Fact-Checking Politicians

Brandon Christensen Current Events, Politics, , ,

I know the last thing everybody wants to hear is another political rant, but I’m going to give it to you anyway.

Has anybody noticed the recent slew of “fact-checking” sheets and reports that have come out since Paul Ryan’s VP speech at the GOP convention*?

Does it really come as a shock to people to find out that politicians lie? I can’t wait to see the other side come out with the same kinds of reports after Joe Biden and the current demagogue-in-chief give their speeches.

Politicians lie? Really? Who would’ve thunk…

Here’s my two cents: Democrats lie more often than Republicans. Hands down. There are always exceptions to the rules, and being more honest than the Democratic Party is not exactly a milestone achievement.

Many people said this race might be the most interesting in a while (thanks to the protection of free speech that Citizens United upheld), but this is absurd on its face. The most intense presidential race in the recent past has probably been the one between Bush II and Kerry.

Mitt Romney is going to win this election (as I keep saying), and it’s because the economy still sucks. That’s it! That’s why he’s going to win! All these other distractions will be forgotten by the middle of next year.

* Note to non-American readers: VP stands for “vice-president” and GOP for the Right-leaning Republican Party.

15 thoughts on “Fact-Checking Politicians”

  3. Yes the Republican is going to win if the party with more deceit and smoking mirrors than the other doesn’t organize those dead registered voters and find a way to get their vote counted. If they can raise the dead then look for a spooky next 4 years.

    Reply

    • Dave,

      Great question! My answer: It doesn’t matter what polls say. If the economy still sucks in seven months, then whoever is in office will get thrown out.

      George HW Bush and Bill Clinton had the same fiscal policies: higher taxes and decreases in spending to balance the budget, but HW lost because of the mild recession going on during an election year.

      Polls are notoriously fickle, as anybody who has followed Ron Paul’s campaign in Iowa and New Hampshire knows, so I don’t give them too much weight in my predictions. A couple of political scientists from the University of Colorado system have a model that they have been using since 1980 to predict electoral college victories and actual results have validated the model every single election year.

      This year’s model predicts that Romney will win the electoral and the popular vote. Most other models devised by political scientists – which mostly take into account economic factors – predict roughly the same thing: a tight race which Romney will end up winning.

      All this other hearsay is for naught.

      George W Bush’s administration may be an exception to the rule, which helps to explain, in part, his heavy focus on foreign policy.

    • a) If the economy still sucks in seven months??? You know the election is in less than two months, right?

      b) I’m not sure why you consider polling “hearsay”. The collection of polls on the presidental election, when taken in aggregate have proven to be quite accurate over the years

      c) It was Mark Twain who said, “History doesn’t repeat itself, but it does rhyme.”

      As you said, most of those models take into account economic factors. But most of those other presidental elections didn’t involve a president that inherited an economy in freefall when he took office.

      Quarter to quarter GDP growth was almost -9% in 4Q2008, and about -5% in 1Q2009. Poll after poll of voters has suggested that a majority of voters understand this. They’re grading Obama’s performance on the economy with that context, and that’s something I suspect those economic models don’t account for at all.

      Anyway, something to consider. Good luck to you.

Please keep it civil