FR

Nate Cohn ✓

@Nate_Cohn · Washington, DC · joined 14 Jan 2012

chief political analyst, @nytimes. writing about elections, public opinion and demographics for @UpshotNYT. polling and needling. PNW expat.

440 136Followers

1 235Following

50 789Posts total

1.7MViews on collected posts

Derniers posts

Nate Cohn ✓@Nate_Cohn15 Jul

https://t.co/U4urCNcflt 31.2K views · 27 likes · 3 reposts · 4 replies Open on X →

Nate Cohn ✓@Nate_Cohn4 Jul

@Nate_Cohn Nate, I have to say I completely disagree with this methodology change. The main problem you seem to be attempting to fix was the non-response bias that was typical of low propensity Trump supporters that showed up in 20 & 24. This is a problem of data collection, not 710 views · 30 likes · 1 reposts · 1 replies Open on X →

Nate Cohn ✓@Nate_Cohn1 Jul

Outtake: I think Alaska is my favorite state to poll. When else would we hear from people in the Aleutians or within shouting distance of Russia? https://t.co/LcIl6v5Cl5

49.6K views · 282 likes · 9 reposts · 12 replies Open on X →

Nate Cohn ✓@Nate_Cohn29 Jun

@Nate_Cohn Cool! Thank you for putting this out and being so transparent about the methodological changes you are trying out at tge NYT/Sienna polling. More pollsters should do that! Now, I'd love to see even more details about how this is being implemented, especially the energy 2.5K views · 4 likes · 0 reposts · 1 replies Open on X →

Nate Cohn ✓@Nate_Cohn29 Jun

@Nate_Cohn How are you handling the relative importance of columns in this "energy balance" weighting? Haven't looked into it too deeply, but naively it seems it'd optimize on minimizing the distance across every column equally, which seems pretty far from optimal for political p 3.5K views · 3 likes · 0 reposts · 1 replies Open on X →

Nate Cohn ✓@Nate_Cohn29 Jun

Today, we have some significant and, at least to my mind, fun new methodological changes to the NYT/Siena poll (which found Platner+2) https://t.co/UaLBr5Cle1 153.6K views · 167 likes · 38 reposts · 17 replies Open on X →

Nate Cohn ✓@Nate_Cohn22 Apr

@Nate_Cohn The Virginia results show that Dem voters were willing, but not thrilled, to overturn non-gerrymandered districts only because of the urgency of the moment. 8.1K views · 84 likes · 1 reposts · 2 replies Open on X →

Nate Cohn ✓@Nate_Cohn22 Apr

Still, there are a lot of viable options if you don't like gerrymandering. Compared to the status quo, it doesn't really matter which one you pick. You can even pick the one your opponent prefers. It'll be fine. 65.2K views · 230 likes · 13 reposts · 10 replies Open on X →

Nate Cohn ✓@Nate_Cohn22 Apr

One solution that I'm not sure makes as much sense: a state-level proportionality standard (including the efficiency gap). Single-member districts don't yield proportionality; making them do so will require things that look like gerrymandering and/or be impossible 61.9K views · 174 likes · 9 reposts · 11 replies Open on X →

Nate Cohn ✓@Nate_Cohn22 Apr

To put two and two together for a second: one obvious compromise is a nonpartisan commission with strong compactness/boundary criteria. That's generally what you get in other parts of the world, though generally not in American nonpartisan commissions 31.6K views · 206 likes · 9 reposts · 7 replies Open on X →

Nate Cohn ✓@Nate_Cohn22 Apr

And while a strict boundary/compactness standard would rule out the progressive's most expansive visions of the VRA (say the "compact" district around Baton Rouge) or some interest group favorites (the old IL04), that dream may not be viable with today's court 33.1K views · 131 likes · 6 reposts · 2 replies Open on X →

Nate Cohn ✓@Nate_Cohn22 Apr

One valid critique is that, alone, compactness doesn't solve gerrymandering. Definitely true. That said, gerrymandering is so out of hand that it would do a ton to limit gerrymandering, if the requirement is designed correctly. The VA/IL/TX-level stuff would be out the window 31.2K views · 182 likes · 8 reposts · 3 replies Open on X →

Nate Cohn ✓@Nate_Cohn22 Apr

Dem fears were understandable in the Obama-era, but it's not 2012 anymore. Dems win the burbs, while doing worse in both city and countryside. As a result, compact districts yield a competitive and relatively balanced map nationwide 60.3K views · 228 likes · 10 reposts · 3 replies Open on X →

Nate Cohn ✓@Nate_Cohn22 Apr

As the nation's suburbs become more diverse, compact districts do less-and-less to 'pack' nonwhite voters into overwhelmingly nonwhite seats. Nowadays, compact maps yield many minority-opportunity districts without any deliberate effort to create them 35.3K views · 145 likes · 7 reposts · 1 replies Open on X →

