nytimes political debates

27 December 2007

nyt_naming_names_4.gif

a visualization of the political debates in the U.S. elections. each line represents a reference from one candidate to another, while the length of each circle segment represents the total words spoken by each candidate during the debates.

one interesting pattern are candidates who are only referred to within-party versus those who are mentioned by the opposing party.

[link: nytimes.com|via visualmethods.blogspot.com]

see also: Matthew Ericson InfoVis keynote, state of the union infographics & visual poetry 2006.

add to delicious.gif add to digg

aesthetic & infographic & news & text . comments (9)

recent entries

emotionally vague survey results 2008 presidential election in the blogosphere distributions of sport world records TerraForm people-based infographic movie subway map bathroom tiling Mycrocosm personal data graph portal Fleshmap crowdsourcing sex physical information sculptures Ben Shneiderman as interface to infovis visual poetry 2007 & 2008 wireless wifi strength heatmap debategraph debate maps John Lennon interview infographic movie analogue eco-visualization

extra

nyt_naming_names_3.gif

nyt_naming_names_2.gif

nyt_naming_names_1.gif

comments

The graphic was also paired with a second set of charts showing the words used in the debates.


j . 28 December 2007

thanks, j.
sorry I missed that!

fofoda . 28 December 2007

Where's Dr. Ron Paul in all this? He's a Republican candidate, and I think he spends more time talking about issues than his opponents, same as Hillary Clinton.

Burton Kent . 29 December 2007

If only they supplied historical versions from the most recent presidential elections. it would be intriguing to see whether there are any correlations b/w the nyt "metrics" and election results. I would guess not, b/c it's all a PR endeavor and speeches don't reflect that (at least directly).

g . 31 December 2007

My December 18 blog take on these visualizations is at http://intelligententerprise.com/blog/archives/2007/12/campaign_visual.html
and I cover some other campaign visualizations at http://www.intelligententerprise.com/blog/archives/2007/12/campaign_visual_1.html

Seth Grimes . 3 January 2008

I really loved this graphic when I first saw it but then I tried to work out something meaningful that it was representing and failed.

Comparing cross-party and intra-party comments is one possibility but surely something simpler (like a bar chart!) would show that better.

It is still pretty though.

Nigel Eccles . 3 January 2008

Re: Nigels comments

Something meaningful? You don't find it interesting to see who is engaging, namechecking or ignoring who in debates?

I think it is fascinating. Perhaps they could have qualified these references somehow? For the record I love this mapping of "very small scale offline conversations" ;)

Greg J. Smith . 11 January 2008

I really loved this graphic when I first saw it but then I tried to work out something meaningful that it was representing and failed.

Comparing cross-party and intra-party comments is one possibility but surely something simpler (like a bar chart!) would show that better.

It is still pretty though.

搬家公司 . 8 April 2008

I completely agree with all that here is told

Rapidshare . 8 April 2008

shop

post a comment