Top banner ad available.

nyt_naming_names_4.jpg
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.

MORE

nyt_naming_names_3.gif

nyt_naming_names_2.gif

nyt_naming_names_1.gif

9 COMMENTS

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


Fri 28 Dec 2007 at 1:24 AM
j

thanks, j.
sorry I missed that!

Fri 28 Dec 2007 at 10:26 AM

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.

Sat 29 Dec 2007 at 11:57 PM

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).

Mon 31 Dec 2007 at 4:01 AM
g

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

Thu 03 Jan 2008 at 1:52 AM

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.

Thu 03 Jan 2008 at 2:48 AM

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" ;)

Fri 11 Jan 2008 at 4:37 AM

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.

Tue 08 Apr 2008 at 8:56 PM

I completely agree with all that here is told

Tue 08 Apr 2008 at 11:21 PM
ADD A COMMENT
Commenting has been temporarily disabled.