Editor-in-Chief, @FiveThirtyEight. Author, The Signal and the Noise (amzn.to/QdyFYV). Sports/politics/food geek.
America is a nation of procrastinators, so traffic to our NCAA tourney forecasts usually peaks right about now as people fill in their brackets: https://53eig.ht/2Fkd6Eo
Gabbard, Inslee, Hickenlooper and Brown (if he were to resurrect his bid for some reason) already have 2 of the 3 polls they need. The fundraising threshold is probably the *easier* way to qualify (65K donors) but polls is pretty easy too. https://bit.ly/2UN80FJ
Did this pretty quickly so don't take as gospel, but it looks to me like 10 candidates have already qualified for the debates under the DNC's *polls* criteria: Biden, Sanders, Harris, O'Rourke, Warren, Booker, Klobuchar, Castro, Gillibrand, Buttigieg.
RT @jennhatfield1: Thanks @FiveThirtyEight for asking me to preview the NCAA women's tournament! Shoutout to @herhoopstats for many of the…
OK, you guys are pretty smart. It was indeed Buttigieg—who on the one hand is very much in his element among the self-selected audience at a 538 live podcast @ NYU. But on the other hand, we've done quite a few live shows and have not seen many reactions like that. https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1108559235259002880
We taped a 538 live podcast at NYU tonight and there was *extremely* raucous applause for one Democratic candidate who is not generally regarded as a frontrunner when he/she was chosen in our candidate draft. Can you guess who?
RT @NateSilver538: Pundits who are implying that eliminating the Electoral College is some sort of radical position should check the polls.…
love this from @NateSilver538 on facebook. I think it reflects why they get hammered by the press: FB inadvertently gives voice to people who editors systematically shunned. Many critics want FB to be more like left-leaning editors, and that provokes regulation from GOP lawmakers https://twitter.com/natesilver538/status/1108001116984360962
RT @MikeGravel: Hello young voters! This is the very relatable, everywoman Kirsten Gillibrand. I do things that other homo sapiens do. This…
RT @NateSilver538: Pundits who are implying that eliminating the Electoral College is some sort of radical position should check the polls.…
I don't have strong opinions about casinos as a source of state revenue, but it would be awesome to have a place with (legal) live poker in or near the 5 boroughs. https://twitter.com/NYTMetro/status/1108445002441609222
RT @NateSilver538: @mattyglesias I think treating incumbency as essentially a rounding error is a huge problem. With an incumbency advantag…
RT @MikeGravel: @NateSilver538 I dunno chief, I'm feeling pretty major at the moment. #GravelGang
RT @perrybaconjr: It is great for Bernie and Beto that they have raised so much. Full stop. But we should be cautious about fundraising as…
RT @MikeGravel: and this whole time i thought you had to roll your sleeves up and stand on a countertop looking goofy to be a teen sensatio…
This is a weird one (1) Very interesting for Bernie to be running on electability (2) I guess we're going to have to live with candidates cherry-picking polls on Twitter, but oddly, (3) A lot of polls that show Bernie much *further* ahead of Trump, although some are out-of-date https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/1108436403841576960
Yeah that's a good caveat. Although, my hunch is that if you looked at digital/print media the order would be pretty similar. https://twitter.com/seungminkim/status/1108435242069737473
There are several different stories you could tell from this data and I'm not sure which one is right. Media coverage quite closely correlates with polls, as well as other measures of candidate viability (e.g. fundraising), although it's very hard to distinguish cause and effect.
Which candidates' announcements got the most press coverage? Looks like the order is roughly speaking 1. Bernie 2. Beto gap 3. Harris 4. Warren gap 5. Booker 6. Klobuchar big gap Everyone else. https://53eig.ht/2Jsh0iB
With Mike Gravel (!!) having formed an exploratory committee, Wikipedia now lists 18 current or former (Ojeda) "major" Democratic candidates for president, which would break the record of 17 candidates (GOP, 2016), although "major" is a debatable term in several cases.
The debatable ones: Ojeda, Gravel, Yang, Williamson, Wayne Messam. Personally, I think Yang has crossed into major status and I'm not sure how in the heck to classify the other 4.
When you have to use the bathroom but you're in the window seat and the other passengers are asleep. https://twitter.com/ChrisStirewalt/status/1108424725502398469
To be less glib, Bernie needs communications staff who understand how to build bridges to the rest of the D Party instead of just preaching to the converted. As long as they're good at that, their personal views (from being hired guns to true-blue believers) are kinda irrelevant.
Pundits who are implying that eliminating the Electoral College is some sort of radical position should check the polls. Most people support a Constitutional amendment to change to a popular vote. https://twitter.com/CBSNewsPoll/status/1108409915364773889
"Bernie shouldn't hire people who come across like assholes and reinforce negative stereotypes about Bernie supporters" seems like good advice. It's kinda weird to imply that Bernie shouldn't hire people who strongly/passionately prefer Bernie to other D candidates though.
And on some level we all want to see Amy Klobuchar up on a debate stage throwing a binder at Donald Trump.
Beto beat the state-adjusted fundamentals by ~2 points, Klobuchar by ~15 and the Minnesota electorate is much more similar to the key swing states. Admittedly, he had to face an incumbent and she was up against a nobody. But then again the incumbent was Ted Cruz.
 
