Nate Silver

@NateSilver538 ↗

Deleted No

Hibernated Yes

Last Checked Nov. 6, 2019

Created

Wed Mar 13 15:15:25 +0000 2019

Likes

244

Retweets

Source

Twitter Web Client

View Raw Data

JSON Data

View on Twitter

Likely Available

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

There's also a version of this that applies to the 2016 *general* election. Polls showed Clinton ahead, but in a close/uncertain race (i.e. Trump had a ~30% chance). The conventional wisdom thought Trump's chances were way lower and was wronger than polls. https://t.co/gDBFn2T51E — PolitiTweet.org

Posted March 13, 2019 Hibernated

Preceded By

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

Yeah, this. Trump didn't lead the polls at *this* stage, but he did from summer 2015 on as people like me kept coming up with elaborate explanations for why he'd lose to Rubio etc. He's a good data point for "'experts' are full of shit, so you might as well go with the polls." — PolitiTweet.org

Posted March 13, 2019 Hibernated

Followed By

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

People think the takeaway message of 538 is "polls are awesome and we can solve everything with numbers!!!" when really it's "human judgment is full of shit so you might as well go with the polls because every other way of forecasting elections sucks even worse". — PolitiTweet.org

Posted March 13, 2019 Hibernated