Bachmann cites PolitiFact.org!

[JoeTheJuggler]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...e-bachmann-says-politifact-came-out-and-said/

At the last debate, Bachmann said, "After the debate that we had last week, PolitiFact came out and said that everything I said was true."

She had two thing rated from that previous debate. One was rated "Mostly true" and one was rated "Pants on Fire". Overall, Politifact says 60% of her comments that have been analyzed got either "False" or "Pants on Fire".

Are we perhaps taking this out of context?

The context was Bachmann arguing with Gingrich of the accuracy of the claim that he lobbied for Freddie Mac. Neither of the two rated Bachmann comments from that previous debate were on this topic.

As for the current evaluation on topic, Politifact looked at Gingrich's claim, "I never lobbied under any circumstance" for Freddie Mac. This was an evaluation of Gingrich's claim, not Bachmann's. The "Half True" rating is because it's true that Gingrich wasn't a registered lobbyist, but he was giving policy advice for a hefty fee while not being subject to the scrutiny and rules that registered lobbyists have to abide by. That certainly doesn't mean Politifact said that everything Bachmann said was true. And this rating was from the current debate, not the previous one!

Whatever way you look at it, Bachmann's statement about Politifact's rating of her comments is an absurd lie!

 

[Trakar]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...e-bachmann-says-politifact-came-out-and-said/

At the last debate, Bachmann said, "After the debate that we had last week, PolitiFact came out and said that everything I said was true."

She had two thing rated from that previous debate. One was rated "Mostly true" and one was rated "Pants on Fire". Overall, Politifact says 60% of her comments that have been analyzed got either "False" or "Pants on Fire".

Are we perhaps taking this out of context?

The context was Bachmann arguing with Gingrich of the accuracy of the claim that he lobbied for Freddie Mac. Neither of the two rated Bachmann comments from that previous debate were on this topic.

As for the current evaluation on topic, Politifact looked at Gingrich's claim, "I never lobbied under any circumstance" for Freddie Mac. This was an evaluation of Gingrich's claim, not Bachmann's. The "Half True" rating is because it's true that Gingrich wasn't a registered lobbyist, but he was giving policy advice for a hefty fee while not being subject to the scrutiny and rules that registered lobbyists have to abide by. That certainly doesn't mean Politifact said that everything Bachmann said was true. And this rating was from the current debate, not the previous one!

Whatever way you look at it, Bachmann's statement about Politifact's rating of her comments is an absurd lie!

But it does give marvelous insight into what passes for critical analysis and consideration in a leading candidate for the Republican nomination.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Heck, it's scary enough that someone with these mental faculties is in Congress.

 

[Bri]

They were being generous by saying that 60% of her comments got either "False" or "Pants on Fire." That could leave the impression that 40% of her comments were true, but in reality she also has quite a few "Mostly False" statements. Looking at her PolitiFact page, she has:

True: 5
Mostly True: 4
Half True: 6
Mostly False: 7
False: 19
Pants on Fire: 12​

So out of 53 statements, 38 of them (that's 72%) are "Mostly False," "False," or "Pants on Fire" while 9 of them (17%) are "Mostly True" or "True."

-Bri

 

[Upchurch]

As I recall, it wasn't until the last year or so that she ever scored above a mostly false.

 

[Corsair 115]

So out of 53 statements, 38 of them (that's 72%) are "Mostly False," "False," or "Pants on Fire" while 9 of them (17%) are "Mostly True" or "True."

So, is that above average or below average for a politician?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

So, is that above average or below average for a politician?

Believe it or not, it's noticeably below average. (You can see truth-o-meter ratings by person to get a sense of the field.)

Maybe not so far below average for the GOP presidential candidates!

ETA: And this is only relatively speaking. The fact that any of them would say something that rates a "Pants on Fire" is pretty incredible.

By comparison, Mitt looks a lot better, Newt looks just about the same.

Obama, for example, looks waaay better than Bachmann, but even he has scored a few "pants on Fire" ratings (4 out of a total of 330 statements evaluated). For sake of comparison, taking "Mostly False" and "Pants on Fire" as a percentage of all statements rated, Bachmann's 60% compares to Obama's 16%, Romney's 24% And Gingrich's 42%.

 

[Bri]

So, is that above average or below average for a politician?

She has a far higher percentage of "Mostly False," "False," and "Pants on Fire" statements than most politicians (probably the highest of anyone rated on PolitiFact). For comparison:

Percentage of "Mostly False," "False," and "Pants on Fire" statements:

Michelle Bachmann: 72%
Herman Cain: 70%
Newt Gingrich: 58%
Rick Perry: 50%
Mitt Romney: 39%
Barack Obama: 29%
​

She has a lower than average percentage of "Mostly True" and "True" statements, but not the lowest. Herman Cain is worse and Bachmann is tied with Gingrich by that measure:

Percentage of "Mostly True" and "True" statements:

Herman Cain: 13%
Michelle Bachmann: 17%
Newt Gingrich: 17%
Rick Perry: 23%
Mitt Romney: 40%
Barack Obama: 47%
​

Note that not all statements made by a politician are examined by PolitiFact, and one could argue that they tend to look at statements that are surprising in some regard, which might increase their chances of being false.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

For sake of comparison, taking "Mostly False" and "Pants on Fire" as a percentage of all statements rated, Bachmann's 60% compares to Obama's 16%, Romney's 24% And Gingrich's 42%.

Did you mean to say "False" there? Otherwise, why include "Mostly False" and "Pants on Fire" but not "False" (which is in-between those two)?

-Bri

 

[Cleon]

I can't imagine a worse thing to publicly lie about than what PolitiFact has said about you. Is she addicted to embarrassing herself?

