Nate Silver

@NateSilver538 ↗

Deleted No

Hibernated Yes

Last Checked Jan. 9, 2020

Created

Wed May 01 12:52:01 +0000 2019

Likes

179

Retweets

Source

Twitter Web App

View Raw Data

JSON Data

View on Twitter

Likely Available

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

Preceded By

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

Followed By

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

@joshtpm (For the record: I should note here that **I'm** a skeptic that the Russian-trolling-on-Facebook stuff moved the numbers by enough to swing the result, even though Clinton didn't lose by very much. With Wikileaks, it's harder to say.) — PolitiTweet.org

Posted May 1, 2019 Hibernated