Nate Silver

@NateSilver538 ↗

Deleted No

Hibernated No

Last Checked July 15, 2022

Created

Sun May 29 16:55:24 +0000 2022

Likes

Retweets

Source

Twitter for Android

View Raw Data

JSON Data

View on Twitter

Likely Available

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

@adamdavidson @davidshor No because 1) high-information partisans almost always vote anyway; 2) switching a vote (turning a -1 to a +1) counts twice as much as turning out a vote (0 to 1); 3) actions that motivate your side's partisans often motivate the other side's partisans as much or more. — PolitiTweet.org

Posted May 29, 2022

Preceded By

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

@jaycaspiankang @mattyglesias Ignoring *election* polling done by partisan groups is often also a good rule of them, but at least there, there is some accountability since polls can be tested against actual results and since there aren't as many degrees of freedom to screw around with question wording, etc. — PolitiTweet.org

Posted May 29, 2022

Followed By

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

@adamdavidson @davidshor And honestly: You can certainly study how influential groups and people affect public opinion. But *of course* public opinion (I'm not going to put it in scare quotes) is a core force in politics. At least in anything vaguely resembling a democracy. That's almost a tautology. — PolitiTweet.org

Posted May 29, 2022