Exactly. Why would I incorrectly quote someone? What do you think I am, a dope?
You might not misquote someone but because you support out of control spending, you clearly can't do basic math.
As defined by the Official Terrorism Training For Law Enforcement:
What Is Domestic Terrorism?
Extreme force and violence perpetrated by
the peoplegovernment of a country, within that country,
for the purpose of coercing its government and populationpublic
into modifying its behavior"
You are either with Our Constitution or you are with The Terrorists!
Government...if it leans to the left it eventually means theft. - tlc
To play DA, of course his findings wouldn't show a linear relationship - it found from lowest to highest [Right - Left - Tea Party]. If you put that on a left/right spectrum, it would go [2nd - 3rd - 1st], thus no further right / further left correlation.
Yeah, he didn't test for a linear relationship across the full political spectrum (or did, and didn't present it that way because the results didn't turn up anything and he wanted to write a blog post).
Basically: the positive effect on science aptitude for being a democrat v. not being a democrat is the same size as the positive effect for being a TPer versus not being a TPer.
He'd need to dig in more to figure out what's actually going on in there (e.g. if it's a further left poll driving the dem finding, and so on).
In any case, this is all masking the real takeaways IMO that:
1) Exceptionally small albeit statistically significant effects from large sample sizes should not be treated as meaningful, meaning on both counts the above findings are meaningless.
2) This is particularly the case when doing bivariate analysis and not controlling for potentially confounding variables that we already know are most likely driving this inaccurate conclusion.
Long story short, I don't think this actually tells us anything at all about if Dems know more science than non-dems, or if TPers know more about science than non-TPers. The friggin' author even concludes this himself . :)
As for the other two findings which are stronger, the education one is obvious and uninteresting, and the religiosity one has been better dealt with and teased out by the same guy in a much better post.