Talk:Linguistic Analysis of Candidates

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)

Not so much a criticism as musing on the most efficient way to go about it, Andy. I don't think anything you've already included needs to change; I just wonder if other terms are also warranted. Pro-life is there (and I did, indeed, overlook that the first time; thank you for pointing it out!) Pro-life is certainly a good term, and one that's only likely to be used by conservatives, but is it sufficient? Would it be worthwhile to include terms like "right to life" as well? What about terms that accurately describe the abortion industry, but which liberals avoid like the plague: "pro-abortion," for instance, or "abortion on demand?"

I suppose what I'm trying to figure out here is where the optimal balance falls between being thorough and getting bogged down in too many redundant terms. Rather than add terms wholesale, I thought I'd seek guidance here first. --Benp 22:20, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Shouldn't this be an essay? KevinS 21:50, 12 January 2009 (EST)