Nate Silver

@NateSilver538 ↗

Deleted No

Hibernated Yes

Last Checked March 25, 2021

Created

Fri Sep 04 14:30:27 +0000 2020

Likes

350

Retweets

Source

Twitter Web App

View Raw Data

JSON Data

View on Twitter

Likely Available

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

Market participants don't really get this IMO, so the markets sometimes wind up doing a sort of double-counting. They'll say "polls were skewed against Trump in 2016, so they might be again in 2020". Not at all crazy! But the polling averages *may already be accounting for this*. — PolitiTweet.org

Posted Sept. 4, 2020 Hibernated

Preceded By

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

This also helps to explain why prediction markets have been largely unable to beat publicly-available polling-based models (e.g. 538's) over the years. The polling averages already account for many of the desirable characteristics of markets. — PolitiTweet.org

Posted Sept. 4, 2020 Hibernated

Followed By

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

If Clinton had won in 16, you wouldn't have as many Trafalgars publishing Trump +2 in every swing state. Pollsters wouldn't be doing as much education-weighting. Etc. Biden would likely have a larger lead *in the averages* even if his true standing in the electorate was the same. — PolitiTweet.org

Posted Sept. 4, 2020 Hibernated