Nate Silver

@NateSilver538 ↗

Deleted No

Hibernated Yes

Last Checked March 25, 2021

Created

Fri Sep 04 14:35:27 +0000 2020

Likes

398

Retweets

Source

Twitter Web App

View Raw Data

JSON Data

View on Twitter

Likely Available

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

Preceded By

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

Followed By

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

Rasmussen and Trafalgar are not highly-rated pollsters. I would not bet on them being right this year. But I think our *averages* are likely stronger for including a *dose* of them because it reflects a fuller consensus; that's what this thread was about. https://t.co/mjuuNDgLLl — PolitiTweet.org

@NateSilver538 It is ridiculous to include bogus polls like Trafalgar and Rasmussen, which game the system, includi… https://t.co/91syLj0c4W

Posted Sept. 4, 2020 Hibernated