To be fair, most readers aren't even listening to the arguments, so it doesn't matter if the graph is right or wrong. They've settled on a conclusion before th

To be fair, most readers aren't even listening to the arguments, so it doesn't matter if the graph is right or wrong. They've settled on a conclusion before they even looked at the data, let alone read the article. Given how difficult it is to collect all the necessary data for actual objective analysis and how little that ultimately influences any party policy, I'm not even sure you can blame the readers. You can rest assured that each party-line talking head is going to present skewed justifications that inevitably support their own preconceived conclusion. So what does anyone gain by reading through it? It's not like you can change the mind of a talking head by pointing out oversights, contradictions, or flat-out errors in their argument. I mean, does anyone honestly expect a party politician might sit down to analyze some data and come away with a policy that goes against the party philosophy? Any Californian politician knows whether they should solve the budget crisis with cuts or taxes long before they even knew how big the problem was or where the money went. Anymore, I'm fairly certain the only data involved in policy decisions are poll numbers.