[dragonwriter]

> but now that they knew about that data, it should have also applied equally to Trump's claim.

But Trump's claimed number doesn't match that data either (nor has Trump claimed that was the intended referent.) It can be interpreted to approximately match a different potential measure of workforce participation (that is even less like an unemployment rate as usually understood) that the fact checkers went out of their way to find, which is why it is rated merely "Mostly False", rather than flatly False.

> They should use the same set of facts to judge everybody.

But the two claims aren't the same, and do not have the same relation to the facts.

[jnordwick]

They should have used that institutes data for both. I'm saying he should have been adjudicated as correct, but was abut the same as Sanders, may slightly more hyperbolic, but not enough to dock him that much.

At the very least they should have made a reference to the study that Sander's team brought up and said why it didn't apply.

The biggest issue is that this isn't an isolated incident. That fact checker routinely errors on the Dem side. If this was one of many more balanced cases this would be different.