Nate Silver

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

These ABC News - Washington Post polls in Florida and Arizona are two of Trump's best polls in a long time. https://t.co/SegkOrXt8w — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

RT @davidaldridgedc: Really could have gone two hours with the great @NateSilver538: https://t.co/krP6PkbKuY — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

This is preliminary and subject to change but we're somewhere in the ballpark of: 60-65%:D trifecta 10-15%: Biden + D House + R Senate 5%:Trump + D Congress 10%: Trump + R Senate + D House 10%: GOP Trifecta — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

Been putting a little bit more work into how the presidential and Senate outcomes fit together in our model and FWIW we now show Democrats with an 83% chance of controlling the Senate conditional upon a Biden win. Only a 17% chance with a Trump win. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

RT @wiederkehra: lil graphic scroll for your mobile if you're wondering about how tippy the court is about to get with Trump's next #Suprem… — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

The endgame is that every American is his or her own state, in which case all elections are basically just determined by the national popular vote. https://t.co/aQJwEzJ8AB — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

Are Democrats likely to take that bait? I mean ... maybe. They are likely to feel very ... impassioned. There's sort of the blue-checkmark-crew-that-likes-to-post-videos-of-Trump-awkwardly-walking-down-the-staircase that might bite a bit. But it's pretty obvious bait. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

Yeah, it's pretty clear that Republicans are trying to bait Democrats into a fight over Barrett/Lagoa's personal qualities, because a fight over Roe and the ACA being repealed likely ends badly for them. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

Keep in mind that the other Georgia race could go to a runoff also, if nobody has 50% of the vote (there is a Libertarian candidate). We show a runoff there happening ~20% of the time, usually won by Perdue. https://t.co/ZQ4EZalDza https://t.co/IVdhfL3oa0 — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

My guess is we're actually underrating Warnock a bit, because with his recent momentum in polls, it's likely that some of the remaining Dem vote drifts toward him. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

We put a lot of time into modeling races with runoffs. Here's what it says about the odds in the Georgia special election right now: Loeffler (R): 50% chance to eventually win the seat Collins (R): 31% Warnock (D): 16% Lieberman (D): 3% https://t.co/bZtICEpRsN https://t.co/qvBkAkvrbB — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

This rarely had much impact, but it did in Alabama, where Doug Jones's odds went *up* despite getting a bad poll this morning. We have now added some better logic so that this doesn't happen ... and Jones's odds are down from yesterday. https://t.co/HTB54qMxne https://t.co/vDc7xPeysM — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

FYI, we were encountering some edge-cases in our Senate model where if a new poll came along in a race that hadn't been polled for a while, the model would sometimes reduce the amount of weight it applied to polls vs. fundamentals & other factors, which doesn't make much sense. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

@thecity2 Yeah, if Dems are up to 52+ Senate seats, they're very likely to also have claimed the presidency. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

And the answer is ... maybe! We'll see. But for Dems to take those actions likely requires a fairly emphatic victory (say, 52+ Senate seats + the Presidency), the odds of which are <50% even though Democrats are favored to take the Senate (a lot of their wins are narrow). — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

The other question if whether the GOP pushed Dems past some tipping point where they're more willing to take severe retaliatory actions (expanding court, adding states) and/or can do so without triggering as much of a public backlash. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

By paying a price ... the polling suggests this is an unpopular move, perhaps verging on *very* unpopular depending on which poll you look at. So, it's likely to make it harder (though far from impossible) for the GOP to hold the Senate. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

The simple answer here has always been that the GOP would confirm someone, because it's worth an awful lot to them, and also that they'll pay a price for doing so, because it's worth paying a price for something that's worth a lot to you. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

On the other hand, mail ballots are rejected at higher rates than in-person ballots, and that discrepancy might be higher when a lot of people are voting for the first time. So a party that does more mail voting could underperform polls. It's hard to say which effect is larger. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

One one hand, there's evidence mail voting increases turnout. A number of people (perhaps 5-15% in a presidential election) deemed "likely voters" in polls don't actually wind up voting, conversely. So a party that "locks in" its votes via mail voting might over-perform polls. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

I do think the transition to high rates of mail voting is one of the bigger potential sources of polling error, especially with the mail vote likely to be disproportionately Democratic, although it's hard to know in which direction the error might occur. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

Anything that affects Pennsylvania (even say to the tune of a 1% shift there) is a big deal. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

@MattZeitlin We sort of calculate that internally but don't have a good way to make those estimates public right now... will strive to do that at some point. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

@conorsen If Dems do win big in November, then they'll be able to draw some decent House maps in redistricting, they can add DC+PR to help mitigate their Senate disadvantage, and the GOP seems to have trouble winning the presidency; it's not a bad medium-run position. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

@conorsen I assume Dems would be conceding a big chance of getting slaughtered in the 2022 midterms, but there's a pretty good chance that happens anyway, so you do as much as you can to change/level the structural playing field and hope at least one veto point holds (POTUS/House/Senate). — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

@conorsen Right. They're going to feel like they have a mandate *and* they're gonna feel like the current situation is (literally) unjust. And they're going to think they can solve all of that with One Neat Trick (albeit one that might create problems down the road). — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

The normie Dems will call for 2 seats, the activist Dems will call for 6 seats, and the wonky Dems will have some esoteric overcomplicated plan that would wind up netting them 3-4 seats or something, but few Dems would regard the status quo as acceptable. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

You have a GOP that appoints a new justice either immediately before or immediately after a landslide/near-landslide defeat, and it credibly threatens to overturn both the ACA and Roe, a lot of normie Dems are going to be like "eff this". — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

Contingent on Democrats winning a fairly resounding victory on Nov. 3, obviously a huge contingency, probably right. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

@conorsen Lots of podcasts about 2 seats or 4 seats. — PolitiTweet.org