Scores by kind of claim
Each kind of claim is scored on its own, out of 100: the share that held up, with the range it likely falls in. Fewer resolved claims give a wider range.
-
Factual claims
Statements about the present or the past, checked against the record: did they hold up?
82 76 88 -
Predictions
Statements about events outside the person's control, checked once they fell due: did they come true?
61 47 75 -
Promises
Commitments to the person's or organisation's own future action, with something to deliver: was it delivered?
67 46 85
All types combined: 77 (likely 72 to 82, high confidence), from 84 claims: 63 factual claims, 16 predictions, 5 promises. It mixes kinds of claim in different proportions for different people, so compare people kind by kind.
Nate Silver's claims
7 claims
“most of the remaining uncertainty in our forecast comes down to potential polling error, not late shifts in the polls themselves.”
Nate Silver, author, Silver Bulletin 23 October 2026 Do these Senate-governor splits make sense? (Silver Bulletin)
Most of the remaining uncertainty in the FLIPR forecast comes from potential polling error rather than late shifts in polls.
Own records only Only the person's or their organisation's own records speak to it, so it is not scored.
Reasoning
The decomposition of forecast uncertainty depends on the model's internals, which only its authors have.
Cite this claim
Nate Silver, “Most of the remaining uncertainty in the FLIPR forecast comes from potential polling error rather than late shifts in polls.” (said 23 October 2026). Verdict: own records only. Reliability API, claim c_15aa18c2dbfb, method 0.1.0+28da144b. https://epistacklabs.com/claims/c_15aa18c2dbfb
Claims without a verdict
Is a verdict here wrong, or do you speak for Nate Silver? Reply on the claim's own page, with the form at its foot (how replies work). Verdicts are made automatically; how verdicts and scores are made.