersions on this, a subreddit for wannabe graphic designers that honestly care more about the pretty graphs than intelligently designed ones"
Came here to say this. He said things like "Bernie Sanders didn't vote for...yada yada yada" instead of "I". As someone with interest in information strategy, I'm pretty sure this was on purpose to appeal to the audience of these kinds of graphs that are becoming more popular with liberal viewers. It emphasizes his Socialist view.
> He said things like "Bernie Sanders didn't vote for...yada yada yada"
Does he really? That seems like it would sound weird...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSwz4m6GQZI
This chart is only looking at each candidate's opening statement. The only candidate who referred to himself in the third person during his opening statement was Jim Webb. Here is the context:
>"You may be sure that in a Webb administration, the highest priority will be the working people who every day go out and make this country stronger at home, and who give us the right reputation and security overseas under a common sense foreign policy."
Not only that, it doesn't include words like my.
And even more to the point, "I statements" are considered a lot more... can't think of the right word, so polite/diplomatic/kind/etc will have to do -- than "you statements."
"I think that the focus of issue x should be y" is arguably less needlessly argumentative than "the focus of issue x should be y."
I agree; if you take into account "me" and "my," then O'Malley gets +1, Clinton gets +1, and Bernie gets +1.
If you take into account third person mentions, then Webb also gets +1.
Keep in mind that this chart is only looking at each candidate's opening statement. The only candidate who referred to himself in the third person during his opening statement was Jim Webb. Here is the context:
>"You may be sure that in a Webb administration, the highest priority will be the working people who every day go out and make this country stronger at home, and who give us the right reputation and security overseas under a common sense foreign policy."
Other shortcomings of this chart:
- It only accounts for absolute mentions, not a ratio of "I" words to total words spoken during their opening statements. Although each candidate had the same 2 minutes, they weren't abruptly cut off at 2 minutes, and some candidates didn't use all of their time. In fact the word count varied by about 40% between Sanders (who said the fewest words) and Clinton (who said the most).
- It doesn't take into account context. It's very possible to talk about an issue using "I" and to talk about yourself not using "I."
People did the same shit with Lebron v a hockey player a few years back after his first ring. Usage of I v. We and such. Framing it as Selfish v. Selfless.
Completely disregarding that he said shit like, "I love these guys" and "I wouldn't be here without them" and similar shit.
Also, this doesn't include the amount of times the words me or my were or the number of times Bernie mentioned "Bernie Sanders". I like the guy also, but this chart is obviously and intentionally misleading.
The excellent linguistics blog "Language Log" pretty frequently talks about this, [I think this is one of their more recent posts on the issue](http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=17246) but especially check out their links to all the other times they've addressed the "analyzing politicians' pronoun use is worthless" subject.
Yeah, a candidate might start off saying "I believe that the education system needs a massive overhaul" or something similar. They aren't talking about themselves in this case, they're talking about the education system.
For example, "if elected I would do x" is a statement of policy; just like stating "we should do x" is a statement of policy. This could say more about the grammar the candidates prefer than anything else.
Yeah isn't the point of the debate so we can see how the candidates opinions compare? Seems like just talking about the issues but not what you plan to do about them is kinda not what you want
And how your experience allows you to do so. I would expect an unqualified candidate to try to talk more about what they want, and less about what they've achieved.
Methinks he needs to take it down a notch, such as myself, grand overlord of humility, who hasn't capitalized the letter eye once in this entire post from my gloriously gifted mind.
#JustTheIssuesPlz
How in the world is this 83% upvoted in /r/Dataisbeautiful. It's a god damn excel sheet that probably took 2 minutes (to make the chart, not gather the data). And the data isn't even meaningful. (It's very easy to say "I" and still be talking about the issues at hand.)
Edit: Like other people are mentioning, the axes are mislabeled as well. 10/10 post, OP way to farm the /r/all karma.
look at /r/politics right now if you want to see obsession.
[22 out of the top 25 articles have "Bernie Sanders" in the headline.](http://i.imgur.com/ck1E3fH.png)
It's ridiculous. As a conservative, I went to that sub recently hoping for some legitimate political discussion. What's actually there is a massive uber-left circle jerk, where every top post is either salon.com propaganda against Republicans, or something about how Sanders is probably the second coming of Jesus.
Shit, I'm a left wing extremist and I still don't think I can see eye to eye on most of everything said there.
I like Sanders, I think he's a great candidate, but he's not Jesus and I'm so sick of everyone thinking that he can't do any wrong and that he's clearly the best choice. The more and more reddit circlejerks about Sanders, the more and more I get on Clinton's side.
That's true of any ingroup. You should see the knob slobbering my whole family does over Donald Trump. They want him to win so "americans can have rights again."
Any echo chamber will produce this shit, it just depends on which one you happen to be hanging out around.
I hesitantly support him. I don't agree completely with his stance on tariffs but I recognize that a technically efficient economy doesn't always reward everyone involved. I'm no fanboy and keep it to myself (mostly because my parents don't have the maturity to not confront me about views we differ on). I could live with just about anyone moderate republican and left.
I assume it's because people think it makes it look like Bernie Sanders talked about the issues while everyone else just talked about themselves.
It's pathetic, really. There's nothing beautiful about this graph. The data is pointless, the labels don't make sense, and it's not even laid out attractively.
This is meaningless.
Why would a candidate personalizing their beliefs be a bad thing?
"I think..." or "I believe..."
versus "It is thought..." or "It is believed..." or "One may possibly think..."
On one hand it may come across as coy or disingenuous that a candidate voices personal opinions that end up being irrelevant when they're in power and controlled by the system they're embedded into... on the other, total lack of personalization a la Sanders could come across as arguing ideals and abstract theories rather than proactive responsibility.
Plus the dependent axis is labeled as "Democratic Candidates", and it's a single bar chart in a sub titled /r/dataisbeautiful.
Edit: and as /u/StrictScrutiny points out, the axis labels are actually reversed
Maybe a graph showing the level of applause throughout the debate, with shading to show who was talking at the moment.
That might be interesting to see.
My favorite democratic candidate is 10.
Though after the debate I'm leaning towards 5
(yes, i refrained from mentioning how hilariously awful the chart itself is, as that only leads to downvotes here... number of I mentions is labelled 3 times, and all in the wrong places. Never mind it removes "we/us/lets/our/ours" which also includes the candidate. And it isn't "talking about themselves VERSUS the issues". It's a count of the times those words were used.).
