Nate Silver

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

There's guys on here who write in a way that's like putting two too many ingredients in everything and ruining a good dish. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

@yeselson I don't think there's that much evidence even for that. There's *some* evidence that he'd be helped by it if the primary were held today, but it isn't being held today, and it's a matter of weighing the initial wagon-circling impulse against whatever evidence emerges later. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

@MattZeitlin I think that's too generous and it's basically just that there's zero repetitional risk as a pundit to say "this will actually help Trump!". — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

Be one thing if folks said "the FBI search at Mar-a-Lago could have unpredictable political consequences, and in some scenarios could help Trump" but instead people are like "OMG NOW HE'S GETTING RE-ELECTED FOR SURE!!!". I don't see how you can be that confident about it. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

@kdrum @mattyglesias Doesn't seem so clear from that chart that 2012 is the inflection point? Maybe a gradual build-up of things that are then very much catalyzed and accelerated by the election of Trump. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

@bendreyfuss No miso, no ramen, no gumbo, no gazpacho. They left out all the best soups! — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

The author also blatantly cheats by counting Fukushima as 3 separate accidents, as though they occurred independently from one another and didn't have a common cause like oh I dunno a magnitude 9 earthquake. https://t.co/9vke8dd8Al — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

This article is full of terrible statistical logic. Yes, it's hard to *exactly* quantify the risk of a highly deadly nuclear accident. By nature, tail events are rare. There is *intrinsically* some guesswork. But empirically the chances are *very* low. https://t.co/ccrM72DFRb https://t.co/t6PbSLEj5T — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

@Yascha_Mounk To be fair, it's hard to think of friends of mine who *haven't* had a fatwa issued against them and then randomly been stabbed while giving a book talk in upstate New York. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

To be less polite, the BA.5 scaremongering was bullshit and you should place less trust in the people who engaged in it going forward. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

Prediction markets not really buying the "actually, the FBI allegedly finding extremely sensitive national security documents at Mar-a-Lago is good for Trump!" narrative. https://t.co/63I3bxw2DX https://t.co/GBcn4vGLSg — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

@PatrickRuffini "Midterms bad for incumbent party" is indeed pretty robust, so the article is all about exploring why there are sometimes exceptions and a 20% chance of Ds keeping the House seems pretty sensible to me. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

@PatrickRuffini I've always been a fundamentals-are-overrated guy, though. https://t.co/uzhRzj9s2F — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

@JADubin5 Yeah, the prior is that this should be a bad midterm for Democrats and it still gives some weight to that prior. Also a lot of the polling is still among registered and it thinks likely voters polling will be better for Rs. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

Our model thinks it *probably* won't hold, hence we have D House chances at 20% and not 50%. But it's worth taking the possibility seriously and the Dobbs decision still looks like an inflection point. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

Recent polling and election results are consistent with a political environment that is a) politically neutral (i.e. generic ballot of ~0) and b) no GOP enthusiasm advantage. *If* that holds, the *House* is a toss-up, and Ds are very likely to hold the Senate and may gain seats. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

It's time to have that talk. This *might* be one of those very *special* kinds of midterm elections. https://t.co/ky5Okla2wo — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

Like imagine if O'Rourke had called the guy a "motherhumper", is the claim here that would exude authenticity and play really well with the marginal voter? — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

As a fellow Politics Expert™ I'd like to testify that "light cursing" makes you seem like a triangulating loser, swear hard or not at all. https://t.co/bnFF8d7Go2 https://t.co/Ek9fVkythI — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

I mean the change is within the margin of error which doesn't really match the "THIS IS HUGE THE FBI JUST HANDED THE NOMINATION TO TRUMP!!!!!!!!!!!!!" punditry we've seen all over this platform this week. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

Also, there's survey data that consumers *had* noticed the slowdown in inflation even before this week's CPI numbers. https://t.co/6PdCDkFikc — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

Yeah I don't want to overgeneraize but if you're a public health person and you're not communicating that monkeypox is *currently* *mostly* being spread through men having sex with other men, then you're doing a terrible job of protecting public health. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

@conorsen @TFCNU2 Yeah they're something like the 20th most successful college football program historically. Lots of potential to get good again especially with B1G $$$. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

@conorsen Yeah, they're definitely the least SEC-y of the plausible additions in the South. Except maybe, like, Duke, but I don't think Duke really offers enough. If I were the B1G I'd probably want Georgia Tech and UNC first. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

@conorsen Was Bored On A Plane this morning and came up with a little ranking system that says Georgia Tech should be a no-brainer for Big Ten inclusion. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

Is Dobbs + Jan. 6 a "special circumstance" equal in magnitude to 9/11? That's a very apples-to-oranges comparison but I'd tend to say no; people forget how profoundly 9/11 changed public opinion. But is it comparable to Lewinsky? Certainly. It's bigger, I'd think. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

The last time POTUS's party gained seats in the House were 1998 and 2002. These are generally attributed to Lewinsky and 9/11, respectively. If Ds hold the House in 2022, people will attribute it to Roe being overturned and overall GOP radicalization including Jan. 6. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

Here's something I think about. Let's say Democrats somehow do hold the House this year. It's not likely, but it's also not impossible (~20% chance per 538 model). In 20 years, will people have a hard time explaining why it happened? I think no, they won't. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

The amount of disinformation coming from the @dccc, @dscc and @SpeakerPelosi when incorrectly citing 538 forecasts is super annoying. I guess it's not really actionable but I'm going to keep calling it out when it happens. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

@SeanTrende @asymmetricinfo Yeah I agree. And ideally spoken directly to the public, too, not leaked through backchannels. — PolitiTweet.org