People cheated for sure, but if you were married you were simply on the hook for the offspring even if it wasn't yours.
I'm not saying the law is good, I'm saying it made sense for the time it was passed in. Now that we have genetic testing to confirm paternity or should be repealed.
It's not a racist dog whistle. It's an accurate representation of the polls.
Dude that's the question they try to answer in the article.
That's my point. It doesn't have to look nearly that good.
There was no genetic testing for paternity back then. If you weren't married you could contest paternity.
Latinos aren't a monolith. They don't vote like a monolith. The article gets close to realizing that, but falls short. At the end of the day Latinos vote R for the same reason White people do.
Nah that bill is pretty bunk and hopefully it gets thrown out super quick. My point is more that the things advocated for in these protests are pretty vile and heartless.
Isn't that something he normally admits to (or at least he did back when he was with 538). That the value of the "Horse race" election reporting was essentially nil as long as the percentage of undecided voters was greater than the margin (+error) between the candidates.
I don't think that feature exists yet.
But more inquisitively why do you dislike Silver? He's generally been the "gold standard" when it comes to data driven political analysis.
This is Nate Silver, his takes are essentially always more nuanced and data driven than that. I'd expect some random MSNBC/CNN talking head to say that; not Silver.
Franchise leader in 30pt and 40pt playoff games.