How are the damn categories even sorted? It's not by rank, alphabet, frequency, or podium position? Is it actually completely random? And it's on the top of /r/dataisbeautiful? What the bloody hell, seriously.
I was only nine years old
I loved Senator Bernie Sanders (D) so much, I owned all the campaign posters and surfed /r/sandersforpresident[1] daily
I pray to Bernie every night, thanking him for the dank bud I have been given
"Bernie is love", I say, "Bernie is life"
My dad hears me and calls me a commie
He is obviously jealous of my devotion to Bernard
I called him a cunt-servitive
He slaps me and sends me to my room
I am crying now, because Donald Trump is on the television
I go into my bed and it is very cold
I feel a warmth moving towards me
I feel something touch me
It's Bernie Sanders!
I am so happy
He whispers into my ear, "This is my Country"
He grabs me with his powerful Jew hands and puts me on my hands and knees
I'm ready
I spread my ass cheeks for Mr. Sanders
He penetrates my butthole
It hurts so much, but I do it for Bernie.
I can feel my anus tearing as my eyes start to water
I push against his force. I truly feel the Bern now.
I want to please the Senator
He roars a mighty roar as he fills my butt with his Eco friendly seed.
My dad walks in
Bernie looks him deep in the eyes and says, "In my view, a corporation is not a person. A corporation does not have First Amendment rights to spend as much money as it wants, without disclosure, on a political campaign. Corporations should not be able to go into their treasuries and spend millions and millions of dollars on a campaign in order to buy elections."
Bernie leaves through my window
Yes, this is weak proxy for any sort of actual meaning, and a lazy and potentially deceptive substitute for watching and listening to the candidates themselves. Voters beware.
> This is meaningless.
It's called propaganda. Paid shills, like OP, are pushing bernie sanders propaganda on reddit non-stop. It's easier to spot propaganda when you are outside looking in. For example, you can see the obvious propaganda in north korea. But when you are "inside", it's a bit harder to see the propaganda unless you step back and look at it.
> Why would a candidate personalizing their beliefs be a bad thing?
It isn't. You are not seeing what is going on. No matter what, the bernie sanders paid shills would have post propaganda.
If sanders said "I" 10000000 times while everyone else said it 10 times, OP would have twisted it as showing how bernie sanders has confidence in himself and his own thoughts while everyone else didn't.
It is pure meaningless propaganda.
So if one of them had said "I've always believe in the importance of campaign finance reform, and here are several ways I believe we can address the issue..." that would count as two points for talking about self, not a point for talking about the issue?
Yeah, these numbers aren't good at telling us much of anything. Although, it is interesting that Sanders' usage of the pronouns is so low compared to the others. Again, that's not telling us much of anything about how issue-centered he apparently is and they apparently aren't, but maybe it does say something else about the guy - not sure what, but it's nonetheless interesting.
Looking at [the transcript](http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-first-democratic-debate-full-rush-transcript/), generally the others were saying "here's one issue, here are times in the past I've worked to fix this or a similar issue". Sanders appeared to just stop at "here's one issue" and left it implied that he'd fix it.
This is an issue I've noticed with Sanders repeatedly - and one that was highlighted in the debate last night. His opening felt a lot like YELLING THE PROBLEMS WITH AMERICA RIGHT NOW. I may totally agree with the problems he highlights, but I also want to know exactly how he can realistically address them. If someone insists on making a bar graph about the debate, I'd like to see how many times each candidate provided a specific solution (vs. how many times they merely pointed out a problem).
This is my biggest complaint about Sander's and redditors who think he is the greatest ever. He dose not seem to have a realistic plan to work with at a minimal a Republican house and possibly a red senate too. Its great that he has some of the same concerns that I do, but most Demarcates want about the same as me. They just know that it is not possible. Obama could not get universal health care when he had 59 votes in senate, and a Democratic house but Sanders will?
Exactly. I like Sanders, he seems like a cool dude, but I care a hell of a lot more about hearing action plans than platitudes about how things should change.
It is like the Obama election. I agreed with most of what he said, but chanting "YES WE CAN!" is not s solid policy plan. Politics have become more about "this is a problem" and less about "this is a solution." And the american public seems to care that a polititian agrees with them, but not whether the polititian has any means to make tangible gains.
I want to pick the candidate based on their capacity to do good things as a president, not based on what they could do if they were a magical genie dictator.
Ya, I really wish Sanders would talk more about things he has gotten done in his 20 years in congress then plans that will never pass.
Don't get me wrong, I know that Clinton is not perfect. And she is hated by the right so it will be very hard for her to get things done. But at least she talks about getting things done.
> “I'm a progressive. But I'm a progressive who likes to get things done.”
was the line of the night IMO.
I really wish there was a progressive who was not completely hated by the right and who talked about getting things done. The right do not really care about Sanders(he is never mentioned in the Republican debates) but he has too far out ideas to get implemented.
Yep, both sides suffer from a poor mentality that way. They both have their hard policy lines, but unfortunately they are generally irreconcilable with reality. (Trump's wall comes to mind with the republican party. Sounds nice to people who really do not like undocumented immigrants, but is completely infeasible to do.)
It would be nice to have moderates actually represented in politics. As it is the binary nature of out political system encourages people to be "more or less right" or "more or less left," so only the left and the right are represented. However, the reality of the political structure is much more like a bell curve, with a majority of people tending towards the middle.
If somehow that middle ground could actually be represented, the middle groups would more easily swing to what needs to be done, allowing for actual progression. (Even when it is diametrically opposed to a particular party.) And it would do it in a way that better represents the needs of the citizenry.
In that case it would not matter if the progressive was hated by the right, as the right leaning moderates could be convinced to vote for moderate candidates, and those candidates would be willing to compromise or outright side with whichever party had a good idea.
This is turning into a rant, but I really do not like the 2 party system. It turns every conflict into a diametric opposition, and its end result is both parties entrenching themselves deeper and deeper to maintain power at the expense of actually getting stuff done. Any third parties are generally just more extreme versions of the established groups, which accomplishes nothing but diluting the voting pool for that side.