 

[respect]

I would think that all politicians would recognize fact checkers as their mortal enemies, especially Bachmann.

 

[Robrob]

But it does give marvelous insight into what passes for critical analysis and consideration in a leading candidate for the Republican nomination.

Well to be fair she is pretty much dead in the water...

 

[Cleon]

Well to be fair she is pretty much dead in the water...

And between the ears, too.

 

[SezMe]

I can't imagine a worse thing to publicly lie about than what PolitiFact has said about you. Is she addicted to embarrassing herself?

Yeah, then PolitiFact fact-checks that statement then she lies about that then PolitiFact fact-checks that statement .... Owwww, my head hurts.

 

[Bri]

It's notoriously difficult to pin someone down as lying, as opposed to simply mistaken, when they make a false statement. Bachmann has a propensity for repeating statements that have been shown to be false by fact-checking sites like PolitiFact, but it was impossible to know for sure whether she knew she was repeating false statements. Does the fact that she has now admitted to reading PolitiFact make it legitimate for her detractors to say she's lying when she repeats a statement that has been previously shown to be false by PolitiFact?

-Bri

 

[Magyar]

She has a far higher percentage of "Mostly False," "False," and "Pants on Fire" statements than most politicians (probably the highest of anyone rated on PolitiFact). For comparison:

Percentage of "Mostly False," "False," and "Pants on Fire" statements:

Michelle Bachmann: 72%
Herman Cain: 70%
Newt Gingrich: 58%
Rick Perry: 50%
Mitt Romney: 39%
Barack Obama: 29%
​

She has a lower than average percentage of "Mostly True" and "True" statements, but not the lowest. Herman Cain is worse and Bachmann is tied with Gingrich by that measure:

Percentage of "Mostly True" and "True" statements:

Herman Cain: 13%
Michelle Bachmann: 17%
Newt Gingrich: 17%
Rick Perry: 23%
Mitt Romney: 40%
Barack Obama: 47%
​

Note that not all statements made by a politician are examined by PolitiFact, and one could argue that they tend to look at statements that are surprising in some regard, which might increase their chances of being false.

-Bri

I am an Obama supporter but the fact that ANY sitting president has a mostly true/true percentage of below 50% is disgraceful (never mind candidates) and the fact that they can get away with that without the media and the country holding them to the fire explains to a great degree what is wrong with this country!


having said all that, I have 2 guestions;

How does that percentage hold up to other presidents?
(I haven't looked at polito in detail)
How objective and detail oriented are these ratings?
In other words what is the margin of error say between true and mostly true ?

 

[RandFan]

Perception is reality.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I am an Obama supporter but the fact that ANY sitting president has a mostly true/true percentage of below 50% is disgraceful
<snip>
In other words what is the margin of error say between true and mostly true ?

Well, there is another category: "Half True". "Margin of error" is a statistical term. These ratings aren't done by statistical analysis. They're an evaluation of specific claims. For instance, Newt's claim that he never lobbied for Fannie/Freddie was rated "Half True". It was superficially technically true in that he was never a registered lobbyist. If you think he took scads of money and never used his status as a long-time Washington insider to influence policy makers, you're very naive.

Similarly, campaign ads notoriously will make claims about a politician's voting record that are superficially true (they did vote against a bill that had the provision mentioned in the ad) while being completely misleading (they voted against the bill for reasons other than that provision).

To get a real sense of what these ratings mean--especially the ones in the middle of the range--you have to read the actual analysis article.

That's why I think it's appropriate to focus on the extremes when comparing percentages.

Even so, there could also be a selection bias. Obama has had many more of his statements evaluated because he's the president. More statements evaluated come out as less than complete truth because that's probably the reason for evaluating claims: there is some reason to doubt the veracity of the statement.

At any rate, it's certainly bizarre of Bachmann to make a false claim about Politifact's analysis of her statements in the previous debate. And given her poor record of truthfulness according to Politifact, it's bizarre that she would even want to mention them!

But such a thing isn't unprecedented. IIRC, Cheney once made a reference to FactCheck.org (mistakenly calling it "FactCheck.com")!

 

[varwoche]

delete

 

[Bri]

I am an Obama supporter but the fact that ANY sitting president has a mostly true/true percentage of below 50% is disgraceful (never mind candidates) and the fact that they can get away with that without the media and the country holding them to the fire explains to a great degree what is wrong with this country!

Many statements, particularly those that one might characterize as political rhetoric, fall into the "Half True" category, which is described as "is partially accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context." I didn't include "Half True" statements in my lists above.

How does that percentage hold up to other presidents?

PolitiFact has only been keeping track of statements made by politicians since the previous presidential election, so there are few statements by any other president.

How objective and detail oriented are these ratings?
In other words what is the margin of error say between true and mostly true ?

PolitiFact describes their Truth-O-Meter ratings this way:

How the Truth-O-Meter works

The heart of PolitiFact is the Truth-O-Meter, which we use to rate factual claims.

The Truth-O-Meter is based on the concept that – especially in politics - truth is not black and white.

PolitiFact writers and editors spend considerable time researching and deliberating on our rulings. We always try to get the original statement in its full context rather than an edited form that appeared in news stories. We then divide the statement into individual claims that we check separately.

When possible, we go to original sources to verify the claims. We look for original government reports rather than news stories. We interview impartial experts.

We then decide which of our six rulings should apply:

True – The statement is accurate and there’s nothing significant missing.

Mostly True – The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information.

Half True – The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context.

Mostly False – The statement contains some element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression.

False – The statement is not accurate.

Pants on Fire – The statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim.
​

-Bri