Skip to main content

For GOPers, is honesty really the best policy?

Being a lover of numbers and fascinated (yet disturbed) by the Republican primary, I thought I'd dig a bit deeper into the Republican candidates' level of honesty this campaign season. In alphabetical order, here are the 17 GOP candidates which have run for the party's nomination this coming election, along with a few grades handed to each of them by fact-checker Politifact:

Jeb Bush: Of 79 graded statements, 38 have been ruled true or mostly true (48%), 24 have been ruled pants on fire, false, or mostly false (31%), for a net +17%

Ben Carson: Of 27 graded statements, 1 has been ruled true or mostly true (4%), 23 have been ruled pants on fire, false, or mostly false (85%), for a net -81%

Chris Christie: Of 100 graded statements, 39 have been ruled true or mostly true (39%), 35 have been ruled pants on fire, false, or mostly false, for a net +4%

Ted Cruz: Of 102 graded statements, 22 have been ruled true or mostly true (22%), 67 have been ruled pants on fire, false, or mostly false (65%), for a net -43%

Carly Fiorina: Of 22 graded statements, 6 have been ruled true or mostly true (28%), 12 have been ruled pants on fire, false, or mostly false (55%), for a net -27%

Jim Gilmore: Of 1 graded statement, 1 has been ruled true or mostly true (100%), 0 have been graded pants on fire, false, or mostly false (0%), for a net +100%

Lindsey Graham: Of 12 graded statements, 4 have been ruled true or mostly true (34%), 4 have been ruled pants on fire, false, or mostly false (34%), for a net +/-0%

Mike Huckabee: Of 41 graded statements, 11 have been ruled true or mostly true (27%), 21 have been ruled pants on fire, false, or mostly false (51%), for a net -24%

Bobby Jindal: Of 10 graded statements, 5 have been ruled true or mostly true (50%), 1 has been ruled pants on fire, false, or mostly false (10%), for a net +40%

John Kasich: Of 61 graded statements, 31 have been ruled true or mostly true (51%), 20 have been ruled pants on fire, false, or mostly false (33%), for a net +18%

George Pataki: Of 1 graded statement, 0 have been ruled true or mostly true (0%), 1 has been ruled pants on fire, false, or mostly false (100%), for a net -100%

Rand Paul: Of 51 graded statements, 23 have been ruled true or mostly true (46%), 18 have been ruled pants on fire, false, or mostly false (36%), for a net +10%

Rick Perry: Of 169 graded statements, 49 have been ruled true or mostly true (29%), 78 have been ruled pants on fire, false, or mostly false (47%), for a net -18%

Marco Rubio: Of 139 graded statements, 50 have been ruled true or mostly true (36%), 58 have been ruled pants on fire, false, or mostly false (42%), for a net -6%

Rick Santorum: Of 59 graded statements, 13 have been ruled true or mostly true (22%), 33 have been ruled pants on fire, false, or mostly false (55%), for a net -33%

Donald Trump: Of 124 graded statements, 10 have been ruled true or mostly true (8%), 95 have been ruled pants on fire, false, or mostly false (76%), for a net -68%

Scott Walker: Of 166 graded statements, 58 have been ruled true or mostly true (35%), 77 have been ruled pants on fire, false, or mostly false (47%), for a net -12%

Here now are the rankings of the candidates, ordered from most to least honest:

1. Jim Gilmore: 1 graded statement, net +100%
2. Bobby Jindal: 10 graded statements, net +40%
3. John Kasich: 61 graded statements, net +18%
4. Jeb Bush: 79 graded statements, net +17%
5. Rand Paul: 51 graded statements, net +10%
6. Chris Christie: 100 graded statements, net +4%
7. Lindsey Graham: 12 graded statements, net +/-0%
8. Marco Rubio: 139 graded statements, net -6%
9. Scott Walker: 166 graded statements, net -12%
10. Rick Perry: 169 graded statements, net -18%
11. Mike Huckabee: 41 graded statements, net -24%
12. Carly Fiorina: 22 graded statements, net -27%
13. Rick Santorum: 59 graded statements, net -33%
14. Ted Cruz: 102 graded statements, net -43%
15. Donald Trump: 124 graded statements, net -68%
16. Ben Carson: 27 graded statements, net -81%
17. George Pataki: 1 graded statement, net -100%

Overall: Of 1,164 graded statements, 361 have been ruled true or mostly true (31%), 567 have been ruled pants on fire, false, or mostly false (49%), for a net -18%

These numbers are incredible to me. The supposed party of God, family values, and personal responsibility have sent 17 candidates our way this election season, and these candidates tell the truth less than 1/3 of the time, while lying approximately 1/2 of the time. Heck, if we exclude Jim Gilmore and Bobby Jindal from the list, who only have a combined 11 statements graded by Politifact, just four of the candidates tell the truth more than they lie. Not only that, but ever since Donald Trump announced his candidacy, only two other candidates have led in national polls among Republican voters, Ted Cruz and Ben Carson. That's right; over the past 9 months, only Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, and Ben Carson have led the party in the polls. Let's take a closer look at those three candidates...

Ben Carson: Of 27 graded statements, 1 has been ruled true or mostly true (4%), 23 have been ruled pants on fire, false, or mostly false (85%), for a net -81%

Ted Cruz: Of 102 graded statements, 22 have been ruled true or mostly true (22%), 67 have been ruled pants on fire, false, or mostly false (65%), for a net -43%

Donald Trump: Of 124 graded statements, 10 have been ruled true or mostly true (8%), 95 have been ruled pants on fire, false, or mostly false (76%), for a net -68%

Overall: Of 253 graded statements, 33 have been ruled true or mostly true (13%), 185 have been ruled pants on fire, false, or mostly false (73%), for a net -60%. This includes 35 claims which have been ruled as pants on fire (14%). Yes, between Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, and Ben Carson, there have been more pants-on-fire whoppers told than accurate statements. Let that sink in for a moment.