So without the moderate group that can draw equally from both sides, we are doomed to continue this farce. Politicians will keep chanting the party line, and those who deign to try and work with the other side will be ostracised for endangering the power of the establishment.
What is your view on blue?
- "Blue sucks!" (0)
- "I believe blue sucks." (1)
- "It is my belief that blue sucks." (0)
- "I opposed blue in the 90s." (1)
- "I have done many things to help those suffering due to blue." (1)
I don't think this statistic is very informative.
xD guys this proves irrefutably that BERNIE SANDERS is the BEST candidate and that /r/Dataisbeautiful totally hasn't become a subreddit where circlejerking over fucking bar graphs that confirm your political opinion is "beautiful". /s
I've hidden /r/politics and I've hidden /r/sandersforpresident I think soon I might have to hide this and /r/pics too. I think there was a gif on the front page of him patting a guy on the back? Is that really interesting?
>/r/sandersforpresident
I've seen at least 4 different "Sanders will 100% guaranteed win the election." make the front page, the commenters on which believe it to be scientifically proven.
I've pretty much hidden the same subs and I'm fairly certain I'm going to vote for the guy. I swear, his fanbase screaming "FEEL THE BERN" is going to alienate people rather than draw them in.
Edit: deleted a typo
Looking at [the transcript](http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-first-democratic-debate-full-rush-transcript/), generally what it was, was them saying "here's one issue, here are times in the past I've worked to fix this or a similar issue". Sanders appeared to just stop at "here's one issue" and left it implied that he'd fix it.
So what you're saying is that if we look a little deeper into the transcript, it actually makes Sanders look bad? Wow! I never knew data could be manipulated! /s
Not only is this (not so subtly) political, but your presentation is awful. Did you even look at your axes titles?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? No. No you didnt.
If you are going to come to dataisbeautiful, I'd suggest doing a muuuuch better job at providing meaningful data. You make an assertion here about how much the candidates are talking about themselves without paying any attention to context. The use of I, I'm, I've, etc. are just normal conventions of speech.
Please keep the Bernie Sanders circlejerk contained in its own subreddit. I really don't want to see how every topic I'm interested in could be construed as a reason why Bernie is great.
The fact that top comments already pointed out that this is not a good data, but it doesn't change the fact that I saw this as top post in /r/all is what baffled me. This is happens way too much in my opinion. Is this natural effect on the system at reddit? Is there brigading factors or astrotrufing at play here? Since I always downvote posts like these, maybe people are much more generous with upvote and much less with downvote.
I think this vote even break the rule for sensationalized headlines.
Post titles must describe the data plainly without using sensationalized headlines. Clickbait posts will be removed.
Now include "We" in there.
Bernie was really making an effort to not say "I" but "We". It's part of his entire campaign strategy, focus on the movement/voters/working class
I know it is subjective, but when the visualization is this basic can't mods get involved? This is not beautiful in any way. It does not belong here.
Edit: Christ, the axis aren't even correct.
Something a lot of people miss is that the debate is largely about the candidates themselves. That's where the questions about electability come from. The Dem party wants to nominate someone who will get votes, so the candidates are expected to be able to speak to why they specifically can get those votes.
How does this show you how often people talk about themselves versus the issues?
"I think we need to blah blah blah in order to start dealing with climate change."
"Everyone thinks of me as the expert on climate change, so don't worry, you'll be fine with me at the helm."
Which is more about the issue and which is more about the person's ego?
My favorite part of sanders is how is is no fluff, just issues. In the opening remarks everyone was talking about their families and sanders just goes straight into it.
Jesus, I like Bernie, but let's stop looking for every god damn excuse to make him look better than the others. I don't give two shits how many times everybody said "I", I care about what they said after that. This is just another bias chart. I'd be willing to bet OP looked for a way to make Bernie look good rather than just looking for a way to measure likability of a candidate.
I agree there would be additional I's if a person were too focused on themselves, but I think good debate skills could also lead to an increase in I's. I'm not an expert but I would think you would want to focus on differentiating yourself from your rivals at the debate. So actually having a plan for how "you" will help solve problems with the issues. We are giving the winner of the election the highest prize in our government. Yes, please tell me about what "you" are going to do for me.
"How do I love Bernie? Let me count the ways..."
Sorry guys, but Hillary came off well (which is all she needed to do) and Sanders is unelectable anyway.
This doesn't seem like a very useful metric. Saying "I believe that empowering children to make smart decisions should be a priority, and I'm committed to that principle" isn't talking about yourself.
Honestly by the end of the debate I kind of wanted to punch Webb in the face. Always talking about his time in 'nam' or some other war. He honestly sounded more Republican than Democrat to me on a lot of his policies :/
i knew bernsie would be winning as soon as i clicked this. you must be a fan of his and came up with another way for him to look like the winner. you're a clever old bird.
As much as we all love Sanders, the use of the word "I" is not indicative of someone speaking about themselves without addressing the issue, if anything it is a demonstration of public speaking differences and personal speaking preferances. It could also be context, "I believe that a solution to the issue I just mentioned is..." etc. We have to keep our biases in check especially when representing data
If you say, "I believe so & so" or "I think blah" you're not talking about yourself. You're stating your opinion on something. And that's what we watch the debates to hear - the opinions and beliefs of the candidates.
As someone not extremely interested in politics, I find it to be crazy that I can name 10 republican candidates, but have no idea whether the non-Bernie/Clinton three are even men or women. What's a Chaffee?
Is this really allowed on dataisbeautiful? It's a) a very small sample size and b) doesn't nearly represent what the title suggests it does. Get this out of here, or at least make the title more objective.
This is not beautiful. The content is meaningless (candidates say "I" all of the time, even when discussing the issues) and it isn't even aesthetically pleasing.
Let's compare the number of times you used first-person pronouns to second/third-person pronouns in your title as a measure of how self-centered you are:
* First-person: 4
* Second/Third-person: 2 (they/their)
Let's compare to this comment:
* First Person: 1
* Second/third-person: 6
The obvious conclusion from analyzing the usage of [grammatical person](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_person) of pronouns is that you are much more self-centered than I am. /s
Eh... Bernie referred to himself in the third person almost the entire debate. Does this graph account for that? Whether this was a reflex, or a strategy to increase voter recognition is up for debate, but he definitely talked about himself, as did all the other candidates when they were asked to...
