Have you ever wondered what the 2016 presidential candidates are really like? Thanks to a website called Analyze Words, we can plug in every declared and potential presidential candidate and get a personality analysis of their emotional, social and thinking styles — based on their recent tweets, anyway.
To give you someone to compare the candidates with, let's begin with President Obama.
President Barack Obama
Emotionally, Obama scores very high in the upbeat category: 98 out of a possible 100. He must feel optimistic about his final year and a half in office. Obama also comes across as worried but not very angry or depressed. Socially, Obama is personable yet arrogant. His thinking style is analytic and not very sensory.
Bush's most notable trait is his optimism, scoring 75 on the upbeat scale. He's a lot less worried than Obama. Maybe he thinks he has the nomination in the bag. Bush scores very low in the sensory and analytical thinking categories.
Carson scores high on the upbeat scale, while notably low on the worried scale. Socially, he comes across as not spacey or impersonable. One would hope a brain surgeon wouldn't space out at all. His thinking style scores low in all three categories: analytic, sensory and in-the-moment.
Christie scores high on the upbeat scale. He has low scores in the angry and depressed categories, showing how different someone's tweets might be from their perceived personality. Unsurprisingly, he comes across as arrogant and not personable. On thinking style, he scores lowest in the sensory category.
Cruz scores very high on the upbeat scale. He's low in the worried category. This is surprising, since it seems like the public perceives him as a pessimist who's always outraged over Obama's policies. Socially, he comes across as plugged in, but not very personable. His thinking style scores are low in all three categories.
Fiorina is almost as upbeat as Cruz. She is not worried or depressed. Socially, she comes across as plugged in, and her lowest thinking style category is sensory. All this makes sense, given her tech CEO background.
Graham scores incredibly high on the upbeat scale, almost as high as Obama. This is surprising, because he also scores high on being worried and depressed. All of his social scores are average, while his analytic thinking score is above those of most other candidates.
Huckabee has a high upbeat score, while scoring low in the angry category, which may reflect his preaching style. Socially, he comes across as arrogant and impersonable but not very spacey. He scores low in the thinking styles, with sensory the lowest.
Jindal scores very high on the upbeat scale, while scoring low in worry. All his social scores are average. Most of his thinking style categories are low, as is the case with many candidates, but his in-the-moment score is lower than the other categories. Jindal's long-term thinking style aligns with his reputation as a policy wonk.
Kasich scores very high in being upbeat, while scoring low in being worried, angry and depressed. He scores high on being plugged in and spacey. His highest thinking style is sensory, but his scores in all three thinking categories are low. Kasich's speeches typically come across as wonky, so his higher sensory thinking score is unexpected.
Pataki gets a high score in being upbeat, with low scores in anger and depression. That's the type of attitude Pataki will need to get his fledgling campaign off the ground. Socially, he's arrogant and plugged in, with low scores in being personable and spacey. He's very low on the sensory scale, specializing in an in-the-moment thinking style.
Paul scores high on the upbeat and depressed categories, with low scores in worried and angry. Socially, he comes across as impersonable with every other social category above average. His sensory thinking scale is one of the lowest among the candidates. Many libertarians seem like analytical thinkers, so it's not surprising to see Paul with a low sensory thinking score.
Perry scores high in the upbeat category, with a very low score in worry. He does not come across as personable, with a thinking style that is very low in analysis and sensory thinking. That might explain his memory issues.
Rubio's thinking style is strikingly different than those of all the other GOP candidates, who often get low scores. Perhaps that's why he's become a target of The New York Times. He is average or above average in every thinking category, scoring very high in sensory thinking, high for in-the-moment and average for analytic thinking. Rubio comes across as personable, upbeat, not worried or depressed, but somewhat angry.
Santorum scores very high on being upbeat, almost as high as Obama. He is not worried or angry. Socially, Santorum is plugged in, but impersonable. He scores very low in analytical thinking, and average in sensory thinking.
Walker scores extremely high in the upbeat category, but still lower than Obama. He's angry but not worried — exactly the kind of personality required to stand against staunch labor opposition. Walker comes across as arrogant and distant, but not spacey. His thinking style scores are closer to average than most candidates, but still low compared to the general public.
Biden scores high on the upbeat scale, with low scores in being worried, angry or depressed. He scores low in being personable, which is surprising given his public perception as a lovable goofball. His thinking style categories fall mostly in the average range. Only sensory thinking gets a low score.
Chafee is upbeat, not worried and not angry. He's plugged in and personable, but also arrogant. He doesn't space out too much. Chafee isn't one to think analytically, which may explain his decision to enter the Democratic primary with such low support.
Clinton is very upbeat and not worried, angry or depressed, as one might expect given her large lead in the Democratic primary. She's plugged in, but also arrogant. In terms of thinking style, Clinton is more analytical and less sensory.
Bill de Blasio
De Blasio is the most upbeat potential candidate, scoring even higher than Obama. He's not angry or depressed, but he does come across as arrogant (he is from New York City, after all). His thinking style is more analytic and less in-the-moment.
O'Malley is very upbeat, with very low scores on being worried or angry. He's plugged in but impersonable. Apparently his shirtless, guitar-playing persona hasn't made him likable. O'Malley's thinking style is one of the least sensory in the race, preferring an in-the-moment style.
Sanders is very upbeat, with little time for worry, anger or depression. The lack of anger in his personality is surprising given his speeches, in which he often rails against Republicans. He comes across as arrogant and impersonable. Sanders is less of a sensory thinker and more of an analytic one.
Webb has no average categories, which is not surprising given that very little about Jim Webb is average. He's either above or below average in every single personality category. Webb is upbeat, and not worried, angry or depressed. Socially, Webb is plugged in, arrogant, impersonable and not spacey. All of his thinking categories are below average, roughly equal to each other.
As a reminder, the personality analysis at Analyze Words is based off of the candidate's political Twitter accounts. Therefore, the results may be skewed towards what politicians hope to convey rather than their true personality.
(Hat tip to Michael Petrilli of the Fordham Institute, who ran Analyze Words on education leaders.)