Meanwhile, Politifact has provided the following grades for the five Democratic candidates of this primary season:

Lincoln Chafee: 7 of 18 graded statements have been ruled true or mostly true (39%), 8 have been ruled pants on fire, false, or mostly false (35%), for a net +4%

Hillary Clinton: 92 of 180 graded statements have been ruled true or mostly true (51%), 51 have been ruled pants on fire, false, or mostly false (28%), for a net +23%

Martin O'Malley: 4 of 18 graded statements have been ruled true or mostly true (22%), 4 of 18 have been ruled pants on fire, false, or mostly false (22%), for a net +/-0%

Bernie Sanders: 40 of 80 graded statements have been ruled true or mostly true (50%), 24 of 80 have been ruled pants on fire, false, or mostly false (30%), for a net +20%

Jim Webb: 8 of 10 graded statements have been ruled true or mostly true (80%), 1 has been ruled pants on fire, false, or mostly false (10%), for a net +70%

Overall: Of 306 graded statements, 151 have been ruled true or mostly true (49%), 88 have been ruled pants on fire, false, or mostly false (29%), for a net +20%. Not only that, but between the five candidates, four have gone without making a ridiculous pants-on-fire claim (Clinton being the only one who has), and have combined to utter just 3 such statements (0.01%).

Party Breakdown
Republican candidates: Of 1,164 graded statements, 361 have been ruled true or mostly true (31%), 567 have been ruled pants on fire, false, or mostly false (49%), for a net -18%

Democratic candidates: Of 306 graded statements, 151 have been ruled true or mostly true (49%), 88 have been ruled pants on fire, false, or mostly false (29%), for a net +20%.

Difference: Democratic candidates +38%/Republican candidates -38%

Republican frontrunners: Of 253 graded statements, 33 have been ruled true or mostly true (13%), 185 have been ruled pants on fire, false, or mostly false (73%), for a net -60% (35 have been ruled as pants on fire (14%)

Democratic frontrunners: Of 260 graded statements, 132 have been ruled true or mostly true (51%), 75 have been ruled pants on fire, false, or mostly false (29%), for a net +22% (3 have been ruled as pants on fire (0.01%)

Difference: Democratic frontrunners +82%/Republican frontrunners -82%

Yes, it appears that the supposed party of God, family values, and personal responsibility, the GOP, also thinks the way to earn God's love and illustrate good family values is through lying, and that the only way to showcase personal responsibility is by consistently denying or backtracking from said lies. What would Jesus do? Chances are the polar opposite of the Republican Party...

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

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

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

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/ben-carson/

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/chris-christie/

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/jeb-bush/

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

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/lindsey-graham/

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/bobby-jindal/

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/jim-gilmore/

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/george-pataki/

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

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

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/mike-huckabee/

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/rand-paul/

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/carly-fiorina/

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

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_republican_presidential_nomination-3823.html#polls

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

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/bernie-s/

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/martin-omalley/

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/lincoln-chafee/

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/jim-webb/

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Another look at "The Nightly Show" with Larry Wilmore

After its first week, I gave The Nightly Show with Larry Wilmore a B+ grade. While I didn't think the show appeared to be perfect by any stretch of the imagination, I also liked the Daily Show  meets Politically Incorrect vibe I got from it, and thought, with the proper adjustments, the show would indeed provide a great fill-in for The Colbert Report . In the show's succeeding weeks, however, I've been less impressed by it and think that if it doesn't make certain adjustments, it could be in jeopardy of losing many long-time viewers of the show's time slot. One major issue I think the show's had to this point is a lack of direction. It's been unable to decide whether it wants to be a comedy show with serious conversation sprinkled in or a serious show with comedy sprinkled in. It's almost as if the show's writers want to give The Nightly Show a Real Time with Bill Maher feel. The problem with that idea or format is the fact Real Time is an hour lon...

My first book review of "Penetrating the Heart of Life: Ambiguous In Thought, Ambivalent In Feeling"

Well, I received my first book review on this poetry-compilation book I completed and published late last year, but have finally gotten around to marketing now. The reviewer gave it 5 out of 5 stars and said: "I enjoyed the poetic journey the writer has taken me on. From darkest days and hopeful optimism to the conclusion of hope realized. The visual images that the poem titled "Room Temperature" elicits, made me think of the song, "Horse With No Name" sung by the band America. In a similar manner, another poem – "Deafening Sigh-lence" reminded me a great deal of Simon & Garfunkel’s song, "The Sound of Silence". There are so many poems in this book that I related to, that I felt a connection to the author and felt that we were traveling on this journey together." http://www.lulu.com/shop/craig-rozniecki/penetrating-the-heart-of-life-ambiguous-in-thought-ambivalent-in-feeling/paperback/product-18677501.html

A closer look at the Scramble With Friends power-ups

I am unashamed to admit that I'm a nerd. My idea of a good time is playing a word game like Boggle or Scrabble. Thankfully, I (and many others) can play such games via Facebook and/or my (our) cell phone(s). While it seems that cheating has become more commonplace in these games (Words With Friends in particular) than San Diego has had nice weather, I've yet to give in to that craze. One element present with the game Scramble With Friends (Boggle) not present in Words With Friends (Scrabble) are legal boosts called "power-ups," which cost a number of tokens from the 15 available. I've now tried all five power-ups, including the latest one which costs money. So, in case anyone's curious about playing the game or giving these power-ups a gander, here's a rundown of them all: Freeze - I think this is probably my favorite of all the power-ups. With the freeze, time stands still for a matter of seconds, which allows you more time to find words and improve...