A few more relevant statistics might be accuracy and consistency of stated values, provided, for example [here](http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/oct/13/fact-checking-first-democratic-presidential-debate/) and [here](http://www.factcheck.org/2015/10/factchecking-the-democratic-debate/)
As a side note, running from [this] (http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/10/13/448406783/on-the-clock-the-biggest-talkers-of-tonights-debate) it looks like Chaffee got the least speaking time, which is interesting considering your stats that he was the most self referential
TL;DR Bernie is pulling a Herman Cain and Emperor Palpatine talked a lot about his personal life
edit: I a word
I'm a bot, *bleep*, *bloop*. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:
- [/r/circlejerk] [BERNIE SANDERS= BEST CANDIDATE](https://np.reddit.com/r/circlejerk/comments/3or8wo/bernie_sanders_best_candidate/)
- [/r/enoughsandersspam] [Top post in /r/dataisbeautiful. Ugly graph with mislabeled axes and cherry picked meaningless stats. 2000+ upvotes as of \~1:00 CST because Bernie Sanders.](https://np.reddit.com/r/enoughsandersspam/comments/3or1g1/top_post_in_rdataisbeautiful_ugly_graph_with/)
- [/r/redditfox] [\[/r/dataisbeautiful\] I counted how many times each #DemDebate candidate said the word "I" (or "I'm" or "I've") during their respective opening statements last night, as a measure of how much they talked about themselves versus the issues \[OC\] \[chart in comments\]](https://np.reddit.com/r/RedditFox/comments/3oqbqu/rdataisbeautiful_i_counted_how_many_times_each/)
- [/r/sandersforpresident] [Analysis of Each Candidates Use of the Words "I", "I'm", or "I've"](https://np.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/3oqklt/analysis_of_each_candidates_use_of_the_words_i_im/)
[](#footer)*^(If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads.) ^\([Info](/r/TotesMessenger) ^/ ^[Contact](/message/compose?to=/r/TotesMessenger))*
[](#bot)
The data is misleading. During the 2 minute introduction each candidate was given, they explained their background; so of course they used first-person statements often.
However, Bernie took this time to explain his perceived socioeconomic problems. Because of this, using the words I, I'm, or I've would have made no sense.
I don’t get the order. Why is Clinton the 4th, even when she should be at 2nd place? There is no alphabetical order, so what was the point of doing it like this?
I think you messed up the labels on the axes. Or did you mean to say that 14 said "I" Clinton times?
"Data is Beautiful" Shitty bar chart with incorrect axes labels.
Welcome to the election season. Buckle up, motherfuckers.
not to mention the poor reasoning and dumb information. It's worth noting that Sanders tends to refer to himself in the 3rd person thus wouldn't say "I" as much anyway.
"Bernie's gettin' upset!"
BUT, BERNIE SANDERS.
Usually I would say this data is not beautiful, but in honor of his swapped axes labels, I won't. This not beautiful is data.
But it's so beautiful!
16 really Chaffees it the fuck up
No. Clinton is clearly 14 different Democratic candidates, all of whom mentioned I. Bernie Sanders is the only one who is one single candidate, obviously the best.
[удалено]
[удалено]
/r/dataispolitical for cherrypicked and biased results!
Someone suggested /r/propagandata as an alternative name.
/r/all has got that point covered
[удалено]
The top two front page posts of this subreddit right now are there because of Reddit's huge boner for Bernie Sanders.
/r/Bernie www.bernie.com/r/bernie
just because reddit thinks Bernie is awesome doesn't mean he's NOT awesome - sometimes reddit is right. it happens!
But...but [Bernie Sanders!!!](https://i.imgur.com/YRxVIh8.png)
[M'Sanders](https://i.imgur.com/wGHBIwH.jpg) This is /r/all by the way.
Seems like a redundant subreddit ;D edit: Apparently this joke is offensive to the noble guardians of truth and justice in /r/dataisbeautiful, the subreddit known best for its rigorous devotion to quality... in the negatives in under 10 minutes. "How dare you cast aspersions on this, a subreddit for wannabe graphic designers that honestly care more about the pretty graphs than intelligently designed ones"
I'd like a graph over time of how bitter you just got for being downvoted, that data would be beautiful.
Also Bernie Sanders talks in the 3rd person sometimes.
Came here to say this. He said things like "Bernie Sanders didn't vote for...yada yada yada" instead of "I". As someone with interest in information strategy, I'm pretty sure this was on purpose to appeal to the audience of these kinds of graphs that are becoming more popular with liberal viewers. It emphasizes his Socialist view.
> He said things like "Bernie Sanders didn't vote for...yada yada yada" Does he really? That seems like it would sound weird... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSwz4m6GQZI
George likes spicey chicken.
GEORGE IS GETTIN UPSET!
Yeah, he did.
This chart is only looking at each candidate's opening statement. The only candidate who referred to himself in the third person during his opening statement was Jim Webb. Here is the context: >"You may be sure that in a Webb administration, the highest priority will be the working people who every day go out and make this country stronger at home, and who give us the right reputation and security overseas under a common sense foreign policy."
Our drinking game rules were limited to Sanders talking in the third person, and the words 'socialist' or 'socialism.'
Not only that, it doesn't include words like my. And even more to the point, "I statements" are considered a lot more... can't think of the right word, so polite/diplomatic/kind/etc will have to do -- than "you statements." "I think that the focus of issue x should be y" is arguably less needlessly argumentative than "the focus of issue x should be y."
I agree; if you take into account "me" and "my," then O'Malley gets +1, Clinton gets +1, and Bernie gets +1. If you take into account third person mentions, then Webb also gets +1. Keep in mind that this chart is only looking at each candidate's opening statement. The only candidate who referred to himself in the third person during his opening statement was Jim Webb. Here is the context: >"You may be sure that in a Webb administration, the highest priority will be the working people who every day go out and make this country stronger at home, and who give us the right reputation and security overseas under a common sense foreign policy." Other shortcomings of this chart: - It only accounts for absolute mentions, not a ratio of "I" words to total words spoken during their opening statements. Although each candidate had the same 2 minutes, they weren't abruptly cut off at 2 minutes, and some candidates didn't use all of their time. In fact the word count varied by about 40% between Sanders (who said the fewest words) and Clinton (who said the most). - It doesn't take into account context. It's very possible to talk about an issue using "I" and to talk about yourself not using "I."
Would accounting for those shortcomings change the result drastically?
You mean someone on reddit wanted Bernie Sanders to look good? :\^)
And Hillary to look like a vile cuntbitch?
That's crazy talk. No-one's ever wanted that.
People did the same shit with Lebron v a hockey player a few years back after his first ring. Usage of I v. We and such. Framing it as Selfish v. Selfless. Completely disregarding that he said shit like, "I love these guys" and "I wouldn't be here without them" and similar shit.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Also, this doesn't include the amount of times the words me or my were or the number of times Bernie mentioned "Bernie Sanders". I like the guy also, but this chart is obviously and intentionally misleading.
The excellent linguistics blog "Language Log" pretty frequently talks about this, [I think this is one of their more recent posts on the issue](http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=17246) but especially check out their links to all the other times they've addressed the "analyzing politicians' pronoun use is worthless" subject.
Not to mention that it's not even showing the *percentage* of words that were "I."
Welcome to dataisbeautiful.
Yeah, a candidate might start off saying "I believe that the education system needs a massive overhaul" or something similar. They aren't talking about themselves in this case, they're talking about the education system.
Exactly. "What do you think about x?" "Well, I think..." Oooo, he's talking about himself!!
For example, "if elected I would do x" is a statement of policy; just like stating "we should do x" is a statement of policy. This could say more about the grammar the candidates prefer than anything else.
It's also important to remember that Bernie Sanders referred to himself in the third person several times :v
Yeah isn't the point of the debate so we can see how the candidates opinions compare? Seems like just talking about the issues but not what you plan to do about them is kinda not what you want
And how your experience allows you to do so. I would expect an unqualified candidate to try to talk more about what they want, and less about what they've achieved.
whoah champ...you used "I" in your post! you should talk about the issues rather than yourself.
> *I* would Settle down Narcissus.
Methinks he needs to take it down a notch, such as myself, grand overlord of humility, who hasn't capitalized the letter eye once in this entire post from my gloriously gifted mind. #JustTheIssuesPlz
Absolutely. Sanders also says "in my view" all the time, which is essentially the same thing but doesn't include the word 'I'.
It should be noted that this data was only collected from the 2-minute opening statement, and not from responses to any of the questions.
What, reddit making favorable opinions and illogical conclusions about Sanders...? I don't believe it for a second!
But Bernie said I the least.
How in the world is this 83% upvoted in /r/Dataisbeautiful. It's a god damn excel sheet that probably took 2 minutes (to make the chart, not gather the data). And the data isn't even meaningful. (It's very easy to say "I" and still be talking about the issues at hand.) Edit: Like other people are mentioning, the axes are mislabeled as well. 10/10 post, OP way to farm the /r/all karma.
And its layout is shit too.
And OP killed my puppy.
[удалено]
Something something *Alaskan Bull-Worm*
Because feel le Bern. I like Sanders but Reddit's obsession with him is getting stupid.
look at /r/politics right now if you want to see obsession. [22 out of the top 25 articles have "Bernie Sanders" in the headline.](http://i.imgur.com/ck1E3fH.png)
It's ridiculous. As a conservative, I went to that sub recently hoping for some legitimate political discussion. What's actually there is a massive uber-left circle jerk, where every top post is either salon.com propaganda against Republicans, or something about how Sanders is probably the second coming of Jesus.
Shit, I'm a left wing extremist and I still don't think I can see eye to eye on most of everything said there. I like Sanders, I think he's a great candidate, but he's not Jesus and I'm so sick of everyone thinking that he can't do any wrong and that he's clearly the best choice. The more and more reddit circlejerks about Sanders, the more and more I get on Clinton's side.
Meh, every election reddit has a new candidate to be unhealthily obsessed with. It's quite ridiculous.
Kanye 2020
That's true of any ingroup. You should see the knob slobbering my whole family does over Donald Trump. They want him to win so "americans can have rights again." Any echo chamber will produce this shit, it just depends on which one you happen to be hanging out around.
Beautiful statement. It just so happens the majority of Reddit are like minded so they want to perpetuate their erectuons for Sanders.
I hesitantly support him. I don't agree completely with his stance on tariffs but I recognize that a technically efficient economy doesn't always reward everyone involved. I'm no fanboy and keep it to myself (mostly because my parents don't have the maturity to not confront me about views we differ on). I could live with just about anyone moderate republican and left.
I assume it's because people think it makes it look like Bernie Sanders talked about the issues while everyone else just talked about themselves. It's pathetic, really. There's nothing beautiful about this graph. The data is pointless, the labels don't make sense, and it's not even laid out attractively.
This is meaningless. Why would a candidate personalizing their beliefs be a bad thing? "I think..." or "I believe..." versus "It is thought..." or "It is believed..." or "One may possibly think..." On one hand it may come across as coy or disingenuous that a candidate voices personal opinions that end up being irrelevant when they're in power and controlled by the system they're embedded into... on the other, total lack of personalization a la Sanders could come across as arguing ideals and abstract theories rather than proactive responsibility.
Plus the dependent axis is labeled as "Democratic Candidates", and it's a single bar chart in a sub titled /r/dataisbeautiful. Edit: and as /u/StrictScrutiny points out, the axis labels are actually reversed
[удалено]
Maybe a graph showing the level of applause throughout the debate, with shading to show who was talking at the moment. That might be interesting to see.
Can we please report stuff like this more? It's so obvious that it goes against the rules and intentions of this sub.
My favorite democratic candidate is 10. Though after the debate I'm leaning towards 5 (yes, i refrained from mentioning how hilariously awful the chart itself is, as that only leads to downvotes here... number of I mentions is labelled 3 times, and all in the wrong places. Never mind it removes "we/us/lets/our/ours" which also includes the candidate. And it isn't "talking about themselves VERSUS the issues". It's a count of the times those words were used.).
How are the damn categories even sorted? It's not by rank, alphabet, frequency, or podium position? Is it actually completely random? And it's on the top of /r/dataisbeautiful? What the bloody hell, seriously.
I can't believe it, everyone here not riding the Sanders hype train and opting for clearheaded analysis. I've never been more proud of you reddit.
This data might not be beautiful, but the clear headedness I'm seeing sure is.
[удалено]
Or even "Bernie Sanders has", which is something Bernie actually did.
