Nate Silver

@NateSilver538 ↗

Deleted No

Hibernated Yes

Last Checked Dec. 30, 2020

Created

Sat Jul 18 20:41:18 +0000 2020

Likes

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 This is a sample size of 18, or whatever. You have to be very very careful about how you specify the model *especially* around the fundamentals where the number of defensible model specifications far exceeds the sample size. — PolitiTweet.org

Posted July 18, 2020 Hibernated

Preceded 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

Followed By

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

@gelliottmorris @DanRosenheck @Nate_Cohn @collprof @Michael_Cobb68 You've chosen an aggressive model specification that basically says "highly volatile elections and/or large polling errors are no longer very likely because of polarization", a hypothesis that is really only supported by a few elections ('04, '12, maybe '08 and maybe *not* '16). — PolitiTweet.org

Posted July 18, 2020 Hibernated