Nate Silver

@NateSilver538 ↗

Deleted No

Hibernated Yes

Last Checked April 27, 2021

Created

Tue Sep 01 16:00:29 +0000 2020

Likes

131

Retweets

Source

Twitter Web App

View Raw Data

JSON Data

View on Twitter

Likely Available

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

(I don't want to overly harp on 2016, but it's not unconcerning. If you think there's a secular trend toward polls/forecasts being more accurate, then 2016 being quite a bit less accurate than 2004/08/12, especially for state-by-state forecasts, is problematic.) — PolitiTweet.org

Posted Sept. 1, 2020 Hibernated

Preceded By

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

If you're backtesting, you can make highly precise state-by-state predictions (using some combination of polls and priors) in most recent elections (2004, 2008, 2012) but these wouldn't have been especially good in 2016 and many years before 2000 produce big surprises. — PolitiTweet.org

Posted Sept. 1, 2020 Hibernated

Followed By

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

I'm sure their authors would disagree, but we think some other models are closer to *conditional* predictions. IF certain assumptions about partisanship, how voters respond to economic conditions, etc., hold, then maybe then Biden has a 90% chance of winning instead our ~70%. — PolitiTweet.org

Posted Sept. 1, 2020 Hibernated