Nate Silver says examining Kavanaugh's HS/college drinking makes sense if you 'do the math' (not everybody thinks this adds up)

Doug P. | 12:39 PM on October 01, 2018

National Review editor Rich Lowry summed up just how ridiculous the circus over Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination has gotten:

Consider where we are: It is now considered an outrage that there isn’t an FBI investigation into a Supreme Court nominee’s college drinking https://t.co/8Uf3AaLed0

— Rich Lowry (@RichLowry) September 29, 2018

But then Nate Silver came along to help explain why the Democrats are turning the original allegations against Kavanaugh into an excuse to examine anything and everything in his past, and it’s about the math or something:

Ford says he was very drunk when she was assaulted. Ramirez says he was very drunk when he exposed himself. Witnesses say he regularly drank to the point where they'd have expected him to black out. He's been extremely sketchy when describing his drinking habits. Do the math. https://t.co/IAMu7HA9M8

— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) September 29, 2018

There's a lot of reluctance among Kavanaugh's defenders to explore the subject of his drinking. (The new argument is that it's "goalpost shifting.") And Kavanaugh was exceptionally evasive about it in his testimony, to the point of repeatedly lying. It's a pretty obvious "tell". https://t.co/i6qFj01pBV

— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) October 1, 2018

Not everybody thinks Silver’s “math” adds up, not that the Dems won’t appreciate the assist:

That's not math, that is your bias showing. https://t.co/PMcXKC0kIz

— The LeForce (@TheLeforce) October 1, 2018

This is some pretty idiotic math by a guy who's supposed to know numbers https://t.co/q15zicSZ53

— Howard Wall ? (@HJWallEcon) October 1, 2018

She was very drunk, yet her memory is credible.

He was very drunk, so his memory is not credible.

I don't understand this new math, I guess. https://t.co/Vmursvmv9Z

— GinaNation (@BGBandita) October 1, 2018