I've seen many, and they are often misleading.

Indeed intellectual dishonesty is not uncommon.

Agreed.  But it's not uncommon for graphs to use baselines other than zero for various purposes.  With your familiarity with statistics and graphs, I'm sure you have have seen several.  

There is only one purpose of using baselines other than zero: to draw focus to (and magnify) the pattern above the baseline actually used. There are honest reasons to do so, if the pattern itself is the focus: for example, an ac signal on a dc carrier.

There is nothing special in this simple bar graph - no pattern to be amplified for better viewing. The sole purpose of this graph is to distort the difference between the two numbers posted. And no amount of hand-waving or spin can change that.

Then he should of just left it as a link, instead of intentionally posting one of them over here, in an effort to try to prove a point.

"Jerome presented a graph from another site which he provided a link to first, with a host of other graphs to compare and contrast.

Calling him out publicly to label as deceitful with the intent to mislead is way over the line and totally inappropriate"

If you had clicked that link the chance you would been have been deceived could have increased.

Of the "host of other graphs to compare and contrast" the only one that did not have a zero base line was the one that Jerome posted. It was positioned after/under many charts that had a zero base line.

So, to be charitable I will assume Jerome was himself deceived and in his haste to diary good news for Senator Clinton accidentally widened the circle of deception.

Well, that's the graph that appears on the main page.  And, it's the only graph in the set that shows a disparity in such a visually striking way.  So, I think people can draw their own conclusions as to why that particular graph is gracing the front page.

yep.   this diarist is just GRANDSTANDING. get over it I say to her. She already posted all this information in the original diary thread. and yes, slandering the front-pager - really not kosher.

Jerome is a smart guy. Either he didn't take the time to examine the graph properly, in which case he was ridiculously careless in his rush to make a point, or he did see how misleading it was, and he posted it anyway.

When an oil company front-man releases fake information to show that global climate change isn't real, I absolutely blame them. But I also blame the media who are either too stupid or too eager to tell the "controversy" story to point out the flaws in the science. Both are at fault for misleading the public, both should be criticized, and both should lose some of the public trust. This is no different.

Let me join the chorus:  

The graph posted on the front page was terribly misleading.  

Bravo for this diary.

You must be joking, do you recall what an X and Y axis is for, or are your students really that stupid to think only in visual terms.

Jay Cost made the graph, take it up with him.

Besides, this is all a distraction from the main point. That delegates are not evenly gotten in the current set-up, as a measure of votes. Seems pretty un-democratic to me.

But you should really focus on real evidence as to why the system is undemocratic, such as the involvement of unelected superdelegates in the race.  When you try to present a very small difference between the vote per delegate numbers of Clinton and Obama as though it's a large one, you do a disservice to the case for reform.  

You may not believe this, but I have a bit of respect for you (I loved "Crashing the Gates"), but every time something like this happens, that respect wavers a bit and I have to question whether or not it's well-placed.

So yeah, let's reform the nomination process, but let's do so based on relevant facts about the system, not on misleading graphs.

Both pledged delegate count and "popular vote" counts are misleading. The idea that sixty different state-level snapshots taken over a five-month span with different rules in each contest is in any way representative of the democratic electorate (either via pledged delegates or popular vote) is absurd.

The difference is that while "popular vote" is merely symbolic, delegates actually determine the nominee.

The best way to determine the will of democrats across the country is probably polls. For all their inaccuracy, they at least follow uniform rules across the country and represent a narrow, recent band of time.

On that, we disagree.  I actually think Hillary Clinton would make a good President -- certainly one much better than her husband, John McCain, and the current occupant of the White House.  She just got really unlucky by having to run against a truly gifted campaigner whose experiences and compelling message matched what the voters saw as the nation's needs of the time.  Barack Obama picked the right time and the right place to run.

I doubt Barack Obama would have done this well in 1996, 2000, or even 2004.  His message simply wouldn't have fit in with the nation's mood at the time.

I think just not competing in states when there is proportional allocation and two candidates -- she learned the hard way how you're opponent can rack up huge delegate gains on the cheap.

Which is actually a significant difference. smaller then with winner takes all elections but larger then we should want. A change to proportional distribution on state level instead district would reduce the difference to more acceptable levels.

Luckily the difference was not large enough to effect the election this time so it's still an academic problem.

Major reverse-distortion mojo!

and clearly shows the huge disparity that exists. Makes it hard to understand why Clinton is still in the race. ;)

Hey SupremeCourt, I used this image and credited you in my post here:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/25/1747 9/7977

I'd mojo you if I could.  :)

This is a terrible analogy, as of course a proportion of a total that subtracts 10,000 from that total would be deceptive.  But this is not the case here at all.

What kind of idiots do you think people who read graphs are?

Anyone who has been paying attention knows that the rules are arcane and outdated.  That is irrelevant to whether or not the graph is misleading.

How is the graph that I pointed out any less legitimate?  It shows the numeric difference between Clinton's and Obama's delegate counts quite well.  Its ability to show numeric differences was the justification that you cited in defense of the front paged graph.

Be fair.  Both graphs are misleading because they manipulate the origin of the y-axis.  What reason is there to start the graph at 10,200?

Do you disagree with my article?  If so, why?

It's a direct application of Tufte's principle.  Do you disagree with that principle?  If so, on what grounds?

Be forthright, please.