Skip to main content

Politifact's Ten Most Reviewed Politicians

Celebrating their 10-year anniversary, Pulitzer Prize-winning fact-checking site, Politifact.com, just released a list and breakdown of their ten most reviewed politicians. Here is said list and breakdown, starting with the politician who has been reviewed the most and moving in descending order:

Barack Obama: 598 Total, 288 True/Mostly True (48.2%), 150 Mostly False/False/Pants on Fire (25.1%), Net +23.1%

Donald Trump: 436 Total, 72 True/Mostly True (16.5%), 301 Mostly False/False/Pants on Fire (69.0%), Net -52.5%

Hillary Clinton 294 Total, 148 True/Mostly True (50.3%), 77 Mostly False/False/Pants on Fire (26.2%), Net +24.1%

Mitt Romney: 206 Total, 63 True/Mostly True (30.6%), 85 Mostly False/False/Pants on Fire (41.3%), Net -10.7%

John McCain: 184 Total, 74 True/Mostly True (40.2%), 79 Mostly False/False/Pants on Fire (42.9%), Net -2.7%

Scott Walker: 180 Total, 65 True/Mostly True (36.1%), 81 Mostly False/False/Pants on Fire (45.0%), Net -8.9%

Rick Perry: 173 Total, 50 True/Mostly True (28.9%), 79 Mostly False/False/Pants on Fire (45.7%), Net -16.8%

Marco Rubio: 152 Total, 55 True/Mostly True (36.2%), 65 Mostly False/False/Pants on Fire (42.8%), Net -6.6%

Rick Scott: 148 Total, 50 True/Mostly True (33.8%), 60 Mostly False/False/Pants on Fire (40.5%), Net -6.7%

Ted Cruz: 119 Total, 26 True/Mostly True (21.8%), 77 Mostly False/False/Pants on Fire (64.7%), Net -42.9%

Here's how these ten politicians rank alongside one another when it comes to their net honesty scores:

1. Hillary Clinton: +24.1%
2. Barack Obama: +23.1%
3. John McCain: -2.7%
4. Marco Rubio: -6.6%
5. Rick Scott: -6.7%
6. Scott Walker: -8.9%
7. Mitt Romney: -10.7%
8. Rick Perry: -16.8%
9. Ted Cruz: -42.9%
10. Donald Trump: -52.5%

Here's how the before-mentioned numbers would look if we broke things down by party:

Democrats (2): 892 Total, 436 True/Mostly True (48.9%), 227 Mostly False/False/Pants on Fire (25.4%), Net +23.5%

Republicans (8): 1,598 Total, 455 True/Mostly True (28.5%), 827 Mostly False/False/Pants on Fire (51.8%), Net -23.3%

1. Democrats: +23.5%
2. Republicans: -23.3%

Of course, conservative media outlets are claiming these numbers prove Politifact is liberally-biased. No, the numbers simply show that facts tend to have a liberal bias...

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/mitt-romney/

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/scott-walker/

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/john-mccain/

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/rick-perry/

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/marco-rubio/

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/rick-scott/

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/ted-cruz/
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun
2 comments
Read more

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i
Post a Comment
Read more

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"
Post a Comment
Read more