Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by jessejamesxx
How bout you copy and paste that html you can "see" here then as your proof?
Proof, or its just your opinion.
This information comes from the html of the page, with all of the code cut out of it except for the important values. I pulled up the source code to check this out for myself, instead of going on just what I read.
Ron Paul style="width:100%;" 58.7%
Mitt Romney style="width:24%" 14%
Rick Perry style="width:20%;" 11.9%
Jon Huntsman style="width:10%;" 5.9%
Newt Gingrich style="width:7%;" 3.9%
Herman Cain style="width:5%;" 2.9%
Michele Bachmann style="width:3%;" 1.8%
Rick Santorum style="width:2%;" 0.9%
The percentages are based on a 600pixel graph - that maxes out at 50% All of the voting percentage values are doubled, giving the width percentage, except for RP's because it's above 50%.
What I mean when I say 600pixel graph, is that all of the bars (except RP's) are double what they should be. Mitt Romney is supposed to have his bar go 24% across, based on the input information, but it goes about 50% across the graph (shown on the website). Same with Perry's, it goes about 40% across instead of the 20% he won.
YES, it's skewed against Paul, because he was a landslide winner. The graph is set to max out at 50%, but only shows up until 25%. No other reason. It was set up the same way from the beginning, and wasn't changed as soon as Paul started winning. (unless there is proof of this)
My point: Anyone that would have gotten more than 25%, would have had the same thing happen to them.
The conclusion: Unless MSNBC knew for a fact that Paul would win over 25% of votes, it's not crafted JUST to make him look bad.
edit on 11-9-2011 by jessejamesxx because: (no reason given)