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.

I agree.

shape shifters tend to do that


100%

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

Someone is polling New Hampshire with Jeb Bush in the race. Weird.

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?

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

I don't think he's borderline. That was on the old scoring system. These days, he'd have full state funding.

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.

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.

I'm done with this conversation. I stand by this statement. Keep drinking the koolaid.