Silver wrote that Harris's win probability rises from 28 percent to 59 percent if her popular vote lead goes from 2 points (rounded down) to 3 points.
Unresolvable The public record could not settle it.
Factual: Statements about the present or the past, checked against the record: did they hold up?
What would count as true or false
Judge against the Silver Bulletin model output Silver published around 2024-10-08, which maps Harris's national popular vote margin to her win probability. True: the model shows about 28% at a 2-point lead (rounded down) and about 59% at a 3-point lead. Mostly true: both figures are within about 2 percentage points of 28% and 59%, or the brackets are defined slightly differently but the jump is the same. Mostly false: the model shows a large jump between 2 and 3 points, but one or both figures are off by more than about 2 points. False: the model's published figures do not show this jump or are clearly different.
Set before the research began.
Evidence (1)
-
E1 What’s behind Trump’s surge in prediction markets? Silver Bulletin (natesilver.net) · 7 October 2024 Own record
“Following her debate with Trump, Harris expanded her national lead from roughly 2 points to 3 points, and it’s remained there pretty much ever since.”
Reasoning
The only evidence, E1, is a Silver Bulletin post saying Harris's national lead went from roughly 2 points to 3 points after the debate. It gives no win probabilities and does not show the model output linking popular vote margin to win probability. Nothing in the evidence shows the 28 percent or 59 percent figures, so the claim cannot be checked against the criteria.
Cite this claim
Nate Silver, “Silver wrote that Harris's win probability rises from 28 percent to 59 percent if her popular vote lead goes from 2 points (rounded down) to 3 points.” (said 8 October 2024). Verdict: unresolvable. Reliability API, claim c_37f7cf103b10, method 0.1.0+28da144b, dataset release v1.1.2. https://epistacklabs.com/claims/c_37f7cf103b10
This claim is in dataset release v1.1.2, with the same verdict.
Reply to this claim
More factual claims by Nate Silver
-
Resolved true
“It’s not hard, for instance, to find polls from this point in 2015 showing Hillary Clinton with double-digit leads over Trump.”
-
Mostly true
“There was never any spike in Biden's approval rating.”
-
Resolved true
“This is the pollster that had shown a big bounce for Garcia before, so either that previous poll was an outlier or her momentum has been usurped by Wiley.”
-
Mixed
“Instead, there was a modest polling error, well in line with historical polling errors, but even a modest error was enough to provide for plenty of paths to victory for Trump.”
-
Mostly true
“The single most important reason that our model gave Trump a better chance than others is because of our assumption that polling errors are correlated.”
Verdicts are made automatically; how verdicts are made.