Nate Silver

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

@chrislhayes @LPDonovan I dunno. I'd suggest that attempts at predicting long-term structural trends conducted in the first 30 days after an election have a fairly poor track record, e.g. the GOP autopsy after 2012 or the Permanent Republican Majority after 2004. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

@chrislhayes @LPDonovan I think people are a little bit too confident about what the political effects will be and there may be a disconnect between hard-core Trumpers and more rank-and-file Republicans. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

@BenjySarlin Well that's part of what I'm saying. If you have a whole cluster of 4-6 states around the tipping point, that probably tells you less going forward than if there is some exact combo that Democrats need for 270+. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

There's a lot of attention on this platform to OAN or Newsmax overtaking Fox News as a go-to place for MAGA conservatives. But if you look at Google searches, while interest in these sources is up a bit, it's still far dwarfed by Fox News. https://t.co/0pDlfoMPkZ https://t.co/O6B28BkRXg — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

Simply because Biden has multiple paths and wasn't as dependent on the Midwest. He didn't need PA + WI to reach 270; GA and AZ (or NC, which wound up pretty close to the tipping point, too) would have sufficed. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

Looks like the tipping-point state will be Wisconsin again, and it'll likely finish around 3.5 to 4 points more GOP than the country overall, which means there's an even bigger Electoral College gap than in 2016. With that said, I'd argue Biden's map is better than Clintons. Why? — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

Science FTW — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

@DonaldJTrumpJr I'll still have a job on January 21st, though. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

@maciekboni I picked these because these are reasonable middle-ground estimates (you can certainly find some that are higher or lower). I read on these topics pretty widely. They reflect the expert consensus as far as I'm able to discern it. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

@maciekboni The source for the 1 in 11 estimate (which was indeed derived from seroprevalence studies) is here: https://t.co/LHq22TePFR And the source for the 1 in 3 estimate is here: https://t.co/jbq7H44fyu — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

@thehowie Yeah, these estimates are trying to account for the number of tests a state was conducting per capita over the previous 14 days. But there's a lot of ambiguity, including on factors like # of tests conducted vs. # of people tested. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

Even accounting for the fact that there was considerably more underdetection in the spring—when urban, coastal states were being hit harder—the pandemic really has turned out to be quite a bit worse in rural, conservative states. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

Use with caution, but some quick-and-dirty estimates of the share of each state's population ever infected with COVID. These assume—per various expert studies/estimates—that about 1 in 11 infections were detected in March through mid-May but that's improved to about 1 in 3 now. https://t.co/tc2RVcw7aR — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

@jbarro @conorsen I guess what I'm getting at is that there's a certain type of pro-Trump contrarianism from people in the finance orbit that I've observed both online and IRL. It may not be about supporting Trump per se but about having certain obnoxiously wrong views of the data, etc. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

@jbarro @conorsen Fair enough. Also in New Canaan. But there could be an elite vs. rank-and-file divide. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

RT @williamfleitch: @NateSilver538 I have watched too many intelligent and accomplished people I actually respect, from too many different… — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

@thehowie I'm saying he most likely sincerely believes what he says (and is very wrong). — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

I know lots of finance guys too and although a few of them are genuinely smart about politics, in general there's a lot of Dunning-Kruger going on there to the point where their views are often a pretty reliable contrarian indicator. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

Ehh. Lots of high-IQ people have completely idiotic takes about politics. (Probably about lots of other stuff, too, but politics is the field where I know enough to say that authoritatively.) — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

Ehh. Lots of high-IQ people have completely idiotic takes about politics. (Probably about lots other stuff, too, but politics is the field where I know enough to say that authoritatively.) — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

New York has about ~1.5m mail votes left to count, that's why. (Also, NY was Clinton's home state, though Biden may well wind up with a larger margin than her regardless.) — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

A lot of people who **couldn't wait** to get their Trump-won!! hot takes out in the wee hours of Nov. 3/4 told on themselves, particularly given that if you were actually following the data that Trump was never particularly close to winning. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

There's a piece to be written about how the high finance world became more MAGA this cycle, often in some blatantly idiotic ways that go beyond mere self-interest IMO. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

RT @stevebenen: @joshtpm @NateSilver538 No, there's never been a 7/8 run since the two-party system took root in the 1820s. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

Since the founding of the Republican Party, there are four streaks where the same party won the popular vote 4+ times in a row: GOP 1860-1872 (Lincoln, Grant) GOP 1896-1908 (McKinley, T. Roosevelt, Taft) Dems 1932-1948 (FDR, Truman) Dems 2008-2020 (Obama, H. Clinton, Biden) — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

It is NOT some rational evaluation oo a "coup" working. Betting markets still give Trump a 9% chance of winning *Nevada*, where Biden's ahead by *a lot* and the government is run by Dems, so any "coup" would fail. Some people are idiots and some idiots bet on prediction markets. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

If Trump had to pull this off in *one* state, well 9% would still be far too high, but maybe you'd bet on him at 100:1 or something. But he has to overturn the results in *3* states. It is not happening. It is over. If you think Trump will win, you deserve to lose your money. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

Prediction markets *still* give Trump a 9% chance of winning, which is fricking insane. The election is over. He lost. The courts aren't ruling in his favor. Recounts won't overturn Biden's margins. GOP state legislatures aren't entertaining an end-around. https://t.co/qpmkmQfImF https://t.co/66eaBZxPjf — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

@jazayerli I was up until 830! — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

RT @joan_osborne: 😑 https://t.co/3DB3WReHKL — PolitiTweet.org