Ossoff 48.7
Purdue 47.9

Warnock 49.2
Loeffler 47.0

projects.fivethirtyeight.com/georgia-senate…
These are just polling averages, FYI. We are not issuing probabilistic forecasts of the Georgia runoffs, not for any philosophical reason—they'll be back in 2022/24—but because our full-fledged Congressional model isn't really designed to handle one-off races like these.
To be honest that's probably for the best, because there are a lot of judgment calls in terms of what the "fundamentals" look like in this election. Is this equivalent to a midterm, in which you might expect a pretty red environment vs. Biden? Maybe not given how Trump is acting.
How blue/red is Georgia? That's another sensitive assumption based on how many years you'd want to go back.

Is an appointed incumbent like Loeffler weaker than an elected one like Perdue? Probably.

Is their stock trading enough of a scandal to sway some voters? Don't know.
It's also hard to know what to make of Ossoff and Warnock. Neither has held elected office before, which is usually bad news. But they are both experienced campaigners and super familiar to voters at this point (especially Ossoff).

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Nate Silver

Nate Silver Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @NateSilver538

9 Dec
I'd also note, in general, that there have been a lot of bad predictions from liberals when it comes to how the Supreme Court would behave. Every court term, including this most recent one, brings a major "surprise" ruling or two. It's been a blind spot for analysis.
Some of it may be that while it may be the Supreme Court has become more partisan, it's not nearly at the same hyperwarp speed at which Congress has become more partisan, so it provides an important constraint overall.
One perhaps-not-terrible heuristic is to think of the current SCOTUS as being.... Mitt Romney. It's certainly quite conservative and doesn't remotely endorse the liberal worldview. But it's not particularly partisan or Trumpist and it cares about its institutional legacy.
Read 4 tweets
9 Dec
There's a lot of "if it were closer or X and Y were different, SCOTUS would have stolen the election for Trump" in response to this, to which I have a few different responses:
a) Maybe! But this election was *pretty* close and the courts were *very* unsympathetic to Trump. What if it was Florida-in-2000 close? So close it wasn't clear who really won? Maybe that's different. But Florida was INCREDIBLY close, a once-in-several-lifetimes occurrence.
b) Here's a litmus test. Suppose on Nov. 2 I'd described the outcome of the election—Biden would win 4 key states by <=1 point, all of which have GOP legislatures and two of which have GOP governors, one of whom is Brian Kemp. Would liberals have been freaking out? (Yes.)
Read 4 tweets
17 Nov
So basically, Murkowski can live without fear of a Republican primary challenge.
There are actually some pretty interesting incentives here. If you had to guess, you'd think a Top 4 general election in Alaska would consist of Murkowski, a Democrat, a MAGA/Tea Party Republican, and a Libertarian.
Who wins that? IDK, but in theory Murkowski could get squeezed out if say the Democrat gets 30% of the vote, the Libertarian gets 5% and the MAGA R gets 35%, leaving her with 30%. Murkowski doesn't want there to be a strong Democratic nominee, in other words.
Read 4 tweets
11 Nov
So... I've got a take on the polls up, which I think is a lot more equivocal than what you're seeing elsewhere. Here's the nut of it but it's pretty nuanced so you'll probably want to read the whole thing. fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-p…
This is undoubtedly affected by my/538's vantage point, in that we're not pollsters but instead our job is to evaluate and forecast poll accuracy. From that standpoint, the "miss" this year of 3-4 points (for POTUS, maybe more for Congress) was fairly in line with expectations.
A rough analogy: If I were a pollster, I wouldn't consider the miss to be "acceptable", in the same way that you were a parent, you might not consider a C+ grade to be acceptable from your 10th grader. But if he usually got a mix of B's and C's, it also wouldn't be *surprising*.
Read 4 tweets
9 Nov
The reason Biden's win probability was ~90% is precisely because he could withstand a fairly large polling error when Clinton couldn't, which is exactly what happened. Indeed, our model assumes polls are fairly error-prone. fivethirtyeight.com/features/final…
We have years and years of well-calibrated forecasts. (If anything, underdogs have won a bit less than they're supposed to, although not to a degree that's statistically significant.) We know what we're doing with these probabilities. projects.fivethirtyeight.com/checking-our-w…
There is a LOT of work that goes into thinking about how to model out poll error and uncertainty. Thousands of hours of painstaking, detailed work. It's hard. Also a LOT of work that goes into how to describe it visually, and verbally, which is equally painstaking.
Read 4 tweets
7 Nov
Gonna preface this by again reminding you that I'm not a pollster and instead my job is to assess how accurate polls are and build models of what the errors look like. So as someone who spends a lot of time on this, I'd say media coverage on this topic has been crappy so far.
The main issue is "you should wait for all votes to be counted to judge the accuracy of polls" may sounds like lame excuse-making from pollsters, but actually that's pretty damn important as vote counts have changed dramatically and are still changing in many states.
We also know very little about the whys. Why was polling bad in the Midwest (except in Minnesota?) but pretty good in the Southwest? Why did it work in New England but there was a big miss in Florida? This will take a while to unpack, and a lot of initial takes won't age well.
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!