url : https://sites.google.com/view/rohanverma-project1
This project provides a comprehensive, data-driven analysis of three critical sectors - Finance, Defense, and Healthcare , under the administrations of Donald Trump and Joe Biden. By leveraging a robust dataset of 10,542 APIs, this study explores the economic and policy implications of the Trump presidency, particularly in light of his victory in the 2024 U.S. presidential election.
The primary goal of this project is to examine the evolution of the economic and social landscape within these sectors during the Trump and Biden administrations. Through sentiment analysis, data visualization, and comparative analysis of key metrics, the study seeks to uncover insights into how these sectors were shaped by the policies of both administrations.
Sentiment Analysis The sentiment analysis component focused on social media data relating to the U.S. economy, defense policies, and healthcare employment, spanning the period from July 1 to November 30, 2024. TextBlob, a natural language processing tool, was used to analyze 10,542 APIs, classifying sentiments as positive, negative, or neutral. Additionally, sentiment word clouds were created for each sector to visualize the most frequently used keywords and their emotional connotations.
Finance: The analysis of public sentiment surrounding Donald Trump aimed to gauge market perceptions during both the Trump and Biden administrations. A comparative study of key economic metrics, including GDP performance and unemployment rates, was conducted to provide insights into economic trends, shifts, and their broader implications under each administration.
Defense: This component analyzed government spending on defense, along with sentiment data surrounding defense policies, while evaluating stock trends for major defense companies. The study specifically focused on defense budgets, identifying fiscal priorities, and contrasting the approaches of the Trump and Biden administrations in this critical area.
Healthcare: Employment trends within the healthcare sector were examined, alongside public sentiment and stock trends for major healthcare companies. This analysis provided valuable insights into the sector’s growth, challenges, and workforce trends, helping to understand the broader impact of administrative policies on the industry.
This project presents a thorough examination of shifts in public sentiment, economic metrics, and policy priorities across two distinct U.S. administrations. The findings provide valuable insights into the influence of both Trump and Biden's policies on the finance, defense, and healthcare sectors, highlighting how their leadership has shaped key aspects of the U.S. economy and society.
The comparative analysis of the Trump 2017 vs. Biden 2021 administrations across the finance, defense, and healthcare sectors reveals distinct leadership approaches, policy priorities, and public perceptions that shaped the current political landscape.
In the finance sector, Trump’s pro-business policies—such as tax cuts, deregulation, and a focus on job creation—were seen as favorable for long-term economic prosperity. While economic volatility marked his tenure, many viewed Trump as the better candidate for fostering sustained economic growth, particularly after the disruptions caused by the pandemic. In contrast, Biden’s recovery was slower, with rising inflation and concerns about economic stability, making him less favored by those seeking quick economic results. Despite this, Biden’s policies did stabilize the economy post-pandemic, focusing on long-term growth, which appeals to those looking for more structural, sustainable recovery.
In defense, Trump’s emphasis on military strength, national security, and aggressive defense spending received significant public support. His bold initiatives, like the establishment of the Space Force, were well-received, although some questioned the long term sustainability of his defense strategies. Biden’s approach, which focused more on rebuilding international alliances and ensuring strategic stability, was seen as less impactful in addressing emerging military threats. As a result, Trump was perceived by some as the stronger candidate for ensuring U.S. military dominance in the future.
Finally, in healthcare, Trump’s policies, which emphasized deregulation and market-driven growth, contributed to higher employment levels in key healthcare sectors. His approach resonated with those who prioritized immediate job creation and economic resilience. On the other hand, Biden’s healthcare reforms, focused on equity and long-term structural investments, created significant growth in community and eldercare roles but were criticized for their slower pace of job creation. This difference highlights the tension between Trump’s focus on short-term workforce stability and Biden’s vision for sustainable, equitable growth in healthcare.
As Trump returns to power, his leadership style—centered around immediate economic recovery, military strength, and business friendly policies that may continue to appeal to voters seeking stability and growth. However, Biden’s focus on structural reforms, social equity, and international cooperation will likely remain influential as the debate over the future of U.S. governance continues. The nation faces a choice between prioritizing immediate outcomes or investing in reforms for a more sustainable future.