I think treating incumbency as essentially a rounding error is a huge problem. With an incumbency advantage of about ~6 points, that basically wipes out the entire difference between Klob and Beto (since she was an incumbent and he was running *against* an incumbent).
Also this. For various reasons—the economy is already good, he doesn't seem to be interested in pivoting—I don't think Trump is likely to become significantly more popular (or that he's more popular than polls imply). But it's easy to imagine the Democrat being equally unpopular.
Basically, this is the key for me.
So, we published a discussion today about Trump's re-election chances. There's no super-snappy takeaway here but I think a lot of good conversation: https://53eig.ht/2CtVBiR
Of course the real reason the Electoral College is good is because it requires people to carefully consider how error & uncertainty are correlated between different states in order to develop well-calibrated probabilistic election forecasts, a vital underpinning of our democracy.
 
It’s unquestionably true that the EC makes election forecasting more interesting. Otherwise we’d just be looking at polling averages.
I'm more anti-anti-anti-Electoral College than I am anti-Electoral College. The arguments that usually-smart people make to defend are often poor to the point where they persuade me against their position vs. if they'd said nothing at all.
You should look at the tipping point states rather than the closest states, which are indeed gonna be pretty similar from year to year. https://twitter.com/LoganDobson/status/1108367316226592779
p.s. I definitely don't think Beto is at that 3/4 point yet, although several of the other candidates aren't either.
Sure (B) is better than (A). But maybe being 3/4 of the way to (B)—"here are my principles and priors but we'll fill out some details as we learn more, including about political constraints"—is also better than (B). It's what most people would do when taking e.g. a new CEO job.
There's also a lot of middle ground between (A) "empty vessel" and (B) "must issue at least two dozen 60-page white papers on the major issues of the day before setting foot in Iowa and New Hampshire".
The narrative that Beto has never taken any substantive policy positions is…pretty wrong. He said quite a bit about the issues in his run for Senate last year. He was also in Congress for 6 years and voted on a lot of stuff. https://53eig.ht/2OfgH9n
RT @FiveThirtyEight: What do we know about Trump’s re-election chances so far? https://53eig.ht/2HMWvKG
Cancel your plans: Prairie View and Fairleigh Dickinson are playing and we have a live-updating win probability model. https://twitter.com/micahcohen/status/1108138117331120131
RT @NateSilver538: Facebook's audience evolved from being pretty left-leaning in 2012 to more or less down the middle in 2016. Not unreason…
RT @NateSilver538: Andrew Yang has crossed the threshold where we consider him a major candidate, so here's his theory of the case: https:/…
RT @SaraMZiegler: YOU GUYS. @gwfost, @Neil_Paine and I have a podcast @FiveThirtyEight. Hear me laugh a lot and also talk about sports! htt…
RT @Travis_Sawchik: Now, can the Angels win a playoff game (or series or two) in the second act of the Trout era? https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/mike-trout-is-a-430-million-bargain/
RT @tgeorge1323: Twitter friends, please help @DuluthHOH and Project Joy feed hungry kids by voting for me (or your second favorite celeb s…
RT @NateSilver538: Facebook's audience evolved from being pretty left-leaning in 2012 to more or less down the middle in 2016. Not unreason…
🤔 https://bit.ly/2HFwhKd
I don't have super strong feelings about the order of the 4. It's not easy to compare Bernie and Harris, for instance. Harris and Beto are easier to compare, and I think I'd take Harris's broader coalition and head start in staffing over Beto's edge in $$ and media attention.
