Nate Cohn

@Nate_Cohn ↗

Deleted No

Hibernated Yes

Last Checked Oct. 1, 2020

Created

Thu Jan 16 13:47:23 +0000 2020

Likes

Retweets

Source

Twitter Web App

View Raw Data

JSON Data

View on Twitter

Likely Available

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

This latter result, with the tight second screen, is closest methodologically to, say, Selzer's screen. And indeed, she had Sanders/Biden at 16/15 two weeks later. The result after the 1st screen (no second screen), is more like Emerson, which had Biden/Sanders in 1st kn Dec.. — PolitiTweet.org

Posted Jan. 16, 2020 Hibernated

Preceded By

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

Many pollsters have a tougher second screen, particularly late in race. They often give 0 weight to anyone who doesn't say 'very likely' or 'almost certain' to caucus. In our poll, this would have cost Sanders (our Oct. result in par.) W 21 (22) Bu 19 (18) B 16 (17) S 16 (19) — PolitiTweet.org

Posted Jan. 16, 2020 Hibernated

Followed By

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

I don't know if these patterns of support by likelihood of voting still hold today. For all we know, Sanders gains in the Selzer poll could be due to his voters becoming likelier to say they'll vote. But these are substantial effects, regardless of who benefits now — PolitiTweet.org

Posted Jan. 16, 2020 Hibernated