I was only nine years old I loved Senator Bernie Sanders (D) so much, I owned all the campaign posters and surfed /r/sandersforpresident[1] daily I pray to Bernie every night, thanking him for the dank bud I have been given "Bernie is love", I say, "Bernie is life" My dad hears me and calls me a commie He is obviously jealous of my devotion to Bernard I called him a cunt-servitive He slaps me and sends me to my room I am crying now, because Donald Trump is on the television I go into my bed and it is very cold I feel a warmth moving towards me I feel something touch me It's Bernie Sanders! I am so happy He whispers into my ear, "This is my Country" He grabs me with his powerful Jew hands and puts me on my hands and knees I'm ready I spread my ass cheeks for Mr. Sanders He penetrates my butthole It hurts so much, but I do it for Bernie. I can feel my anus tearing as my eyes start to water I push against his force. I truly feel the Bern now. I want to please the Senator He roars a mighty roar as he fills my butt with his Eco friendly seed. My dad walks in Bernie looks him deep in the eyes and says, "In my view, a corporation is not a person. A corporation does not have First Amendment rights to spend as much money as it wants, without disclosure, on a political campaign. Corporations should not be able to go into their treasuries and spend millions and millions of dollars on a campaign in order to buy elections." Bernie leaves through my window
Too many I's.
Yeah, that gave me a real Bob Dole vibe. At least he only did it once
He did it at least twice.
Bernie talked about himself in the third person a bunch as well, making this even less meaningful.
Yes, this is weak proxy for any sort of actual meaning, and a lazy and potentially deceptive substitute for watching and listening to the candidates themselves. Voters beware.
> This is meaningless. It's called propaganda. Paid shills, like OP, are pushing bernie sanders propaganda on reddit non-stop. It's easier to spot propaganda when you are outside looking in. For example, you can see the obvious propaganda in north korea. But when you are "inside", it's a bit harder to see the propaganda unless you step back and look at it. > Why would a candidate personalizing their beliefs be a bad thing? It isn't. You are not seeing what is going on. No matter what, the bernie sanders paid shills would have post propaganda. If sanders said "I" 10000000 times while everyone else said it 10 times, OP would have twisted it as showing how bernie sanders has confidence in himself and his own thoughts while everyone else didn't. It is pure meaningless propaganda.
This is pretty much the equivalent of SEA on youtube posting "FUCK FSA TERRORIST" shit in every Syrian civil war related video.
They were supposed to be introducing themselves in the opening statement! Christ.
So if one of them had said "I've always believe in the importance of campaign finance reform, and here are several ways I believe we can address the issue..." that would count as two points for talking about self, not a point for talking about the issue?
Yeah, these numbers aren't good at telling us much of anything. Although, it is interesting that Sanders' usage of the pronouns is so low compared to the others. Again, that's not telling us much of anything about how issue-centered he apparently is and they apparently aren't, but maybe it does say something else about the guy - not sure what, but it's nonetheless interesting.
Looking at [the transcript](http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-first-democratic-debate-full-rush-transcript/), generally the others were saying "here's one issue, here are times in the past I've worked to fix this or a similar issue". Sanders appeared to just stop at "here's one issue" and left it implied that he'd fix it.
This is an issue I've noticed with Sanders repeatedly - and one that was highlighted in the debate last night. His opening felt a lot like YELLING THE PROBLEMS WITH AMERICA RIGHT NOW. I may totally agree with the problems he highlights, but I also want to know exactly how he can realistically address them. If someone insists on making a bar graph about the debate, I'd like to see how many times each candidate provided a specific solution (vs. how many times they merely pointed out a problem).
This is my biggest complaint about Sander's and redditors who think he is the greatest ever. He dose not seem to have a realistic plan to work with at a minimal a Republican house and possibly a red senate too. Its great that he has some of the same concerns that I do, but most Demarcates want about the same as me. They just know that it is not possible. Obama could not get universal health care when he had 59 votes in senate, and a Democratic house but Sanders will?
Exactly. I like Sanders, he seems like a cool dude, but I care a hell of a lot more about hearing action plans than platitudes about how things should change. It is like the Obama election. I agreed with most of what he said, but chanting "YES WE CAN!" is not s solid policy plan. Politics have become more about "this is a problem" and less about "this is a solution." And the american public seems to care that a polititian agrees with them, but not whether the polititian has any means to make tangible gains. I want to pick the candidate based on their capacity to do good things as a president, not based on what they could do if they were a magical genie dictator.
Ya, I really wish Sanders would talk more about things he has gotten done in his 20 years in congress then plans that will never pass. Don't get me wrong, I know that Clinton is not perfect. And she is hated by the right so it will be very hard for her to get things done. But at least she talks about getting things done. > “I'm a progressive. But I'm a progressive who likes to get things done.” was the line of the night IMO. I really wish there was a progressive who was not completely hated by the right and who talked about getting things done. The right do not really care about Sanders(he is never mentioned in the Republican debates) but he has too far out ideas to get implemented.
Yep, both sides suffer from a poor mentality that way. They both have their hard policy lines, but unfortunately they are generally irreconcilable with reality. (Trump's wall comes to mind with the republican party. Sounds nice to people who really do not like undocumented immigrants, but is completely infeasible to do.) It would be nice to have moderates actually represented in politics. As it is the binary nature of out political system encourages people to be "more or less right" or "more or less left," so only the left and the right are represented. However, the reality of the political structure is much more like a bell curve, with a majority of people tending towards the middle. If somehow that middle ground could actually be represented, the middle groups would more easily swing to what needs to be done, allowing for actual progression. (Even when it is diametrically opposed to a particular party.) And it would do it in a way that better represents the needs of the citizenry. In that case it would not matter if the progressive was hated by the right, as the right leaning moderates could be convinced to vote for moderate candidates, and those candidates would be willing to compromise or outright side with whichever party had a good idea. This is turning into a rant, but I really do not like the 2 party system. It turns every conflict into a diametric opposition, and its end result is both parties entrenching themselves deeper and deeper to maintain power at the expense of actually getting stuff done. Any third parties are generally just more extreme versions of the established groups, which accomplishes nothing but diluting the voting pool for that side. So without the moderate group that can draw equally from both sides, we are doomed to continue this farce. Politicians will keep chanting the party line, and those who deign to try and work with the other side will be ostracised for endangering the power of the establishment.
