Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Who Will Be the 2012 Republican Presidential Nominee? Who Will Be the 2012 Republican Presidential Nominee?

12-14-2011 , 08:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by goofyballer
How is that not the most important factor when considering "honesty"? How you can even compare the two charts ("sure the first one is wrong, but the second chart isn't very honest either") is mind-boggling. Changing the scale of the y-axis isn't even close to putting a data point in the completely wrong place on the "honesty" scale.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fat-not-Thin Man
lol, that fox chart is rediculous, as is anyone who would defend it. I'm sorry, but to flat 9.0 to 8.6 is bad enough, but to have 8.6 at the end of the chart, HIGHER ON THE HORIZON than the 8.9 near the front of the chart is frankly dishonest.

Is there some special GOP version of Excel that makes these??
This is the correct graph analysis. Wtf is with fox news, they are such a terrible network. I am stunned that people still watch them.
12-14-2011 , 08:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrWookie
Yes, there's such a thing as manipulating the truth. Manipulating the truth is drawing a point on a graph that doesn't correspond to the datum.
I agree.
12-14-2011 , 08:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scary_Tiger


Obamney in second place in Iowa!
shape shifters tend to do that


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ineedaride2
This is kind of beside the point but...

I wonder what percentage of American voters could be shown that pic with that name and not realize it was wrong?
100%
12-14-2011 , 08:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrWookie
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/searc...ster%20ratings

Yeah, PPP is in the top 15 of pollsters per Nate, #4 amongst pollsters with at least 40 polls, ahead of Rasmussen.

Strategic Vision was the other pollster blacklisted recently, which generated tons of lols directed at Red State and 2+2's Neil S.
hahahahahaha

I know there's a Neil something that drools over at rs, is that really the neil s from 2p2? hahahaha

rstate is where they send "reformed" freepers after they've been fitted with a bib, implanted with a chip that censors slurs, and finished remedial classes
12-14-2011 , 08:46 PM
Someone is polling New Hampshire with Jeb Bush in the race. Weird.
12-14-2011 , 08:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by m_reed05
Taking 30s to look at historical unemployment numbers, 4-10 seems much closer to a true range to examine for unemployment rates than 8.5 to 9.2. Are you arguing the latter?
Ah, so now you're bringing the context in which the graph should be interpreted into account, which is ALSO a very important factor in this discussion that nobody thought to think about (except caseycjc). If you watched the video, you would have seen that this entire graph discussion was taking place in the context of Obama being asked in his 60 Minutes interview whether he'd have unemployment at 8% by the election. So using 8% as a lower bound for this graph is completely acceptable because that's the figure this discussion is centered around. In that respect, MSNBC had 8.5% instead if 8.0%, to which I say: big deal.

I mean, you're also implying that 9.2 is somehow a dishonest ceiling, even though that makes the graph go way higher than Fox News' and makes Obama look really incompetent for letting unemployment get so high (of course, the data is exactly the same, but you're essentially arguing that's irrelevant in the face of how the graph makes the data look). Why wouldn't they have used, like, 11.0 as their ceiling to make Obama look way more competent than he does in Fox's graph, if they were trying to use the y-axis to manipulate the truth the way you accuse them of?
12-14-2011 , 08:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by m_reed05
And I don't know any of the context of your graph so I can't say if you are manipulating the truth. But it seems according to you, there's no such thing as manipulating the truth.
It was looking at the correlation between the frequency of shots on goal that a team on the penalty kill gives up versus the success rate of their penalty kill. I know nothing about typical historical ranges for PK success, so I used...wait for it...the range of values that the data falls into. Which I guess is crazy?
12-14-2011 , 08:58 PM
I just want to know what Ed was saying while that graph was being shown. He's got that I'm about to blow some **** out of proportion look on his face.
12-14-2011 , 09:02 PM
12-14-2011 , 09:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeyDizzle
hahahahahaha

I know there's a Neil something that drools over at rs, is that really the neil s from 2p2? hahahaha

rstate is where they send "reformed" freepers after they've been fitted with a bib, implanted with a chip that censors slurs, and finished remedial classes
Yep. Same Neil. You might look up the strategic vision thread in this forum, as yeah, Neil predictably looks like a complete tool. He normally doesn't post in Politards, but he made an appearance for that thread since it commented on/loled at his Red State article.
12-14-2011 , 09:08 PM


My problem with this pic has nothing to do with Perry.

When OPEC proclaims that "something" is to blame for high oil prices, you can automatically cross that something off the "things that affect oil prices" list.

I'm just hoping that you people will help me keep up with this tally.


Spoiler:
"And in an unexpected move. OPEC proclaimed that OPEC was responsible for high oil prices."

INAR: "FfffffffffFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUU!!!!!!!"
12-14-2011 , 09:08 PM
To goofy

I don't know if they are manipulating the truth, you brought that up in regards to your graph, not me. But I do think it is a terrible representation of the truth, whether it is intentional or manipulation or what, I don't know. Anyone who doesn't think the 2nd graph is a terrible representation of the dynamics of the unemployment rate, is drinking the koolaid.
12-14-2011 , 09:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by m_reed05
Anyone who doesn't think the 2nd graph is a terrible representation of the dynamics of the unemployment rate, is drinking the koolaid.
Even if it's not actually trying to show the dynamics of the unemployment rate?

