Nate Silver

@NateSilver538 ↗

Deleted No

Hibernated Yes

Last Checked March 16, 2019

Created

Mon Oct 24 23:11:48 +0000 2016

Likes

314

Retweets

Source

Twitter Web Client

View Raw Data

JSON Data

View on Twitter

Likely Available

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

This uncertainty cuts in both directions, so we probably also give higher odds to (say) Clinton winning 400+ EV than other models. — PolitiTweet.org

Posted Oct. 24, 2016 Hibernated

Preceded By

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

2. Lots of undecideds = more uncertainty. 3. Model based on elections since 1972, not just recent ones where polls have been super accurate. — PolitiTweet.org

Posted Oct. 24, 2016 Hibernated

Followed By

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

This is the key bit, I think. People may be underestimating the chance of a big polling error (in either direction): https://t.co/Afd0ywn09L — PolitiTweet.org

Posted Oct. 24, 2016 Hibernated