Nate Silver

@NateSilver538 ↗

Deleted No

Hibernated Yes

Last Checked March 19, 2020

Created

Mon Jul 15 21:21:19 +0000 2019

Likes

321

Retweets

Source

Twitter Web App

View Raw Data

JSON Data

View on Twitter

Likely Available

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

Or if you wanna be fancy, Biden's lead is not *statistically significant* given the margin of error. "Statistically tied" isn't a phrase that experts would ever use, though. And its common-sense meaning implies that the candidates are exactly, precisely tied, which they aren't. — PolitiTweet.org

Posted July 15, 2019 Hibernated

Preceded By

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

Also, my periodic reminder not to use the phrase "statistical tie" to refer to a situation like this. The candidates in this poll are *not* statistically tied. Rather they're *essentially* tied or *virtually* tied or the race is "too close to call". https://t.co/5FErrtOinH https://t.co/EpDh9jHfYS — PolitiTweet.org

Posted July 15, 2019 Hibernated

Followed By

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

@jbenton I don't think "statistically" anything is the right modifier, other than in the phrase "statistically significant", which has a specific meaning. The point is that the candidates are *tied for practical intents and purposes* even though they *aren't* precisely, numerically tied. — PolitiTweet.org

Posted July 15, 2019 Hibernated