An Analysis of the Lamont-Lieberman Debate

[Don1]

Summary

Democratic primary Senatorial candidates for Connecticut debated on July 6, 2006. After obtaining a copy of the debate transcript, we spent over 100 hours analyzing the claims made by the candidates. We chose not to analyze comments from the moderators as well as value-statements, rhetorical devices, and facts of an obvious nature by the candidates. Our sources used to substantiate claims included government documents, news articles, white papers by research entities, and the online congressional record. For some substantiation no source was necessary as the argument was illogically constructed. We automatically marked those claims as false. Summary Table of claims checked:

TRUE (Lieberman=23,Lamont=28)
FALSE(Lieberman=7,Lamont=1)
UNSUBSTANTIATED(Lieberman=3,Lamont=1)
MISLEADING(Lieberman=3,Lamont=0)
EXAGGERATION(Lieberman=2,Lamont=1)
Accuracy Score(Lieberman=60.53%,Lamont=90.32%)


The entire analysis can be found here:
http://www.ctprogressives.org/files/ctpda/te/ctpda/FinalDraft.doc

[panader0]

1. Cool, I wish,however that it didn't take so long.

It would be a great thing to have on the TV screen at every political debate. I used to think a red light going on when a lie was told would be good, but your in depth analysis is better.

[Don1]

3. Yes, that would be ideal.

But then you would have to trust the news...

[sendero]

2. Wow...

... Lamont has more integrity than LIEberman. Who'd have thunk? :)

[Don1]

4. I would have

but it is important for us to remain rational in the face of our biases. The empirical evidence is stacked up against Lieberman and his positions on the war are not reality-based at all. Moderates need to see this type of evidence as well or otherwise we progressives are merely preaching to the choir.

[Pale Blue Dot]

5. ...kick...

[Don1]

6. Thanks. n/t