Lukewarm take: the conventional wisdom is right that Biden, Bernie, Harris, Beto are the 4 candidates most likely to win the Democratic nomination in some order. https://twitter.com/pollreport/status/1108096384706600960
Candidates, ranked by how much traffic their "How ___ Could Win the 2020 Democratic Primary" post got on 538: 1. Harris 2. Klobuchar 3. Bernie 4. Buttigieg* 5. Beto* 6. Warren 7. Castro 8. Booker 9. Inslee 10. Gillibrand 11. Gabbard 12. Hickenlooper
* Some of these posts (Buttigieg, Beto) are still getting a decent amount of traffic so they could move up in the rankings. Not ranking Yang yet since we just published his post a few hours ago.
huh, @AndrewYangVFA may have discovered that theres a latent demographic of voters that is passionate about science & data-driven policy. I see folks like @NateSilver538 and economists enthusiastic about his platform. And his “math” hat just sold out. This is so so fascinating https://twitter.com/andrewyangvfa/status/1108024089040613377
Andrew Yang has crossed the threshold where we consider him a major candidate, so here's his theory of the case: https://53eig.ht/2WgEAjT
RT @baseballot: Today I took a close look at where Amy Klobuchar's electoral strength/"electability" really comes from: https://t.co/KyvcT2…
You're confusing him with Tim Salmon. Mike Trout is real, Tim Salmon is the knock-off version for developers who didn't pay for the MLBPA license. https://twitter.com/TheStalwart/status/1108012176571330562
RT @perrybaconjr: That Beto O'Rourke is being classified by some as a somewhat centrist 2020 Democratic candidate is another illustration o…
Something related to think about: the sum total of all *curated* news content on the Internet (i.e. anything that goes through human editors) likely leans center-left, since that reflects the median proclivities of the editors at major publications as well as their readers.
Facebook picks up on the shadow/residual of whatever content there's latent demand for, but which isn't promoted by curators/editors. That means some on the left, but more on the right—especially the far right. Also, lots of sensational content that editors would tamp down.
Facebook's audience evolved from being pretty left-leaning in 2012 to more or less down the middle in 2016. Not unreasonable to assume it will be right-leaning by 2020, especially for news, as right-leaning content has been overperforming there since last algorithm tweaks. https://twitter.com/axios/status/1107952353108324353
Another way to frame it: Beto's positions—and he's articulated more positions than you might think—are decidedly liberal rather than left, but also liberal rather than centrist or moderate. That probably also describes the median Democratic primary voter fairly well.
RT @NateSilver538: I thought AOC was on the wrong side of the politics of the Amazon deal and... yeah. She declined from a 34-29 favorabili…
O'Rourke's positions seem like they're probably pretty close to those of the median Democratic voter. https://twitter.com/FiveThirtyEight/status/1107979239826079745
RT @NateSilver538: I thought AOC was on the wrong side of the politics of the Amazon deal and... yeah. She declined from a 34-29 favorabili…
Already regretting this one.
 
How many of @thedemocrats have the infrastructure to raise what they need online and be competitive? Which of @thedemocrats has the best technical infrastructure behind them?
Beto raised so much money online that he should change his name to Beto eRourke. https://twitter.com/TheStalwart/status/1107598443382489088
RT @robjective: @alexstamos @brendanNyhan @NateSilver538 @jayrosen_nyu API is in beta and will be more open very soon. I very much hope ot…
RT @NateSilver538: WHY IS THE MEDIA OBSESSED WITH CELEBRITY CANDIDATES LIKE BERNIE SANDERS WHEN ANDREW YANG OFFERS SO MUCH POLICY SUBSTANCE…
RT @NateSilver538: Facebook's News Feed algorithm seems to be surfacing more fake news than ever. https://bit.ly/2HBC8Aa https://t.co/L1J6…
 
 
 
 
 
© 2009 creamsocial