Nate Silver

@NateSilver538 ↗

Deleted No

Hibernated Yes

Last Checked Dec. 30, 2020

Created

Sat Jul 18 19:50:30 +0000 2020

Likes

125

Retweets

Source

Twitter Web App

View Raw Data

JSON Data

View on Twitter

Likely Available

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

@gelliottmorris @DanRosenheck @Nate_Cohn @collprof @Michael_Cobb68 If you basically (i) throw out a bunch of older data because of some speculative theory about polarization AND (ii) don't make any attempt to accommodate for the fact that we're having an election in the midst of a pandemic, you're going to wind up with an overconfident model. — PolitiTweet.org

Posted July 18, 2020 Hibernated

Preceded By

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

@gelliottmorris @DanRosenheck @Nate_Cohn @collprof @Michael_Cobb68 If you have Biden at 99% to win the popular vote in July then I don't know that you've avoided it. That is very, very high. Even 90% (1 in 10) or 95% (1 in 20) would be quite radically different than 1 in 100. — PolitiTweet.org

Posted July 18, 2020 Hibernated

Followed By

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

@gelliottmorris @DanRosenheck @Nate_Cohn @collprof @Michael_Cobb68 You're saying the very high volatility is elections circa 1976-1992 is no longer germane (b/c of polarization) and giving the last few elections extremely high leverage in your model. You may not *realize* that's what you're doing, but that's the upshot of what you're doing. — PolitiTweet.org

Posted July 18, 2020 Hibernated