The model's other 48 of 50 state calls will be right, assuming Trump's leads in Arizona and Nevada hold, which Silver said they almost certainly will.
Unresolvable The public record could not settle it.
Prediction: Statements about events outside the person's control, checked once they fell due: did they come true?
What would count as true or false
True: the certified results show Trump winning both Arizona and Nevada, and the model's final favourite matched the actual winner in exactly 48 of the 50 states. Mostly true: Arizona and Nevada go to Trump, but the count of correct calls is off by one (47 or 49). Mixed: only one of Arizona and Nevada goes to Trump. Mostly false: neither goes to Trump, but the other calls are largely as stated. False: neither goes to Trump and the count of correct calls is off by more than one. Use final certified results, even if certification came after November 2024.
Set before the research began.
Evidence (7)
-
E1 [PDF] Arizona Certificate of Ascertainment 2024 U.S. National Archives (Office of the Federal Register, Electoral College records), certificate issued by Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs · 14 October 2025
“REPUBLICAN PARTY PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORS Presidential Candidate Donald J. Trump Vice Presidential Candidate JD Vance”
-
E2 Nevada Supreme Court certifies general election, governor says results not fast enough KUNR Public Radio · 27 November 2024
“On Dec. 17, the Electoral College will meet to cast electoral votes for Donald Trump and JD Vance based on the popular vote in Nevada.”
-
E3 Who called the election right and who got it wrong? Newsweek · 6 November 2024
“His model, the Silver Bulletin, predicted on Tuesday that Harris had a 50 percent chance of winning the Electoral College, compared to Trump's 49.6 percent after weeks of showing Trump with the edge.”
-
E4 Who called the election right and who got it wrong? Newsweek · 6 November 2024
“he could pick up more, as Michigan, Nevada and Arizona have not finished counting their votes.”
-
E5 Arizona Gov. Hobbs, Secretary of State Fontes, others certify 2024 election results Capitol Media Services (via KAWC) · 25 November 2024
“And the results confirmed that Donald Trump outpolled Kamala Harris 1,770,242 to 1,582,860.”
-
E6 Our best and worst takes of 2024 Silver Bulletin (Nate Silver) · 31 December 2024 Own record
“Indeed, the actual map that occurred — with Trump winning all 7 swing states but everything else going to form — was the modal (single most likely) outcome in our forecast.”
-
E7 FINAL Silver Bulletin 2024 presidential election forecast Silver Bulletin (Nate Silver) · 5 November 2024 Own record
“So here is how our model translates polls and the other inputs it uses into probabilities in the Electoral College and the popular vote in every state”
Reasoning
Arizona's certified results show Trump ahead of Harris, 1,770,242 to 1,582,860 (E5), and its certificate of ascertainment lists the Trump–Vance electors (E1). A report on Nevada's certification says the state's electoral votes will go to Trump and Vance (E2). So the first condition, Trump holding both states, is met. However, none of the evidence gives the model's final favourite in each state: E7 has no state-by-state table, and E3 gives only national odds. E6 is Silver's own retrospective, says the actual map was the single most likely outcome, and doesn't name per-state favourites. Without those favourites, there is no way to tell whether exactly 48 calls were right (true) or 47 or 49 (mostly true).
Cite this claim
Nate Silver, “The model's other 48 of 50 state calls will be right, assuming Trump's leads in Arizona and Nevada hold, which Silver said they almost certainly will.” (said 7 November 2024). Verdict: unresolvable. Reliability API, claim c_22278281b33d, method 0.1.0+28da144b, dataset release v1.1.2. https://epistacklabs.com/claims/c_22278281b33d
This claim is in dataset release v1.1.2, with the same verdict.
Reply to this claim
More prediction claims by Nate Silver
-
Mixed
“Children's toys are gonna become much more expensive because they're made in countries like Vietnam in Southeast Asia that are heavily taraffed.”
-
Mostly true
“I think people might understand with Kamala Harris that it's inherently a difficult circumstance and a little bit of a long shot bid, but that her chances are probably better than Biden.”
-
Mixed
“Most voters aren’t paying attention yet, and it will be nine months to a year before they do.”
-
Mostly false
“I’d argue that 1 (Biden winning) is more likely than 2 (Trump winning) which, in turn, is more likely than 3 (someone else winning).”
-
Mostly false
“If Trump does well in Iowa and New Hampshire — and there’s no snafu for Biden — they could become their party’s presumptive nominees as soon as February”
Verdicts are made automatically; how verdicts are made.