Nate Silver

@NateSilver538 ↗

Deleted No

Hibernated Yes

Last Checked March 19, 2020

Created

Sat Jul 20 16:19:23 +0000 2019

Likes

571

Retweets

109

Source

Twitter Web App

View Raw Data

JSON Data

View on Twitter

Likely Available

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

Basically, I think Clinton 2016 was probably close (maybe not exactly *at*) the local minimum for D's. So a coalition that *either* "turned back the clock" (Biden?) *or* turboboosted demographic change (Harris/Castro?) could be better than Clinton 16, which was stuck in between. https://t.co/yWkWsLCjYt — PolitiTweet.org

Posted July 20, 2019 Hibernated

Preceded By

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

But the coalition where the urban & suburban South becomes Democratic, at which point states like TX, AZ, GA, FL, NC have high potential to flip, is also pretty decent in terms of electoral efficiency for Democrats, even if they're often losing the Midwestern swing states. — PolitiTweet.org

Posted July 20, 2019 Hibernated

Followed By

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

@conorsen p.s. A lot depends on TX and FL. The best case for pessimism for D Electoral College math is that TX is still a cycle or 2 away from being a tipping-point state, though it will be eventually. And that FL, despite being a state where demographic change should help Ds, is weird. — PolitiTweet.org

Posted July 20, 2019 Hibernated