Nate Cohn

@Nate_Cohn ↗

Deleted No

Hibernated Yes

Last Checked Sept. 2, 2020

Created

Fri Nov 01 12:43:12 +0000 2019

Likes

Retweets

Source

Twitter Web App

View Raw Data

JSON Data

View on Twitter

Likely Available

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

@alexburnsNYT This differs a bit from others in modest ways: --unlike other polls, we're not totally cutting out folks who don't say 'almost certain' or 'very likely' to caucus on the second question. --unlike our other polls, we have no turnout model, since we don't have past caucus data — PolitiTweet.org

Posted Nov. 1, 2019 Hibernated

Preceded By

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

@alexburnsNYT This is our first dip into the task of identifying the Iowa caucus electorate, and we: --screened to people who said they'd probably vote in dem caucus > probably vote GOP caucus or not caucus at all --applied a probability of voting, based how likely they said they were to vote — PolitiTweet.org

Posted Nov. 1, 2019 Hibernated

Followed By

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

@alexburnsNYT The implied turnout is appx 270k, 100k higher than 2016. Over the coming weeks, I'll look at whether those choices mattered. At a glance, I'd guess either alternative--excluding semi-likely voters, or incorporating stated past caucus vote--would have hurt Biden even more — PolitiTweet.org

Posted Nov. 1, 2019 Hibernated