Has Dave Wasserman ever "seen enough" in an election and been wrong?
6
387
230
resolved Dec 2
Resolved
NO

Sometimes Dave Wasserman (@Redistrict), of the Cook Political Report, tweets "I've seen enough", and projects the result of an election based on the returns at that time (example, example, example), typically before major news networks.

"I've seen enough" has great accuracy. In fact, from cursory searching, I don't know of any examples where he's predicted wrong. However, I feel like they probably exist?

This market resolves in a week, and resolves YES if I've been made aware of any instance when Dave Wasserman tweeted "I've seen enough" but was wrong. It resolves NO otherwise. I will not be doing any more independent research, and am really hoping someone on this market links me to examples or, even better, a helpful analysis of his hit rate. In addition to profits, I may award tips for sufficiently helpful links!

Get Ṁ1,000 play money

🏅 Top traders

#NameTotal profit
1Ṁ24
2Ṁ11
3Ṁ10
4Ṁ2
Sort by:

Let's predict for the next elections:

predicted NO

@MaybeNotDepends Interesting he says 98% yet seemingly has 100% accuracy! I still wonder if there's an example out there. I'd love if you could find your recollection

I have a recollection of him being wrong once.

bought Ṁ60 of NO

Still time for someone to find something!

Has Dave Wasserman ever "seen enough" in an election and been wrong?, 8k, beautiful, illustration, trending on art station, picture of the day, epic composition

I thought about also making a numeric market for how many instances of being wrong there would be, but I'm scared of numeric markets being crazy.

bought Ṁ50 of NO

Predicting NO as bounty for searcher