NewsTrust - Most Recent Stories

5 Reasons Democrats Could Beat the Polls and Hold the House

Tue, 02 Nov 2010 00:00:00 -0700

New York Times - By Nate Silver - Nov. 02 (Opinion) - While our forecast and a good deal of polling data suggest that the Republicans may win the House of Representatives on Tuesday, perhaps all is not lost for the Democrats. Here’s one possible scenario for how things might not end up as expected.

NewsTrust Rating: 4.1 average - 4 Reviews » - Review It Visit NewsTrust | About | Sign Up | Disclaimer

5 Reasons Republicans Could Do Even Better Than Expected

Sun, 31 Oct 2010 00:00:00 -0700

New York Times - By Nate Silver - Oct. 31 (News Analysis) - Dawn breaks over New York City on Wednesday, Nov. 3. Democrats catching the early train to work are thinking about adding a little whiskey to their morning coffee. Because the headlines they are reading are truly terrible.

NewsTrust Rating: 3.4 average - 4 Reviews » - Review It Visit NewsTrust | About | Sign Up | Disclaimer

Tonight’s House Forecast: 52-Seat Gain For G.O.P.

Wed, 27 Oct 2010 00:00:00 -0700

New York Times - By Nate Silver - Oct. 27 (News Analysis) - If Democrats were hoping for a late surge to improve their chances of retaining control of the U.S. House, there isn't any evidence of it yet.

NewsTrust Rating: 3.7 average (not enough reviews) - See Reviews » - Review It Visit NewsTrust | About | Sign Up | Disclaimer

Early Voter ‘Enthusiasm Gap’ Appears Consistent With Polls

Mon, 25 Oct 2010 00:00:00 -0700

New York Times - By Nate Silver - Oct. 25 (News Analysis) - Early voting suggests an enthusiasm edge for Republicans, although the data are somewhat ambiguous.

NewsTrust Rating: 3.7 average - 5 Reviews » - Review It Visit NewsTrust | About | Sign Up | Disclaimer

Consensus Points Toward 50-Seat G.O.P. Gain in House

Sat, 16 Oct 2010 00:00:00 -0700

New York Times - By Nate Silver - Oct. 16 (Opinion) - FiveThirtyEight’s projection for the U.S. House shows little change from last week. Republicans are given a 73 percent chance of taking over the House, up incrementally from 72 percent last week. During an average simulation run, Republicans finished

NewsTrust Rating: 3.9 average (not enough reviews) - See Review » - Review It Visit NewsTrust | About | Sign Up | Disclaimer

Murkowski Can Win as Write-In

Fri, 17 Sep 2010 00:00:00 -0700

New York Times - By Nate Silver - Sep. 17 (Opinion) - There is plenty of precedent for write-ins being elected to the Congress, although fewer have done so successfully in recent years.

NewsTrust Rating: 4.0 average (not enough reviews) - See Review » - Review It Visit NewsTrust | About | Sign Up | Disclaimer

Opinion on Same-Sex Marriage Appears to Shift at Accelerated Pace

Thu, 12 Aug 2010 00:00:00 -0700

FiveThirtyEight - By Nate Silver - Aug. 12 (News Analysis) - In April, 2009, when we last took a survey of gay marriage polls, we found that support for it had converged somewhere into the area of 41 or 42 percent of the country. Now, it appears to have risen by several points, and as I reported yesterday, it has become increasingly unclear whether opposition to gay marriage still outweighs support for it.

NewsTrust Rating: 3.5 average (not enough reviews) - See Review » - Review It Visit NewsTrust | About | Sign Up | Disclaimer

The Emerging Republican Minority

Wed, 23 Jun 2010 00:00:00 -0700

FiveThirtyEight - By Tom Schaller - Jun. 23 (Opinion) - The Center for American Politics' Ruy Teixeira, one of the top political demographers in the country, has a new paper out in which he examines the two major party coalitions, with a focus on the current and future prospects of the Republican Party. For the GOP, says Teixeira, things look grim, in large part because the country is becoming less white and more educated. He provides specific data showing how college educated voters are growing, and non-college educated shrinking, as shares of the electorate; likewise for the growing non-white v. shrinking white populations.

NewsTrust Rating: 3.2 average (not enough reviews) - See Reviews » - Review It Visit NewsTrust | About | Sign Up | Disclaimer

Something Fishy in South Carolina?

Sat, 12 Jun 2010 00:00:00 -0700

FiveThirtyEight - By Tom Schaller - Jun. 12 (News Analysis) - Is there something suspicious about the results in the US Senate primary victory of unknown Democrat Alvin Greene, who defeated fellow Democrat Vic Rawl, 59 percent to 41 percent? I'm not sure yet, but there is a whiff of something strange going on here.

NewsTrust Rating: 3.3 average - 4 Reviews » - Review It Visit NewsTrust | About | Sign Up | Disclaimer

What Tuesday Really Meant

Thu, 20 May 2010 00:00:00 -0700

FiveThirtyEight - By Nate Silver - May. 20 (News Analysis) - There were five races that we were tracking closely over the course of the evening -- and I've already seen analysts drawing flimsy conclusions from each of them.Pennsylvania -- Democratic Senate primaryThe results: Joe Sestak defeats Arlen Specter, 54-46.The conventional wisdom: This was a stunning repudiation of the Democratic establishment.The reality: Certainly, Specter had the support of a lot of Very Important People, including the President, many unions, and the mayors of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. But in many cases, it seemed perfunctory. The White House elected not to send either Barack Obama or Joe Biden to the state in the closing days. The unions were nominally supporting Specter, but were concentrating their cash in Arkansas and elsewhere. As Sestak began to emerge as the superior general election candidate, their support grew even more tepid. This was an important win, and the netroots progressives who championed Sestak's campaign deserve all the credit in the world. But something can be dramatic without being especially surprising. Joe Sestak is a mainline, lunchpail Democrat who defeated a very unpopular Republican-turned-Democrat who ran an awful campaign and who Pennsylvania Democrats weren't used to punching their ticket for. No huge shock there.Kentucky -- Republican Senate primaryThe results: Rand Paul defeats Trey Grayson, 59-35.The conventional wisdom: This was a stunning repudiation of the Republican establishment.The reality: Because of Paul's impressive 24-point margin of victory, almost any explanation you might proffer probably contains some element of truth. But for all his libertarian and tea-party dressing, Paul in fact ran on a fairly conventional, conservative platform. He's pro-life, anti-gay marriage, anti-immigration ... there are only the faintest hints of libertarianism here. This was probably a good thing for him because Kentucky, which has traditionally been socially conservative but economically moderate, is pretty much kitty-corner to the libertarian side of the political quadrant. This was actually very clever, in a lot of ways -- Paul's last name (and decision to affiliate himself with the tea party) gained him national attention and fundraising and earned media, but to people in Kentucky, he ought to have been a very comfortable choice who was somewhat more fresh-faced than his rival. The branded product beat the generic one.Paul might have some trouble in general election, especially after somewhat underwhelming turnout in the primary (Democratic turnout was actually 60 percent higher, although Democrats enjoy a substantial registration advantage in Kentucky). But that's more because of his inexperience and standoffishness and less because of his platform.Kentucky -- Democratic Senate primaryThe results: Jack Conway defeats Daniel Mongiardo, 44-43.The conventional wisdom: What? The Democrats had a primary too?The reality: Yes, they did -- and it was the closest race of the night, with Conway taking an early lead from a substantial advantage in Louisville and Lexington but Mongiardo, who was stronger in rural areas, nearly closing the gap by the end of the night. Conway had polled somewhat better in general election matchups so this is a result most national Democrats will be pleased with -- although the way that Attorney Generals have been going lately, maybe he'll prove to be a bit jinxed.Arkansas -- Democratic Senate primaryThe results: Blanche Lincoln and Bill Halter head to overtime. Lincoln has 45 percent of votes counted so far tonight, and Halter 43 percent, but a majority was required to avoid a run-off.The conventional wisdom: Lincoln spent too much time hanging out in the middle of the road and got run over.The reality: There are parallels between what Rand Paul accomplished in Kentucky and what Bill Halter did in Arkansas. As I mentioned earlier, Kentucky is not a particularly good state for real libertarians. Likewise, Arkansas is not an especially good state for netroots progressives, who are mostly white, liberal, and college-educated, whereas the state's Democratic primary electorate is 61 percent non-college, 64 percent non-liberal, and contains a fair number of black voters.Halter endeared himself to national progressives and to unions with his vocal support of the public option, giving him money, momentum and media attention. But to Arkansasans, he was a relatively familiar face (as the sitting Lieutenant Governor) who ran a relatively non-ideological campaign, railing against corruption, bailouts, and wishy-washiness, as challengers of all political persuasions are doing. Halter came out against cap-and-trade, on the other hand, and tried his best to avoid taking a position on contentious social issues.Certainly this is a rough environment for moderates, but Lincoln made matters worse by drawing unnecessary attention to herself on health care, and by picking the wrong issues to moderate upon: yes on TARP, no on the public option] is a set of positions that very few rank-and-file Democrats (or voters of any kind) will share. And she was a very incumbent-y incumbent in an environment where incumbents are not popular.Of course, we should not yet be speaking about her in the past tense; Lincoln could still win the run-off. But I suspect that the presumably superior enthusiasm of Halter's voters will pay off for him in three weeks. Turnout was actually not bad in Arkansas -- in fact, it slightly exceeded turnout in the 2008 Presidential primary -- but I don't know if Blanche Lincoln is the sort of person for whom people are going to get up off the couch to vote for twice in one month.Pennsylvania 12th Congressional District -- Special electionThe results: Mark Critz (D) defeats Tim Burns (R), 53-45.The conventional wisdom: A big, clutch win for Democrats.The reality: Neither outcome would have been surprising here. The polling showed a toss-up, and the district (with a PVI of R+1) is close to the national median. There's a lot of variance in open-seat elections for the House; even in an environment like 2008, Democrats would have had about a 30 percent chance of losing this seat, and even in one as relatively poor for them as 2004, they would have had about a 40 percent chance of winning it.Still, the 8-point margin of victory was surprising. As I wrote yesterday morning: "It's really only if one of the candidates wins by middle-to-high single digits ... that [PA-12] might tell us something", and Critz met that threshold.Republicans have some decent excuses; they may have been harmed by the fact that there was a contentious Democratic Senate primary occurring at the same time, for instance, and the DCCC seems to have a peculiar knack for winning special elections. The Democratic candidate ran against his party's health care bill! But make no mistake: there are garbage cans being kicked, and consultants being sworn at, at NRCC headquarters right now. And the Republicans may need to engage in some self-reflection about whether nationalizing the race will be the optimal strategy in each of 50 distinct states and 435 distinct Congressional Districts.

NewsTrust Rating: 4.1 average - 7 Reviews » - Review It Visit NewsTrust | About | Sign Up | Disclaimer

Stop, Drop and Poll

Tue, 27 Apr 2010 00:00:00 -0700

FiveThirtyEight - By Nate Silver - Apr. 27 (News) - The Rasmussen poll says that 60 percent of Americans (and 70 percent of Arizonans) favor the new law, but how would those numbers change if people were read a longer or more complete description of the measure? Since there's been no other polling on the subject, we have no idea. It wouldn't shock me if the law indeed proved to be popular, especially in Arizona, if a fuller description were read. (Liberals, who uniformly seem to think that the law will be unpopular with certain key demographic groups, are a bit too sanguine about this). But this poll is so simplistic as to provide very little informational value.

NewsTrust Rating: 3.7 average (not enough reviews) - See Reviews » - Review It Visit NewsTrust | About | Sign Up | Disclaimer

Has Augusta Gone Soft?

Fri, 09 Apr 2010 10:28:53 -0700

FiveThirtyEight - By noreply@blogger.com (Tom Schaller) - Apr. 09 - Well, Tiger's back at Augusta. Crowds yesterday seemed to be generally pleasant and welcoming toward him, if perhaps a bit reserved. Other than an overhead plane with a sarcastic, sexual-themed message banner, there was no heckling. And Woods did pretty well: His 4-under yesterday was his best ever opening round at the Masters.Also doing well after 18 holes are a bunch of old timers, including former Masters winners Bernard Langer, Sandy Lyle, Tom Watson and Fred Couples, who finished yesterday at -1, -3, -5 and -6, respectively. That 66 for "Boom Boom" Couples--one of my favorite golfers and the '92 champ--puts him alone atop the leaderboard going into the second round; it was also the lowest round of his entire Masters' career. Couples, by the way, is 50.And that made me wonder: Is the Masters getting easier? Despite the lengthening and toughening of the course over the years, the scores do seem, at first glance, to be trending lower.Above I've plotted the scores and the winning margins every year since the first tourney in 1934. (There were three wartime years when play was suspended.) The winning scores have steadily gone down. In the first 36 years of competition, through 1972, the average winning score against par was -6.4; in the 37 years from 1973 until last year the average winning score against par was -9.6. The slope for the winning margin during the entire period is -1.8. This difference could, of course, could be attributable to aberrant yet outstanding performances by just the winners over the past few decades, despite overall scoring for the entire field remaining constant or perhaps even falling. Without collecting every score for every player over 73 tourneys, which I don't have time to do--and absent any resource that I can find which provides field-wide average scores against par--I can't say for sure. And, on a related note, I also want to vent about this horribly small-fonted "Records and Statistics" page at the Masters official site, which is annoying and of little help. (Hullo, somebody needs to fix their website!) What we do have, conveniently assembled thanks to Wikipedia, are the winner's score and the winner's margin over the next closest finisher(s). And while winner's scores against par have improved, the average margin of victory (2.1 strokes over 73 tourneys so far) has not changed at all during this period: Notice that there is no slope to top trend line, which tracks the margin by which the winner won through four rounds. (N.B.: For tourneys that went to a playoff--which means two or more players were tied after four rounds--I coded the margin 0; of course, the eventual winner in the playoff had to win by at least a stroke, but what matters is the 72-hole margin, if any.)So, both the winning scores are going down and the margins between the winner and the first runner(s)-up hasn't budged, which means the scores of runner(s)-ups are going down in order to keep pace. Of course, these two data points can only account for the performances at the very top of the leaderboard. But there is another statistic to consider--this one courtesy of that almost-impossible-to-read Records & Stats page at the Masters official site--which is the percentage of players who make the cut each year.For the non-golf fan, players are allowed to play the final two days only if they are within 10 strokes of the leader. That said, if leaders (at least after two days' play) in recent decades are simply unusually above-the-rest-of-the-field scorers despite an otherwise consistent or worse-scoring field of remaining entrants, then a smaller and smaller share of players should be making the cut over time because of the distance leaders are putting between themselves and the remainder of the field. But that's not the case, either, as the bar chart above shows. There is no trend line for percentage of players making the cut. The data the Masters site provides unfortunately start only in 1957, so the time periods are not identical. But at least since '57, there is no trend in share of players making the cut.In sum, the winner's score against par is going down, yet the scores of the runners-up are keeping pace since there's no rise in the four-round margin of victory, and the rest of the field is also keeping up because the share of all players making the cut has held steady. This, by the way, is despite the fact that over time there ought to be more really low scores thanks to the lifetime exemption rule which allows any Masters winner to play--which is why Arnold Palmer and Jack Nicklaus can tee off every year, no matter whether they were otherwise qualified or competitive enough to make the field based on their skill level today. (I actually love this rule, as I suspect many fans do--and hey, you can bet Watson and Couples do, too.) So, what explains the fact that Augusta seems more beatable today than in the past? Two answers come immediately to mind. One, of course, is that equipment advances in clubs and balls allow players to drive farther and more accurately today. But the second may simply be the quality of the available pool, driven as that is by the globalization of golf. My evidence on the latter count is pretty straightforward and, I think, compelling: Of the 37 winners from 1973 until last year, 17 were non-Americans, but in the first 36 years of competition, only ONE was not an American (South African Gary Player, 1961). As the global appeal and thus quality of the global pool of players has expanded, Augusta, like other courses, has had to bend a bit from an assault of greater quality.

NewsTrust Rating: 2.8 average (not enough reviews) - See Review » - Review It Visit NewsTrust | About | Sign Up | Disclaimer

Whip Counts Now Show Democrats With 216+ Solid Yes Votes

Sun, 21 Mar 2010 00:00:00 -0700

FiveThirtyEight - By Nate Silver - Mar. 21 (News Report) - Lots of action in the last 20 minutes or so, so let's go ahead and start a fresh thread. David Dayen: listed 215 yes votes earlier, but did not account for Paul Kanjorski or Joe Donnelly, who have announced their intentions to vote for the bill in the last half-hour or so. That would bring his count to 217. Dayen's total does include Bobby Rush, who still insisted on calling himself undecided as of this morning and to my knowledge has yet to revise that position. So call it 216 if you want to be conservative. New York Times: This appears to be the most up-to-date count. They list 218 yes votes, counting Rush, or 217 without him. CBS News: They also list 216 yes votes, not counting Rush -- but also not counting Kanjorski. So this should be read as 217. The Hill: lists 214 yes votes -- but three of their four undecideds -- Kanjorski, Cooper, Sanchez -- have since come out in favor of the bill, which would bring their total to 217 as well.

NewsTrust Rating: 3.4 average (not enough reviews) - See Review » - Review It Visit NewsTrust | About | Sign Up | Disclaimer

It's Complicated!

Sat, 20 Mar 2010 00:00:00 -0700

FiveThirtyEight - By Nate Silver - Mar. 20 (News Analysis) - Per Jonathan Cohn, Steny Hoyer says "clearly we believe we have the votes" and per Josh Kraushaar, Chris Carney (PA-10) will now vote for the bill. Everything looks to be back on track. The Intrade contract -- now at 85 percent -- might in fact be a little cheap. Things look to be stabilizing a hair for the Democrats as the caucus made a smart decision not to use the "deem-and-pass" strategy to cast their health care votes, as pro-choice Democrats appear to be comfortable with the idea that Obama will issue an Executive Order on the abortion language (although it's unclear how many Stupak votes this will persuade) and as debates over Medicare spending levels appear to be resolved. I'd say odds for passage are up over 80 percent again -- but obviously this changes on an hour-to-hour and even minute-to-minute basis.

NewsTrust Rating: 3.7 average (not enough reviews) - See Review » - Review It Visit NewsTrust | About | Sign Up | Disclaimer