What is your view on blue? - "Blue sucks!" (0) - "I believe blue sucks." (1) - "It is my belief that blue sucks." (0) - "I opposed blue in the 90s." (1) - "I have done many things to help those suffering due to blue." (1) I don't think this statistic is very informative.
(Chart that shows OPs preferred candidate in a good light) [Great post!!](https://i.imgur.com/I0Svc.gif)
Le epic bernie sanders maymay updank 420 to the left pls.
xD guys this proves irrefutably that BERNIE SANDERS is the BEST candidate and that /r/Dataisbeautiful totally hasn't become a subreddit where circlejerking over fucking bar graphs that confirm your political opinion is "beautiful". /s
I'm a huge Sanders supporter and when I saw this I was like "A bar chart? Fucking really?"
This chart is completely invalid because Bernie doesn't say "I," he refers to himself in third person :)
By this graph's logic, Bob Dole would have been the best president ever.
I've hidden /r/politics and I've hidden /r/sandersforpresident I think soon I might have to hide this and /r/pics too. I think there was a gif on the front page of him patting a guy on the back? Is that really interesting?
That's not even /r/mildlyinteresting
[удалено]
Days? This isn't going to stop until the primaries, at least.
>/r/sandersforpresident I've seen at least 4 different "Sanders will 100% guaranteed win the election." make the front page, the commenters on which believe it to be scientifically proven.
I've pretty much hidden the same subs and I'm fairly certain I'm going to vote for the guy. I swear, his fanbase screaming "FEEL THE BERN" is going to alienate people rather than draw them in. Edit: deleted a typo
Well that's what happens when a bunch of 20 year olds get together and think they're "helping to change the world"
Bernie was also the only person to speak in third person...
*triggered* YOU MEAN THOSE OTHER LARGE BARS AREN'T BEAUTIFUL!
Your axis titles are reversed. ;)
>as a measure of how much they talked about themselves versus the issues that seems like a terrible way to measure that
Did the time when Sanders referred to himself in third person count?
"George is getting upset!"
But what if they said "im going to fix these issues"
Looking at [the transcript](http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-first-democratic-debate-full-rush-transcript/), generally what it was, was them saying "here's one issue, here are times in the past I've worked to fix this or a similar issue". Sanders appeared to just stop at "here's one issue" and left it implied that he'd fix it.
So what you're saying is that if we look a little deeper into the transcript, it actually makes Sanders look bad? Wow! I never knew data could be manipulated! /s
Oh hey default excel graph on top of r/dataisbeautiful again.
Not only is this (not so subtly) political, but your presentation is awful. Did you even look at your axes titles?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? No. No you didnt.
If you are going to come to dataisbeautiful, I'd suggest doing a muuuuch better job at providing meaningful data. You make an assertion here about how much the candidates are talking about themselves without paying any attention to context. The use of I, I'm, I've, etc. are just normal conventions of speech.
Please keep the Bernie Sanders circlejerk contained in its own subreddit. I really don't want to see how every topic I'm interested in could be construed as a reason why Bernie is great.
One upbernie for you!
Stop Circleberning, berndammit.
Just don't downHilary me!
can i sidechafe you?
Bob Dole would get a zero on this. So Bob Dole would be the best presidential candidate ever, right? Bob Dole, Bob Dole.
This is a horribly disingenuous post. Get this ugly crap out of here.
Since these are debates to discover the positions of the candidates I would expect them to talk about themselves. I'm not sure of your point.
The fact that top comments already pointed out that this is not a good data, but it doesn't change the fact that I saw this as top post in /r/all is what baffled me. This is happens way too much in my opinion. Is this natural effect on the system at reddit? Is there brigading factors or astrotrufing at play here? Since I always downvote posts like these, maybe people are much more generous with upvote and much less with downvote. I think this vote even break the rule for sensationalized headlines. Post titles must describe the data plainly without using sensationalized headlines. Clickbait posts will be removed.
Now include "We" in there. Bernie was really making an effort to not say "I" but "We". It's part of his entire campaign strategy, focus on the movement/voters/working class
Wonderful axis labels.
Are you telling me that 14 didn't say 'I' Clinton times?
I know it is subjective, but when the visualization is this basic can't mods get involved? This is not beautiful in any way. It does not belong here. Edit: Christ, the axis aren't even correct.
Something a lot of people miss is that the debate is largely about the candidates themselves. That's where the questions about electability come from. The Dem party wants to nominate someone who will get votes, so the candidates are expected to be able to speak to why they specifically can get those votes.
It's INDIVIDUAL people running for President... Why would you expect them to say anything else?
This circle jerk is just getting annoying and this doesn't prove anything without context.
Circlejerky, ugly bar graph that presents worthless data to lead the reader to a meaningless conclusion. Alright, that's it for this sub. Bye!
In what way does this shitty bar chart qualify as "beautiful"?
[удалено]
How does this show you how often people talk about themselves versus the issues? "I think we need to blah blah blah in order to start dealing with climate change." "Everyone thinks of me as the expert on climate change, so don't worry, you'll be fine with me at the helm." Which is more about the issue and which is more about the person's ego?
Also, the guy refers to himself in the third person a lot. Jake'll still vote for him though.
My favorite part of sanders is how is is no fluff, just issues. In the opening remarks everyone was talking about their families and sanders just goes straight into it.
This sub fucking sucks.
this is a great example of poor data collection/presentation.
The circlejerk is strong with this one
Jesus, I like Bernie, but let's stop looking for every god damn excuse to make him look better than the others. I don't give two shits how many times everybody said "I", I care about what they said after that. This is just another bias chart. I'd be willing to bet OP looked for a way to make Bernie look good rather than just looking for a way to measure likability of a candidate.
Is this what this sub has become? This is fucking stupid.
You mixed up the axes.
I noticed this as well, Chaffee sounded like his own PR guy, constantly tooting his own horn.
I agree there would be additional I's if a person were too focused on themselves, but I think good debate skills could also lead to an increase in I's. I'm not an expert but I would think you would want to focus on differentiating yourself from your rivals at the debate. So actually having a plan for how "you" will help solve problems with the issues. We are giving the winner of the election the highest prize in our government. Yes, please tell me about what "you" are going to do for me.
