Nate Silver

@NateSilver538 ↗

Deleted No

Hibernated Yes

Last Checked Dec. 30, 2020

Created

Sat Jul 18 21:10:03 +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 For example, it could be that polling gets more accurate over the course of say 1948-2012 but is now becoming less accurate again. That's also a plausible story that fits the data well but it has pretty different implications for 2020. — PolitiTweet.org

Posted July 18, 2020 Hibernated

Preceded 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

Followed By

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

@gelliottmorris @Nate_Cohn @DanRosenheck @collprof @Michael_Cobb68 I think 25:1 (96%) vs. 100:1 (99%) are pretty different forecasts. And the gap in percentage terms will increase if the election gets closer, e.g. maybe you'll have Biden at 95% to win the popular vote with a 6-point lead when he "should" be at 80%. — PolitiTweet.org

Posted July 18, 2020 Hibernated