Nate Cohn

@Nate_Cohn ↗

Deleted No

Hibernated Yes

Last Checked March 8, 2021

Created

Sat Jul 18 21:15:03 +0000 2020

Likes

Retweets

Source

Twitter Web App

View Raw Data

JSON Data

View on Twitter

Likely Available

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

@gelliottmorris @NateSilver538 @DanRosenheck @collprof @Michael_Cobb68 yes, i certainly believe it worked well: there wasn't much variance in the last five elections; therefore, a model supposing little variance and no tail risks would do just fine and, yes, better than one that allows for such risks. but does that mean those risks don't exist? no — PolitiTweet.org

Posted July 18, 2020 Hibernated

Preceded By

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

@gelliottmorris @NateSilver538 @DanRosenheck @collprof @Michael_Cobb68 i think it's defensible to add a polarization term--it could have improved an '18 house model, for instance--tho it comes with risks. if your version yields *99%* on a 9 point lead in july--based on variance in, what, 5 polarized elections--then you may be going too far — PolitiTweet.org

Posted July 18, 2020 Hibernated

Followed By

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

@gelliottmorris @NateSilver538 @DanRosenheck @collprof @Michael_Cobb68 and that's ultimately where the road ends: you have to be able to justify why, based on limited (but often still meaningful in 00, 08, and yes 16) variance over 5 elections, you would expect a 9 point swing just once over the next 100. i think that's a bold case — PolitiTweet.org

Posted July 18, 2020 Hibernated