Nate Silver

@NateSilver538 ↗

Deleted No

Hibernated Yes

Last Checked April 27, 2021

Created

Wed Aug 12 18:52:24 +0000 2020

Likes

Retweets

Source

Twitter Web App

View Raw Data

JSON Data

View on Twitter

Likely Available

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

@gelliottmorris @SethS_D You may not make the same mistakes as models did in 2016 or as Wang did in 2004. But you may make different mistakes. Given the nature of election data (small n's, lots of covariance), it's way easier to make mistakes that result in overconfidence than under-confidence. — PolitiTweet.org

Posted Aug. 12, 2020 Hibernated

Preceded By

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

@gelliottmorris @SethS_D I would say the empirical track record of election models being overconfident, e.g. several models in 2016, Sam Wang with Kerry at 97% in 2004, the often disastrous performance of "fundamentals" models out of sample, is relevant here. https://t.co/uzhRzj9s2F — PolitiTweet.org

Posted Aug. 12, 2020 Hibernated

Followed By

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

@gelliottmorris @SethS_D I'm not a huge fan of betting markets. But you don't think there's *any* chance that your model is more than "5% too high" when betting markets only have Biden at 60%? And the only surviving model (ours) with an out-of-sample track record has him at 70%? — PolitiTweet.org

Posted Aug. 12, 2020 Hibernated