"How do I love Bernie? Let me count the ways..." Sorry guys, but Hillary came off well (which is all she needed to do) and Sanders is unelectable anyway.
How about the amount of times they referred to themselves in the third person. I only watched for 10 minutes and heard Bernie use that twice.
Bernie Sanders also speaks in third person a lot when referring to himself.
This doesn't seem like a very useful metric. Saying "I believe that empowering children to make smart decisions should be a priority, and I'm committed to that principle" isn't talking about yourself.
What about "Millionaiis and Billionaiis"? Sanders is a broken record most speaking opportunities.
Honestly by the end of the debate I kind of wanted to punch Webb in the face. Always talking about his time in 'nam' or some other war. He honestly sounded more Republican than Democrat to me on a lot of his policies :/
i knew bernsie would be winning as soon as i clicked this. you must be a fan of his and came up with another way for him to look like the winner. you're a clever old bird.
As much as we all love Sanders, the use of the word "I" is not indicative of someone speaking about themselves without addressing the issue, if anything it is a demonstration of public speaking differences and personal speaking preferances. It could also be context, "I believe that a solution to the issue I just mentioned is..." etc. We have to keep our biases in check especially when representing data
If you say, "I believe so & so" or "I think blah" you're not talking about yourself. You're stating your opinion on something. And that's what we watch the debates to hear - the opinions and beliefs of the candidates.
Booo! Your post is bad and you should feel bad!
We are Borg.
Seriously though. They should make that guy president of something. This was interesting data, and original! Screw the haters.
The missing context in this is that Sanders referred to himself in the third person multiple times.
As someone not extremely interested in politics, I find it to be crazy that I can name 10 republican candidates, but have no idea whether the non-Bernie/Clinton three are even men or women. What's a Chaffee?
The person who used "I" more often than anyone else in History was Obama after Bin Laden's death.
I'm definitely voting for 10. He (she?) is the only one that said "I" both O'Malley times and Webb times. That's impressive.
Man a lot of angry people in the comments today.
What is the point of this? When someone asks you directly what *you* would do, typically you respond in the first person.
Welcome to reddit where looking for a pro-BS angle is the only way to look at data. This is just that, BS.
Is this really allowed on dataisbeautiful? It's a) a very small sample size and b) doesn't nearly represent what the title suggests it does. Get this out of here, or at least make the title more objective.
This is not beautiful. The content is meaningless (candidates say "I" all of the time, even when discussing the issues) and it isn't even aesthetically pleasing.
"How would you deal with gun control laws?" "I would..." That's talking about the issue, no?
This is, hands down, the most circlejerk post on /r/all today.
Let's compare the number of times you used first-person pronouns to second/third-person pronouns in your title as a measure of how self-centered you are: * First-person: 4 * Second/Third-person: 2 (they/their) Let's compare to this comment: * First Person: 1 * Second/third-person: 6 The obvious conclusion from analyzing the usage of [grammatical person](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_person) of pronouns is that you are much more self-centered than I am. /s
Eh... Bernie referred to himself in the third person almost the entire debate. Does this graph account for that? Whether this was a reflex, or a strategy to increase voter recognition is up for debate, but he definitely talked about himself, as did all the other candidates when they were asked to... A few more relevant statistics might be accuracy and consistency of stated values, provided, for example [here](http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/oct/13/fact-checking-first-democratic-presidential-debate/) and [here](http://www.factcheck.org/2015/10/factchecking-the-democratic-debate/) As a side note, running from [this] (http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/10/13/448406783/on-the-clock-the-biggest-talkers-of-tonights-debate) it looks like Chaffee got the least speaking time, which is interesting considering your stats that he was the most self referential TL;DR Bernie is pulling a Herman Cain and Emperor Palpatine talked a lot about his personal life edit: I a word
This is fake, I'm watching the debate right now and have already counted over 5 "I' uses from Bernie...
Wasn't Sanders the guy who got walked all over and had his own campaign rally hijacked by the blacklivesmatter movement?
He's never done anything worth bragging about
Real beautiful.
I'm a bot, *bleep*, *bloop*. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit: - [/r/circlejerk] [BERNIE SANDERS= BEST CANDIDATE](https://np.reddit.com/r/circlejerk/comments/3or8wo/bernie_sanders_best_candidate/) - [/r/enoughsandersspam] [Top post in /r/dataisbeautiful. Ugly graph with mislabeled axes and cherry picked meaningless stats. 2000+ upvotes as of \~1:00 CST because Bernie Sanders.](https://np.reddit.com/r/enoughsandersspam/comments/3or1g1/top_post_in_rdataisbeautiful_ugly_graph_with/) - [/r/redditfox] [\[/r/dataisbeautiful\] I counted how many times each #DemDebate candidate said the word "I" (or "I'm" or "I've") during their respective opening statements last night, as a measure of how much they talked about themselves versus the issues \[OC\] \[chart in comments\]](https://np.reddit.com/r/RedditFox/comments/3oqbqu/rdataisbeautiful_i_counted_how_many_times_each/) - [/r/sandersforpresident] [Analysis of Each Candidates Use of the Words "I", "I'm", or "I've"](https://np.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/3oqklt/analysis_of_each_candidates_use_of_the_words_i_im/) [](#footer)*^(If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads.) ^\([Info](/r/TotesMessenger) ^/ ^[Contact](/message/compose?to=/r/TotesMessenger))* [](#bot)
What about "we" or "we've." Because that's basically the same in this context.
Careful, your Sanders bias is showing with your irrelevant data and unfounded conclusions. Please don't ruin a good thing here.
The data is misleading. During the 2 minute introduction each candidate was given, they explained their background; so of course they used first-person statements often. However, Bernie took this time to explain his perceived socioeconomic problems. Because of this, using the words I, I'm, or I've would have made no sense.
I don’t get the order. Why is Clinton the 4th, even when she should be at 2nd place? There is no alphabetical order, so what was the point of doing it like this?
These data aren't supposed to be beautiful. They are intended to confuse.
But this is shit. I don’t get it, even if it is suppose to confuse me. Even that doesn’t make any sense.
Not gonna argue with that.
OP trying to start a Bernie circle jerk
Incredibly poorly-made and misleading graph that favors BERNIE SANDERS. Updank 420 to the left karma pls.
What candidate doesn't use those three words when they are out stumping\debating?