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
5 claims
“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.”
Nate Silver, interviewee 13 August 2024 Nate Silver's On the Edge audio interview (Audible)
Kamala Harris's bid is inherently difficult and a little bit of a long shot, but her chances of winning the 2024 presidential election are probably better than Joe Biden's were.
Mostly true True in substance, wrong in a detail.
The second judge would not resolve this claim; the verdict shown is the first judge's.
What would count as true or false
A counterfactual judgment, assessed with forecasts available up to the November 2024 election. The actual result alone does not settle it. Main test: whether Harris's win probability was higher than Biden's had been. True: major forecasts and prediction markets (e.g. Silver Bulletin, 538, Economist, Polymarket) show Harris's win probability after she replaced Biden was higher than Biden's just before he withdrew (around 2024-07-21), and Harris was still not a clear favorite (roughly 50% or below at the time of the claim). Mostly true: her chances were clearly better than Biden's, but she was around even or only slightly favored, so 'long shot' was overstated. Mixed: her chances were better than Biden's but she was a clear favorite (well above 55%), or forecasts disagree on whether she improved on Biden. Mostly false: improvement was marginal or inside forecast noise. False: forecasts show Harris's chances were no better than, or worse than, Biden's.
Evidence
- Harris is in much better shape than Biden. But she has one big problem. Silver Bulletin (natesilver.net) · 30 July 2024 Own record
“Kamala Harris is in a considerably better position than Joe Biden, who had only a 27 percent chance of winning when he exited the race”
- Election 2024: Are Americans Ready for Another Close Presidential Election? | Council on Foreign Relations Council on Foreign Relations · 27 September 2024
“One of the best known forecasts, Nate Silver’s Silver Bulletin, gives Vice President Kamala Harris a 53.2 percent chance of winning, compared to former President Donald Trump’s 46.6 percent shot. The Economist has Harris at 57/100 and Trump at 43/100.”
- Diversity, Efficiency, and Incentives in Political Prediction Markets arXiv (academic paper, authors not on the subject's domains) · 18 October 2024
“Its mean Trump probability over the window was 53%, against 57 to 60% on the uncapped markets and 50 to 51% for the models.”
Reasoning
E1, the subject's own Silver Bulletin forecast, puts Biden at a 27 percent chance of winning when he left the race and says Harris was in a considerably better position. Independent sources show Harris's chances were well above that level. E2 reports Silver Bulletin at 53.2% and the Economist at 57% for Harris in late September. E3 reports the forecast models giving Trump about 50–51% and the markets 57–60%, which leaves Harris around even in the models and roughly 40–43% in the markets. Harris's chances were clearly better than Biden's 27% when he exited [E1]. In the later forecasts cited, the models had her around even or slightly favoured [E2][E3], while the uncapped markets had Trump at 57 to 60% [E3], so against the models, describing her bid as "a little bit of a long shot" overstated it somewhat; none of the evidence is from the date of the claim. That matches the "mostly true" criterion.
Cite this claim
Nate Silver, “Kamala Harris's bid is inherently difficult and a little bit of a long shot, but her chances of winning the 2024 presidential election are probably better than Joe Biden's were.” (said 13 August 2024). Verdict: mostly true. Reliability API, claim c_ce90f0e9a639, method 0.1.0+28da144b. https://epistacklabs.com/claims/c_ce90f0e9a639
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.