Nate Silver

@NateSilver538 ↗

Deleted No

Hibernated Yes

Last Checked Jan. 9, 2020

Created

Wed May 01 12:48:31 +0000 2019

Likes

156

Retweets

Source

Twitter Web App

View Raw Data

JSON Data

View on Twitter

Likely Available

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

@joshtpm Yeah, that makes sense. Especially since one fairly nuanced reading of the evidence would be e.g.: "Russia interfered in the election, perhaps by enough to tip the result toward Trump, but the Trump campaign's attempts to assist them were peripheral, tentative and ham-handed." — PolitiTweet.org

Posted May 1, 2019 Hibernated

Preceded By

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

@joshtpm I'm legit curious at who these guys think they're fooling or if they're just fooling themselves. Cuz, they did get *some* things *mostly* right, and could *maybe* argue they got the essence of the story right, but instead they keep litigating stuff they're comically wrong about. — PolitiTweet.org

Posted May 1, 2019 Hibernated

Followed By

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

@joshtpm ^^^ They can't concede that point—or, at least, they can't publicly embrace it even if they sort of acknowledge the possibility in the 34th paragraph—because it would allow for the possibility that Clinton did lose because of Russia, even if Trump didn't have much to do with it. — PolitiTweet.org

Posted May 1, 2019 Hibernated