To: Bryanw92
Its 5.5 to 1. So, ask yourself this: if he claimed 6 to 1, how long would it take before some leftist fact checker gave him a bunch of Pinocchios for lying? 5 to 1 is the safe number to use. Not common core. Just common sensse. You might want to reread the article. It's not common sense at all. It's a simple math error. You're right, the exact ratio is 5.5 to 1. The article, though, stated that the ratio was 3 to 1, not 5 to 1. (I'm not certain that's a number he used or one that was from the article's author.)
83 posted on
10/05/2016 7:07:04 AM PDT by
Bob
(No, being a US Senator and the Secretary of State are not accomplishments; they're jobs.)
To: Bob
I went through the Luntz tweets. I think the 3:1 was Katie’s error. Of course, she said more than 3 to 1 and 5.5 is more than 3.
85 posted on
10/05/2016 7:23:42 AM PDT by
Bryanw92
(If we had some ham, we could have ham and eggs, if we had some eggs.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson