Twitter | Search | |
Nate Silver Nov 5
There's now quite good alignment between the FiveThirtyEight model and race ratings put out by and 's Crystal Ball. All point toward a modal range of D's gaining like 28-42 seats. R majority still possible. Higher D gains also possible.
Reply Retweet Like
Nate Silver Nov 5
Replying to @NateSilver538
If you really want to dig in, I think we and Sabato are toward the higher end of that range, Inside Elections toward the lower end, Cook in the middle, but those are pretty small differences.
Reply Retweet Like
Nate Silver Nov 5
Replying to @NateSilver538
Our model (and other people's models) also tends to show a longer and fatter D tail than the experts. We'd pretty happily bet on a D gain of 43+ seats **if given 3:1 odds**, for instance, and I'm not sure that they would. But, again, those are pretty minor disagreements.
Reply Retweet Like
Nate Silver
There's also pretty strong agreement among the various probabilistic forecasters on odds of a D House majority: : 75% : 79% 538 Lite / Classic / Deluxe: 80% / 87% / 85% : 86% : 89% Optimus/: 95%
Reply Retweet Like More
Nate Silver Nov 5
Replying to @NateSilver538
My point is just—nobody is really going out on a limb. Or if we are, it's the same limb. People working independently from one another, looking at the district-by-district map in rigorous ways, are coming up with pretty similar answers to one another, much more so than in 2016.
Reply Retweet Like
Nate Silver Nov 5
Replying to @NateSilver538
And in the Senate, there's even more alignment, so much so that it's barely even worth this tweet. All the models show GOP chances at about ~85%. There are some disagreements over IN and MO, but all agree Democrats have a tough (but not impossible) map.
Reply Retweet Like