Nate Cohn ✓@Nate_Cohn22 Apr

Here again, there's a lot of intrastate variation. In states like TX, compact districts would yield many seats for the Democrats. In Illinois or Wisconsin, it's great for the GOP. Nationwide, it would be fine. 37K views · 165 likes · 9 reposts · 1 replies Open on X →

Nate Cohn ✓@Nate_Cohn22 Apr

The GOP's concern that 'communities of interest' are just a backdoor way to justify gerrymandering Democratic seats isn't unfounded. This strikes me as an area that's ripe for a compromise if anyone ever wanted. 47.4K views · 233 likes · 8 reposts · 3 replies Open on X →

Nate Cohn ✓@Nate_Cohn22 Apr

Still, so far it hasn't yielded unfair results. There have been commission drawn maps where Ds aren't happy with the result, like CO or AZ. On any given map, someone's going to get the marginal district. But if you judge this process in the aggregate, it works out fine and fair. 43.9K views · 215 likes · 9 reposts · 1 replies Open on X →

Nate Cohn ✓@Nate_Cohn22 Apr

A compactness/boundaries standard wouldn't be nearly as bad as progressives seem to believe, either. It wouldn't hurt Democrats or the number of minority-majority districts to the extent they believe 41.4K views · 170 likes · 7 reposts · 1 replies Open on X →

Nate Cohn ✓@Nate_Cohn22 Apr

The GOP's misperception here is partly based on the lopsided seat count in California. But single member districts *don't* yield proportional maps. In CA, where 80% of people *live in D geographies*, a fair map will yield 80% Dem seats. That's what the sims say, too. 51.2K views · 399 likes · 18 reposts · 5 replies Open on X →

Nate Cohn ✓@Nate_Cohn22 Apr

Commissions haven't mistreated the GOP in the way it believes. Nationwide, commission-drawn maps perform as one would expect based on computer sims. With commissions nationwide, the map might well lean more GOP than today 64.9K views · 403 likes · 15 reposts · 1 replies Open on X →

Nate Cohn ✓@Nate_Cohn22 Apr

There are several options. Liberals will prefer some (commissions that account for 'communities of interest'); conservatives will prefer others (say, strict compactness requirements). But each side's skepticism of the other's preferred option is mostly unjustified. 72.9K views · 392 likes · 14 reposts · 6 replies Open on X →

Nate Cohn ✓@Nate_Cohn22 Apr

I'm going to break my self-imposed social media ban to note something that I might write if I wasn't leaving on a trip tonight: If you want to solve gerrymandering, it is a solvable problem. 734K views · 2.4K likes · 197 reposts · 64 replies Open on X →

Nate Cohn ✓@Nate_Cohn5 Mar

Fun job opportunity: work on NYT election graphics https://t.co/Hik8KV2G0s 33.9K views · 34 likes · 7 reposts · 3 replies Open on X →

Face aux comptes de taille comparable

6 posts des 90 derniers jours, à côté de la tranche de 100K–1M abonnés. diffusé largement, mais peu de ces spectateurs réagissent.

Vues médianes17 334ce compte5 912médiane pour 100K–1M

Portée, %3.94%ce compte1.58%médiane pour 100K–1M

Engagement, %0.17%ce compte1.04%médiane pour 100K–1M

Indicateur	Ce compte	Médiane pour 100K–1M	Rapport
Vues médianes par post	17 334	5 912	2.93×
Portée (vues ÷ abonnés)	3.94%	1.58%	2.49×
Taux d'engagement	0.17%	1.04%	0.17×

Autres comptes de cette tranche → Comparer avec un autre compte → Comment ces repères sont établis →

Growth & engagement

How the posts we collected actually performed: views and reaction rate post by post, what the audience did with them, and where the follower count goes.

Views per post

35.3K22 Apr

60.3K

31.2K

33.1K

31.6K

61.9K

65.2K

8.1K

153.6K29 Jun

3.5K

2.5K

49.6K1 Jul

7104 Jul

31.2K15 Jul

Last 14 collected posts, oldest on the left. The scale is logarithmic: one post can outrun the rest a hundred times over.

Engagement rate per post

0.43%22 Apr

0.40%

0.62%

0.42%

0.70%

0.31%

0.39%

1.07%

0.14%29 Jun

0.12%

0.20%

0.61%1 Jul

4.51%4 Jul

0.11%15 Jul

Reactions — likes, reposts, replies and quotes — divided by views. Median for 100K–1M accounts is 1.04%.

What the audience does

Likes85.1%6 324 in total

Reposts5.4%398 in total

Replies2.2%160 in total

Bookmarks7.4%552 in total

Share of every reaction we collected for this account. Replies mean argument, reposts mean endorsement, bookmarks mean the post was worth keeping.

The follower curve appears once this account has two daily snapshots — we take one a day, and this one is on its first.

Comptes similaires