Skip to main content

Politifact gets a grade "bigly" wrong

I'd say roughly 9 out of 10 times, I think Pulitzer Prize-winning fact-checker Politifact gets their grades right. When they get something wrong, though, they should be called out like everyone else. That's the case with a very recent article of theirs, written by Amy Sherman and titled "Story says poll shows Trump tied to Obama at same point in presidency."

The fact-check is actually in response to an article posted at the far-right website, The Gateway Pundit, where the headline reads, "Trump approval rating better than Obama and Reagan at same point in their presidencies." The article then goes on to cherry-pick two conservative-leaning pollsters, Rasmussen and Fox News. To my surprise, Politifact then went on to give this claim a "Mostly True" grade.

If one were to check the polling breakdown courtesy of RealClearPolitics, they'd quickly see Politifact was off with this grade.

At this point in Barack Obama's first term as president, June of 2010, thirteen polls were released with regard to his approval rating. Those polls read as follows:

47-45
48-46
49-48
46-50
44-45
45-48
48-43
47-43
50-48
50-45
50-49
45-45
52-45

Average: 47.8-46.2 (Net +1.6)

To this point in the month, thirteen polls have been released with regard to Donald Trump's approval rating. Those polls read as follows:

48-50
45-46
45-51
43-54
39-54
42-54
45-51
42-54
40-57
44-53
40-51
36-55
41-55

Average: 42.3-52.7 (Net -10.4)

So, overall, at the same point in the past two presidents' tenures, there's actually a 12-point gap between the two, in favor of Barack Obama. So not only is Politifact off with their "Mostly True" grade, they're off quite "bigly," as Donald Trump might say. While the grade shouldn't reach the point of "Pants on Fire," it should, at the very least be scored as "Mostly False," if not "False." Hopefully they soon correct their error.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2018/jun/18/gateway-pundit/headline-says-trump-tied-obama-same-point-presiden/

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html#polls


https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html

Comments

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

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

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!"