Nate Silver

Nate Silver

@NateSilver538

Followers3.2M
Following1.2K

Editor-in-Chief, @FiveThirtyEight. Author, The Signal and the Noise (http://amzn.to/QdyFYV). Sports/politics/food geek.

New York
Joined on August 27, 2008

Here can be your content

Promote Yourself on Twipu

Promote Yourself on Twipu
Statistics

We looked inside some of the tweets by @NateSilver538 and here's what we found interesting.

Inside 100 Tweets

Time between tweets:
4 hours
Average replies
59
Average retweets
199
Average likes
1323
Tweets with photos
20 / 100
Tweets with videos
0 / 100
Tweets with links
0 / 100

Rankings (sorted by number of followers)

6. in country United States and category Writer

36. in category Writer

353. in country United States and category Celebrities

527. in country United States

I'd ask @IChotiner to interview Jane Mayer about that Franken story but they work for the same publication now so guess that isn't gonna happen.

4
9
112

Those "due process" arguments look WORSE in light of this story. Despite it presenting the evidence in a fairly sympathetic light for Franken, it doesn't really offer any reason to disbelieve his several accusers, and his own defenses are pretty half-hearted.

46
73
537
If you want to make *this* argument—that there are degrees of misconduct & this didn't rise to the level of warranting resignation—I don't know if I agree but that's honest at least. 

Instead, though, Ds defending Franken make these totally incoherent claims about "due process".

If you want to make *this* argument—that there are degrees of misconduct & this didn't rise to the level of warranting resignation—I don't know if I agree but that's honest at least. Instead, though, Ds defending Franken make these totally incoherent claims about "due process".

33
63
446

That very long Al Franken story brings up extremely few exculpatory facts about Al Franken's alleged behavior.

64
185
834
When you want to own the libs but don’t know a single word that begins with Q

When you want to own the libs but don’t know a single word that begins with Q

224
1K
9K

Quoted @Nate_Cohn

I think it's kind of BS to not be able to tell the difference between describing the president's standing today, with section heds like "The state of the Electoral College, 2018" and a prediction for the result in 2020, but that's just me https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1152623379964407808?s=20 …

Dude, the headline is literally "Trump’s Electoral College Edge Could Grow in 2020, Rewarding Polarizing Campaign" !!! Of course that's what readers' takeaway is going to be, that it's a prediction about 2020.

82
112
978

Quoted @Nate_Cohn

This is fair, in the sense the map can/will obviously change between now and election night '20 It is unfair in a different sense: the piece is plainly describing the president's current standing, and goes to unusual lengths to explain that it can change https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1152613978255908864?s=20 …

Yeah, I think it's kind of BS to lean really heavily into a particular takeaway in top 80 percent of the article, not to mention the headline/lead/social promotion/etc., and then to introduce the caveats in (literally!!) the 42nd paragraph.

27
45
276
Basically, I think Clinton 2016 was probably close (maybe not exactly *at*) the local minimum for D's. So a coalition that *either* "turned back the clock" (Biden?) *or* turboboosted demographic change (Harris/Castro?) could be better than Clinton 16, which was stuck in between.

Basically, I think Clinton 2016 was probably close (maybe not exactly *at*) the local minimum for D's. So a coalition that *either* "turned back the clock" (Biden?) *or* turboboosted demographic change (Harris/Castro?) could be better than Clinton 16, which was stuck in between.

41
102
548

But the coalition where the urban & suburban South becomes Democratic, at which point states like TX, AZ, GA, FL, NC have high potential to flip, is also pretty decent in terms of electoral efficiency for Democrats, even if they're often losing the Midwestern swing states.

10
44
242

The Obama-era coalition was fairly favorable to Democrats in the Electoral College. Obama would likely have WON an Election in 2008 or 2012 in which the popular vote was very close. This wasn't that long ago.

8
28
162

The reason is that I see this as being a fairly dynamic process. To be honest this is sort of my critique of the @Redistrict/@Nate_Cohn Electoral College analysis; I think they focus on a more static, modal outcome rather than the range of plausible outcomes.

2
34
201

I'd probably lean no. I certainly think Trump could win an election where he loses the popular vote by 3 points or even slightly more. That's basically what he did in 2016. (He won WI, the tipping-point state, with ~1 point to spare.) But I'm skeptical that he'd be the favorite.

45
85
455

Quoted @Nate_Cohn

As I emphasize in the final section: '2018 isn't destiny.' There are many ways for this to change. But we can talk about the status quo--as you did in November, based on House results. And on balance, it suggests that today there's a larger gap than '16. https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1152292722402824192?s=20 …

The fact that the results of people *actually voting* in the 2018 midterms implies a rather different takeaway than 2018 polls suggests this line of analysis is not super robust though.

29
40
245

Also you need to look at things probabilistically. If there are several states that look like the potential tipping point state, that's a lot more robust for Democrats than if they have just one path to 270, especially if those states are unique from one another demographically.

17
47
456

History would say you should have a loose prior toward it being smaller since the Electoral College advantage is historically not very durable, e.g. it benefited Democrats as recently as 2012.

18
47
421

The basic notion that Trump has an Electoral College advantage seems right, he obviously did in 2016, but I'm pretty skeptical that we can say much right now about whether it will be larger, smaller or nonexistent in 2020.

84
154
1K

Also, the implication that Trump's racism against the four congresswomen isn't as newsworthy as those other stories (and the corollary implication that it's less politically damaging than any of them and may even be a savvy strategy?!?) is sort of weird, too.

41
141
1K
It really irks me when prominent journalists (e.g. in the New Yorker) write stuff like "Trump has the extraordinary ability to get Americans to talk about what he wants them to talk about" without acknowledging the media's role in deciding what to cover. https://bit.ly/2XTCL1t 

It really irks me when prominent journalists (e.g. in the New Yorker) write stuff like "Trump has the extraordinary ability to get Americans to talk about what he wants them to talk about" without acknowledging the media's role in deciding what to cover. https://bit.ly/2XTCL1t 

94
907
4K

Seems like the point of a debate should be to have the candidates who actually have a chance debate against one another.

277
465
5K

Why? —Westbrook gets a lot of cheap rebounds; uncontested DREBs don't have much value. —Player tracking data has him as a poor on-ball defender; he's rarely the closest defender to the shooter. —(Technical) BPM contains a weird nonlinear term that artificially inflates his value.

25
16
127
Next Page