Grading PolitiFact: The NRSC and "the deciding vote"

When is the deciding vote not the deciding vote?  And, alternatively, when is the deciding vote the deciding vote?  Never fear!  PolitiFact is here to cast the deciding vote in making the determination.

The issue:

The fact checkers:

Louis Jacobson:  writer, researcher
Martha Hamilton:  editor

Analysis:

Is there more than one way to understand the phrase "the deciding vote"?  If so, we ought to keep watch for the fallacy of equivocation in this PolitiFact item.

First, the ad:





PolitiFact:

"One vote makes a difference," the narrator says. "Michael Bennet cast the deciding vote for Obama's stimulus that wasted billions, added to the debt and didn't create the jobs they promised. Bennet cast the deciding vote to allow passage of the trillion-dollar health care bill that slashed Medicare, hurting seniors. Bennet's vote was the key to billions in job-killing taxes, too. Michael Bennet: He's been their vote, not Colorado's."

We won't tackle the ad's description of the substance of the two bills. (We've addressed some of those points in the past.) Instead, we'll look at whether it's fair to call Bennet the deciding vote on those bills.

 PolitiFact looks at whether it's fair to call Bennet the deciding vote on those bills.  In the three paragraphs following the quoted portion above, PolitiFact notes that the bills were passed by a single vote in each case and in the next paragraph presents a fair summary of the NRSC ad's argument:

The idea that the Democrats couldn't spare even a single vote is the crux of the NRSC's argument.

Now we can narrow the question a tad.  Is it fair a vote "the deciding vote" if it is simply one vote among many on a measure that succeeded by a single vote?

We ran the issue by a variety of congressional scholars, and most agreed that it was a stretch for the NRSC to label Bennet's vote "the deciding vote."

"That statement is misleading and a distortion of fact," said James Thurber, a political scientist at American University.

Was the vote in which most agree that it was a stretch close?  Was Thurber (who gave to Charles Schumer's election campaign in the past) the deciding vote?

Seriously, is this the type of thing for which experts need to vote?  Shouldn't this fact check consist of a simple examination of common English usage?  Is it misleading if people are not reasonably misled?

PolitiFact finds the NRSC ad "Barely True" based on the majority criticism a group of experts.

It's a convenient way to avoid doing the fact check the proper way:

"I cast the deciding vote to pass health care reform."
--Blanche Lincoln

"Every Democrat cast the deciding health-care vote."--WSJ opinion

"The court divided along ideological lines on the decision with Justice Anthony Kennedy casting the deciding vote and writing the majority opinion."
--Kenneth P. Vogel, for Politico

"Prejudice could cast deciding vote for Obama, Hillary" --Chicago Sun-Times (headline)

"It was defeated by one vote. Ric Keller was the deciding vote against our troops."
Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.)

"... Arlen Specter cast the deciding vote in favor of a Recovery Act that has helped pull us back from the brink."
--President Obama


"... O'Connor repeatedly cast the fifth and deciding vote ..."
--Charles Lane, staff writer for the Washington Post

Are all of these folks wrong?  I included two examples touching the Supreme Court for a reason:  I think it represents a suitable comparison for the NRSC ad.  Any time two sides are closely balanced when it comes time to vote the tie-breaker is the deciding vote.  With nine on the bench one or two justices will sometimes obtain the label "swing vote" and their vote will end up being called "the deciding vote" even though there may have been no delay in the voting that makes the swing voter's vote any different from any other on the Court.

The answer to the question, then, is a resounding yes.  It is fair to call any person whose vote was part of a one-vote victory the deciding vote.  People will typically understand what is meant.  And that brings us back to the ad.  Was it clear from the context what was meant?

It seems clear enough.  PolitiFact uncovered the ad's argument with no apparent difficulty ("Democrats couldn't spare even a single vote").  The language from the ad does nothing to suggest that Bennet's vote was delayed or held special status other than by calling it "the deciding vote."  But since the overall context simply conveys the message that Bennet's presence enabled Democrats to win some notable one-vote victories this fact check does, as anticipated, serve as an example of the fallacy of equivocation.

Is it possible that somebody might be misled by the language?  Sure.  But no attempt at communication is foolproof.  On the point at issue, the ad is accurate enough to rate as high as "True," and the "Barely True" rating is a stretch.


My justification applies just as well to Alan Grayson's statement about Ric Keller, of course.  Obama's praise of Arlen Specter seems like a different story since the Recovery Act passed with 61 votes in the Senate.  Where was PolitiFact on that one?

PolitiFact's concluding paragraph:

The NRSC ad would have been quite justified in describing Bennet's vote for either bill as "crucial" or "necessary" to passage of either bill, or even as "a deciding vote." But we can't find any rationale for singling Bennet

I was poised to give both PolitiFacters "D" grades for at least getting in the ballpark with the "Barely True" rating and recognizing the basic legitimacy of the ad's argument.  But the logical jumble of the concluding paragraph makes that impossible.  Jacobson identified the message of the ad ("Democrats couldn't spare even a single vote") and then finds that argument out of agreement with other senators playing a key role.

That makes no sense.

The grades:

Louis Jacobson: F
Martha Hamilton: F