We looked inside some of the tweets by @NateSilver538 and here's what we found interesting.
Inside 100 Tweets
Rankings (sorted by number of followers)
36. in category Writer
527. in country United States
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
fwiw I’d lean yes. https://twitter.com/natesilver538/status/1152304048512671744 …
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.