If politicians telling lies is a bad thing, you'd expect politicians who've lied to be shamed into stopping it, or for voters to vote out those who've been lying too much.

Is there a correlation between the truthfulness of a candidate, as rated by fact-checking sites such as PoliFact, and their electoral success in primaries and/or general elections? And if so, in what direction is the correlation? Do those rated as untruthful, or those rated as truthful, do better?

  • 1
    Fact checking isn't old enough for statistically significant data. PolitiFact opened in 2007, so it's only seen two presidential elections (five overall). FactCheck.org is only four years older. Also note the other confounding factors. Is it an open or incumbent/challenger election? And of course the question of fact checking bias, both in evaluating claims and in choosing what claims to evaluate. – Brythan Jul 31 '16 at 16:10
  • 1
    It'd be nice but I don't think in the entire history of human politics telling the truth had much correlation to electability. – user1530 Aug 1 '16 at 2:23
  • In politics, "truthfulness" is in the eye of the beerholder. Half of the USA still believes that Clinton didn't lie under oath. And "fact checkers" are rarely themselves checked for either accuracy or, more importantly, whether they let specific candidates slide. Politifact skated around "Benghazi was because of a youtube video" issue, barely mentioning it as "Romney" evaluation (instead of evaluating that statement as coming from administration). matter of fact their entire Benghazi article was devoted to tearing down administration critics' statements, ignoring the administration. – user4012 Aug 1 '16 at 15:12

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .