- Obama military downsizing leaves U.S. too weak to counter global threats, panel finds
- Sen. Tom Coburn vows to slow down budget-busting bills ahead of recess
- Obama fantasizes about more executive power, signs new order on federal contractors
- Clintons call Klein, Halper, Kessler ‘a Hat Trick of despicable actors’: report
- Boehner accuses Obama of ‘legacy of lawlessness’
- Pro-marijuana group claims responsibility for Brooklyn Bridge flag swap
- Young adults shun Obamacare mostly due to cost: survey
- Stabbing attack on transgender girl, 15, was ‘bias motivated,’ police say
- LGBT adults still lean overwhelmingly toward Democratic Party
- Lawmakers rattled by Syria genocide horrors, call on Obama to act
Both parties recognize the Democrats' scam
Topic - nate silver
The recent controversy over remarks made by Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling has pushed the issue of racism onto front pages everywhere, inspiring some to investigate the political party lines of racism.
Nate Silver, the former New York Times statistician and darling of the Democrats who recently angered liberals by predicting big wins for the Republicans in 2014, has now lost a little bit more of luster from the left.
When Nate Silver, the young statistician and blogger, called the 2008 election for Barack Obama, his uncanny accuracy was celebrated. He correctly called the result in 49 of the 50 states.
Democrats are scrambling to undo the public relations damage from a recent prediction by former New York Times statistician Nate Silver that the GOP will win big in upcoming elections and take back the Senate.
Lawmakers and pundits marked the fourth anniversary of the signing of the Affordable Care Act on Sunday, with Republicans predicting the troubled centerpiece of the Obama presidency will hurt the entire Democratic Party this fall.
Statistics guru Nate Silver, who has earned a reputation in recent years for uncannily accurate election forecasts, sees the Republicans poised to win big this fall: He gives the GOP a 60 percent chance of retaking the Senate.
"It is not serious research," he said, "and the fact that it was published both by the Wall Street Journal and by a journal which claims to be peer-reviewed is disturbing to me."
He said the questions were slanted to reflect conservative beliefs, that the answers to some of the questions were ambiguous or debatable, and that the authors focused on only some of the questions answered by the respondents to reach their conclusions.