calls an election with a post saying "I've seen enough", but ultimately ends up being wrong. Otherwise NO.

), of the Cook Political Report, tweets "I've seen enough", and calls the result of an election based on the returns at that time (

"I've seen enough" has great accuracy. In fact, Manifold is not aware of any cases it was wrong: 

https://manifold.markets/Conflux/has-dave-wasserman-ever-seen-enough

Wasserman describes his approach as making a call at ~98% confidence. 

https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1311862792279003136

My general approach to "seeing enough" on Twitter is to make that declaration at a ~98% personal confidence interval, whereas a media organization might prudently wait to project a race at a ~99%+ confidence interval.

In other words, I'd expect that for every 98 times "I've seen enough" ends up being correct, there might be two times it ends up being incorrect.

For this to resolve YES, someone must link a qualifying post in the comments. If no such post is linked by January 1, the market will resolve NO; however it will re-resolve to YES in case a qualifying post is later discovered.

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! 