Massa v. Beck Celebrity Crazy Match

Tue, 09 Mar 2010 00:00:00 -0800

FiveThirtyEight - By Tom Schaller - Mar. 09 (Review) - I didn't get home in time to catch the whole thing, but the concluding parts of the Eric Massa interview on Glenn Beck's show that I did see have me wondering whether Beck or Massa is the crazier of the two. But this much I'm sure about: You have to give Beck full credit for admitting and even apologizing for, as he put it, "wasting" an hour of his audience's time interviewing the now-former New York Congressman, who faces increased scrutiny of his behavior while in office.Beck's apology followed repeated attempts to get Massa to name names or provide some juicy nugget about President Obama, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, House Democrats or, really, any of the people he claims "forced him out" of office--as Massa, who resigned his seat yesterday, has repeatedly claimed. As for his own behavior, Massa insisted that he never groped anyone, "did nothing illegal or sexually inappropriate" but admitted he used inappropriate language and must "own this misbehavior."Beck pressed him to go further, asking Massa if there would be other shoes to drop--emails or phone messages or text messages to come that will embarrass Massa. "I'm sure there are text messages," said Massa. Ruh-roh.Massa continued to lodge generic complaints about the behavior of the White House, Emanuel's in particular. "He made it very clear that I better vote with the President," said Massa of Emanuel's attempts to pressure Massa into voting for healthcare reform. Massa said he regrets saying during a recent appearance on his radio show that Emanuel "would tie his own children to the railroad tracks" to get a vote from Congress, but then added sarcastically that Emanuel would only tie Massa's children to the tracks to gain a vote. Open mouth, remove foot presently lodged there, insert other foot.Meanwhile, Massa spent a lot of breath complaining about--this just in!--the poisoning effect partisanship is having on our political system; he called for an end to hyper-partisanship. At one point he said he identifies with Tea Partiers because he is a fiscal conservative, but that they can't go to rallies pretending that the national debt somehow started in 2009.By the end, however, a frustrated Beck clearly had heard enough of Massa's vague and shopworn complaints--he depicted the whip system in Congress as corruption--and his lack of any real evidence to back up his public charges. Turning directly to the camera to address his viewers, Beck confessed, "I think I've wasted an hour of your time." It was one of the most honest moments I have ever seen on television.It's hard to out-crazy Glenn Beck, whose show is sponsored by the Yoshi Knife, and gold brokers running ads featuring Gordon Liddy and the dude Matt Damon chumped down in the famous bar scene from Good Will Hunting. But this afternoon, Massa did just that.

NewsTrust Rating: 3.6 average (not enough reviews) - See Review » - Review It Visit NewsTrust | About | Sign Up | Disclaimer

Is Obamacare a Favorite to Pass?

Fri, 05 Mar 2010 00:00:00 -0800

FiveThirtyEight - By Nate Silver - Mar. 05 (News Analysis) - That's what the punters at Intrade think right now, where the 'Obamacare' contract is just barely better than even-money to pass at 52 percent. It has moved up fairly significantly within the past 72 hours, as the contract was mostly trading in the 30-4

NewsTrust Rating: Not rated yet - See Info » - Review It Visit NewsTrust | About | Sign Up | Disclaimer

Republicans on Wrong Side of Public Opinion

Tue, 09 Feb 2010 00:00:00 -0800

FiveThirtyEight - By Nate Silver - Feb. 09 (News Analysis) - An analysis of 25 key issues shows that Republicans tend to be on the wrong side of public opinion more often than the Obama administration.

NewsTrust Rating: 4.0 average - 4 Reviews » - Review It Visit NewsTrust | About | Sign Up | Disclaimer

McGOP: The Virtues and Vices of Sameness

Wed, 03 Feb 2010 00:00:00 -0800

FiveThirtyEight - By noreply@blogger.com (Nate Silver) - Feb. 03 (Poll) - Take, for instance, the statement that "Barack Obama is a socialist", which 63 percent of Republicans agreed with in the poll. How do the responses to this question break down by demographics? Well, they don't -- the percentage is just about the same for all groups.

NewsTrust Rating: 3.9 average (not enough reviews) - See Reviews » - Review It Visit NewsTrust | About | Sign Up | Disclaimer

Divorce Rates Higher in States With Gay Marriage Bans

Tue, 12 Jan 2010 00:00:00 -0800

FiveThirtyEight - By Nate Silver - Jan. 12 (News) - Over the past decade or so, divorce has gradually become more uncommon in the United States. Since 2003, however, the decline in divorce rates has been largely confined to states which have not passed a state constitutional ban on gay marriage. These

NewsTrust Rating: 4.5 average (not enough reviews) - See Review » - Review It Visit NewsTrust | About | Sign Up | Disclaimer

Insurance Stocks Rise on News of Health Care Deal; What's It Mean?