It's trying to show why Fox News' graph was wrong, and that graph in turn was trying to show unemployment in relation to the 8% marker that Steve Kroft brought up in his interview with Obama. I don't have a problem with the axes of either graph.
12-14-2011 , 09:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by m_reed05
To goofy

I don't know if they are manipulating the truth, you brought that up in regards to your graph, not me. But I do think it is a terrible representation of the truth, whether it is intentional or manipulation or what, I don't know. Anyone who doesn't think the 2nd graph is a terrible representation of the dynamics of the unemployment rate, is drinking the koolaid.
A rational, critical person can look at the second graph and grasp the full meaning of the data. They read the axes, and they can put the numbers into historical context if they don't like the axes as drawn.

A rational, critical person looking at the first graph...gets really confused because the graph is an outright contradiction
12-14-2011 , 09:15 PM
What you're saying wrt the second graph basically means that any graph showing unemployment in the US, over any period of time for any reason (like this graph, which is not trying to make some comparison of current UE rates with historical values AT ALL), is dishonest if its min/max y-values are not 4.0 and 10.0.
12-14-2011 , 09:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by goofyballer
It was looking at the correlation between the frequency of shots on goal that a team on the penalty kill gives up versus the success rate of their penalty kill. I know nothing about typical historical ranges for PK success, so I used...wait for it...the range of values that the data falls into. Which I guess is crazy?
I know nothing about hockey. I don't even know what a penalty kill is.

But I'm guessing msnbc and this Ed show (I have no idea who Ed is I don't watch any of these ******ed channels) have at least some knowledge of what historical unemployment rates are. And when just over the last 5-10 years we've had unemployment ranging between 4-10%, I think it's pretty terrible to limit a graphs bounds to 8.5-9.2 to make it look like we are on some massive decline in unemployment.
12-14-2011 , 09:20 PM
So, I just saw a Dick Morris interview on O'Reilly and he compared the Republican race to cockroaches scuttling on a floor. He said the winner will be whoever is immune to the insect repellent (negative attacks/ads).

If he were a Democratic supporter, it would be a good anology.
12-14-2011 , 09:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by goofyballer
Even if it's not actually trying to show the dynamics of the unemployment rate?

It's trying to show why Fox News' graph was wrong, and that graph in turn was trying to show unemployment in relation to the 8% marker that Steve Kroft brought up in his interview with Obama. I don't have a problem with the axes of either graph.
Finally watched the video. When he introduces the 2nd graph he says 'Now here's how all the changes in the unemployment rate should look.'. How is that not trying to show the dynamics of the unemployment rate?
12-14-2011 , 09:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by m_reed05
Finally watched the video. When he introduces the 2nd graph he says 'Now here's how all the changes in the unemployment rate should look.'. How is that not trying to show the dynamics of the unemployment rate?
Because the change between October and November, which again is the entire point of this graph, has absolutely nothing to do with, say, the change in unemployment from 2001 to 2007?
12-14-2011 , 09:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dynasty
So, I just saw a Dick Morris interview on O'Reilly and he compared the Republican race to cockroaches scuttling on a floor. He said the winner will be whoever is immune to the insect repellent (negative attacks/ads).

If he were a Democratic supporter, it would be a good anology.
Isn't Morris borderline ******ed? Like, I remember his electoral map predictions from 2008 and loling at every one of them. They were full of **** like Obama winning TN and losing ME or whatever.
12-14-2011 , 09:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrWookie
A rational, critical person can look at the second graph and grasp the full meaning of the data. They read the axes, and they can put the numbers into historical context if they don't like the axes as drawn.

A rational, critical person looking at the first graph...gets really confused because the graph is an outright contradiction
The graph was up for ~15s and about half of which his body covered up the y axis. Not to mention the labels are tiny and barely readable. But most of my problem is with the fact that they know most people aren't of the type you described. Most people take 2s to look at the graph and see, 'wow big decline in unemployment lately.'

And again, we agree about the first graph. Not sure why you keep bringing that up.
12-14-2011 , 09:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrWookie
Isn't Morris borderline ******ed? Like, I remember his electoral map predictions from 2008 and loling at every one of them. They were full of **** like Obama winning TN and losing ME or whatever.
I don't think he's borderline. That was on the old scoring system. These days, he'd have full state funding.
12-14-2011 , 09:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by m_reed05
Not sure why you keep bringing that up.
He keeps bringing it up because you insisted (and appear to still believe) that the two graphs are on a comparable level of dishonesty, when in fact one of them is way, way worse than the other.
12-14-2011 , 09:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by will1530
Typical lefty mod supporting msnbc. Without watching the video's they are both absolutely terrible.
I completely agree with this. The MSNBC chart - while technically correct, is purposely misleading. and very intellectually dishonest imo.

The chart should at least somewhat reflect the scale of the changes. The MSNBC chart makes it look like unemployment is dropping off a table.
12-14-2011 , 09:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by m_reed05
Anyone who doesn't think the 2nd graph is a terrible representation of the dynamics of the unemployment rate, is drinking the koolaid.
I'm done with this conversation. I stand by this statement. Keep drinking the koolaid.

      
m