Difference between revisions of "Talk:Linguistic Analysis of Candidates"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(reply) |
|||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
: I don't fully follow your criticism. "Pro-life" is part of the test, for example. Perhaps you'd like to look at the first analysis and reconsider or rephrase your criticism. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:48, 12 January 2009 (EST) | : I don't fully follow your criticism. "Pro-life" is part of the test, for example. Perhaps you'd like to look at the first analysis and reconsider or rephrase your criticism. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:48, 12 January 2009 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Shouldn't this be an essay? [[User:Commodore Guff|KevinS]] 21:50, 12 January 2009 (EST) | ||
Revision as of 02:50, January 13, 2009
This is an interesting concept. I see a potential difficulty, though. There are certain concepts which I really don't think you can omit entirely when evaluating conservatism (the right to life, for example, and religious freedom.) However, the trick is in determining which key phrases are most likely to be employed, and thus turn up in searches. After all, a mention of "abortion" in a speech isn't a reliable indicator of conservatism--a rabidly pro-abortion candidate might use the word, as well.
How best to evaluate conservative leanings on these very important issues? --Benp 21:22, 12 January 2009 (EST)
- I don't fully follow your criticism. "Pro-life" is part of the test, for example. Perhaps you'd like to look at the first analysis and reconsider or rephrase your criticism. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly 21:48, 12 January 2009 (EST)
Shouldn't this be an essay? KevinS 21:50, 12 January 2009 (EST)