Tue, 22 Dec 2009 00:00:00 -0800

FiveThirtyEight - By Nate Silver - Dec. 22 (News Analysis) - So, I guess the increase in those insured offsets the burdens imposed upon them in the form of no more discrimination due to pre-existing conditions, insurance premiums in the pool at a minimum spend 85% on health care and everything else by a

NewsTrust Rating: Not rated yet - See Info » - Review It Visit NewsTrust | About | Sign Up | Disclaimer

Politics Done Right: 20 Questions for Bill Killers

Sun, 20 Dec 2009 00:00:00 -0800

FiveThirtyEight - By Nate Silver - Dec. 20 (News Analysis) - 1. Over the medium term, how many other opportunities will exist to provide in excess of $100 billion per year in public subsidies to poor and sick people?

NewsTrust Rating: 3.0 average - 3 Reviews » - Review It Visit NewsTrust | About | Sign Up | Disclaimer

Why Progressives Are Batshit Crazy to Oppose the Senate Bill

Tue, 15 Dec 2009 00:00:00 -0800

FiveThirtyEight - By Nate Silver - Dec. 15 (News Analysis) - For any "progressive" who is concerned about the inequality of wealth, income and opportunity in America, this bill would be an absolutely monumental achievement. The more compelling critique, rather, is that the bill would fail to significantly "bend the cost curve". I don't dismiss that criticism at all, and certainly the insertion of a public option would have helped at the margins. But fundamentally, that is a critique that would traditionally be associated with the conservative side of the debate, as it ultimately goes to mounting deficits in the wake of expanded government entitlements.

NewsTrust Rating: 3.7 average (not enough reviews) - See Reviews » - Review It Visit NewsTrust | About | Sign Up | Disclaimer

Constitutional Chicanery

Wed, 25 Nov 2009 00:00:00 -0800

FiveThirtyEight - By Tom Schaller - Nov. 25 (Opinion) - I’m not a constitutional scholar. (N.B.: Protestors and other critics attacking the president ought to take note that he is.) Nor do I want to get into specific constitutional controversies. My aim is to rebut a few of the most absurd fallacies that seem to have gained traction--primarily but not exclusively in conservative circles--about the nature of American constitutionalism. To wit:

NewsTrust Rating: 3.9 average (not enough reviews) - See Reviews » - Review It Visit NewsTrust | About | Sign Up | Disclaimer

I Read Through 160,000,000 Bytes of Hacked Files And All I Got Was This Lousy E-Mail

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 00:00:00 -0800

FiveThirtyEight - By Nate Silver - Nov. 20 (Special Report) - What is it these conservatives are so excited about? Apparently, the networks of University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit were hacked into last night. Approximately 160 megabytes of files, containing hundreds or thousands of e-mails and documents were leaked as a result of the security breach, reports The Guardian. The conservatives are mainly zeroing in on one particular e-mail from the center's director, Phil Jones, dated from November 16th, 1999, which reads as follows:

NewsTrust Rating: Not rated yet - See Info » - Review It Visit NewsTrust | About | Sign Up | Disclaimer

Comparing the Votes of the Rich and the Poor

Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:00:00 -0700

FiveThirtyEight - By Andrew Gelman - Oct. 27 (Special Report) - As just about everybody knows by now, richer Americans tend to vote Republican while poorer Americans go for the Democrats. But this isn't true for all groups. For an amusing example that we discussed in our book, a survey found that richer journalists

NewsTrust Rating: 3.3 average - 4 Reviews » - Review It Visit NewsTrust | About | Sign Up | Disclaimer