GUEST COLUMN: Adam Tiouririne’s Final Debate Analysis with Bloomberg Politics
Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton doubled down on their strategies in the final presidential debate.
For Trump, that meant fighting fire with fire, according to the final debate analysis in a year-long partnership between Adam Tiouririne of Logos and Bloomberg Politics. Trump has always used lots of emotional language, but also has always been more positive than negative: Politicians are “stupid” and the Iran nuclear deal is “disastrous,” but we’re going to make America “great” again and it will be a “tremendous” “success.” In the final debate, he finally crossed over and used more negative than positive language.
That confirmed Tiouririne’s prediction in his pre-debate preview with Bloomberg, which showed how Trump’s positive and negative language had nearly converged from the primary debates to the first general election debate and the second.
Clinton’s own bad habit — using Me Words like I and my to rebut criticism — also appeared in the final debate, but not enough to alter her standing as frontrunner heading into the final stretch.
For more, check out @Tiouririne on Twitter.
Leave a ReplyWant to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!