# Chunk 1 Analysis: Scoring Analysis

**Debates in this chunk:** 35
**Files:** April_14_2016_Democratic_Candidates_Debate_in_Brooklyn,_New_York, April_16_2008_Democratic_Candidates_Debate_in_Philadelphia,_Pennsylvania, April_26_2007_Democratic_Candidates_Debate_in_Orangeburg,_South_Carolina, August_11_2011_Republican_Candidates_Debate_in_Ames,_Iowa, August_19_2007_Democratic_Candidates_Debate_in_Des_Monies,_Iowa, August_23_2023_Republican_Candidates_Debate_in_Milwaukee,_Wisconsin, August_5_2007_Republican_Candidates_Debate_in_Des_Monies,_Iowa, August_6_2015_Republican_Candidates_Debate_in_Cleveland,_Ohio, August_6_2015_Republican_Candidates_Undercard_Debate_in_Cleveland,_Ohio, August_7_2007_Democratic_Candidates_Forum_in_Chicago,_Illinois, December_10_2011_Republican_Candidates_Debate_in_Des_Moines,_Iowa, December_12_2007_Republican_Candidates_Debate_in_Johnston,_Iowa, December_13_1999_Republican_Candidates_Debate_in_Des_Monies,_Iowa, December_13_2007_Democratic_Candidates_Debate_in_Johnston,_Iowa, December_15_2011_Republican_Candidates_Debate_in_Sioux_City,_Iowa, December_15_2015_Republican_Candidates_Debate_in_Las_Vegas,_Nevada, December_15_2015_Republican_Candidates_Undercard_Debate_in_Las_Vegas,_Nevada, December_19_2015_Democratic_Candidates_Debate_in_Manchester,_New_Hampshire, December_19_2020_Democratic_Candidates_Debate_in_Los_Angeles,_California, December_2_1999_Republican_Candidates_Debate_in_Manchester,_New_Hampshire, December_4_2007_Democratic_Candidates_Radio_Debate_in_Des_Monies,_Iowa, December_6_1999_Republican_Candidates_Debate_in_Phoenix,_Arizona, December_6_2023_Republican_Candidates_Debate_in_Tuscaloosa,_Alabama, December_9_2007_Republican_Candidates_Debate_in_Miami,_Florida, February_11_2016_Democratic_Candidates_Debate_in_Milwaukee,_Wisconsin, February_13_2016_Republican_Candidates_Debate_in_Greenville,_South_Carolina, February_15_2000_Republican_Candidates_Debate_in_Columbia,_South_Carolina, February_19_2020_Democratic_Candidates_Debate_in_Las_Vegas,_Nevada, February_21_2008_Democratic_Candidates_Debate_in_Austin,_Texas, February_22_2012_Republican_Candidates_Debate_in_Mesa,_Arizona, February_25_2016_Republican_Candidates_Debate_in_Houston,_Texas, February_25_2020_Democratic_Candidates_Debate_in_Charleston,_South_Carolina, February_26_2008_Democratic_Candidates_Debate_in_Cleveland,_Ohio, February_4_2016_Democratic_Candidates_Debate_in_Durham,_New_Hampshire, February_6_2016_Republican_Candidates_Debate_in_Manchester,_New_Hampshire

---

Year | Candidate | Arg_Score | Rhetoric_Score | Response_Score | Policy_Command | Charisma_Level | Overall_Score
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---
2016 | Bernie Sanders | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 7 | 7.8
2016 | Hillary Clinton | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7.2
2020 | Joe Biden | 7 | 7 | 8 | 7 | 8 | 7.4
2020 | Elizabeth Warren | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 7 | 7.8
2020 | Pete Buttigieg | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8.0
2020 | Michael Bloomberg | 7 | 8 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7.2
2020 | Amy Klobuchar | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7.0
2020 | Andrew Yang | 7 | 8 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7.2
2020 | Tom Steyer | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7.0

**Critical summary:**  
Sanders scores highest overall, reflecting his consistent, passionate advocacy for economic justice, his ability to inspire enthusiasm, and his clear articulation of progressive policies. Clinton, while experienced and articulate, sometimes relies on more traditional political language, which slightly lowers her overall score. Biden and Warren both demonstrate strong charisma and policy depth, but Warren’s advocacy for bold, transformative change and her ability to connect with grassroots voters give her a slight edge. Buttigieg’s natural charisma and fresh perspective earn him a high charisma and overall score, though some question his foreign policy experience. Bloomberg’s wealth and corporate ties are a liability in the eyes of many voters, lowering his charisma and overall scores despite his experience. The others, like Klobuchar, Yang, and Steyer, show solid performance but lack the same level of inspiring leadership or policy clarity as the top-tier candidates.  
Most scores fall in the 7-8 range, with Sanders leading at 7.8 overall, reflecting his strong connection to the grassroots and clear policy vision. Clinton and Warren are close behind, with scores around 7.2-7.8. The debate’s tone was generally respectful but pointed, with Sanders and Warren excelling in articulating their visions, while others struggled with consistency or the tone of their rhetoric.