Nate Silver

@NateSilver538 ↗

Deleted No

Hibernated Yes

Last Checked May 6, 2020

Created

Sat Dec 21 22:50:17 +0000 2019

Likes

401

Retweets

Source

Twitter Web App

View Raw Data

JSON Data

View on Twitter

Likely Available

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

Also seems noteworthy that the early polling leaders in *this* race⁠—Biden and Bernie⁠—are *still* the polling leaders now. (Of course others still have a shot.) But they've done a lot better than Harris or Beto or Booker, who pundits liked but polls were just meh on. — PolitiTweet.org

Posted Dec. 21, 2019 Hibernated

Preceded By

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

Well the early polling leader wins ~50% of the time, whereas if you just pick a candidate at random, you'll be right 10% of the time (assuming an average of ~10 candidates per race). So that's actually a pretty big improvement! You'll be wrong only half the time instead of 90%! — PolitiTweet.org

This is the loneliest cause in politics. Early handicapping is almost always wrong or off-base. (Obama 2008, McCain… https://t.co/q2LNML8s9K

Posted Dec. 21, 2019 Hibernated

Followed By

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

For sure. And there are also better and worse ways to read the polls, e.g. you do want to pay attention to Iowa. But my real critique is that too often, people try to fill the gap between *what we know from polls* and *reality* with punditry rather than uncertainty/humility. — PolitiTweet.org

We're more in agreement than not. I agree that picking, say, Julian Castro at random would not have been a wise mov… https://t.co/GaxFCer76u

Posted Dec. 21, 2019 Hibernated