Nate Silver

@NateSilver538 ↗

Deleted No

Hibernated Yes

Last Checked Dec. 30, 2020

Created

Sat Jul 18 20:59:32 +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 There's no such thing as out-of-sample if you know the results ahead of time. *Especially* not when n=18 and you're intimately familiar with the data and the entire data set influences the choices you consider for specifying your model. — PolitiTweet.org

Posted July 18, 2020 Hibernated

Preceded 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

Followed By

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

@gelliottmorris @DanRosenheck @Nate_Cohn @collprof @Michael_Cobb68 Notwithstanding that maximizing fit is not necessarily the best objective when n=18, there are some other issues with putting all your eggs in the polarization basket, among them that polarization ~linearly increases over the course of 1948-2016 and so is basically a time trend. — PolitiTweet.org

Posted July 18, 2020 Hibernated