Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Nate Cohn

Nate Cohn is an American journalist serving as the chief political analyst for , where he specializes in analyzing elections, , demographics, and polling data. Cohn joined in 2013 after stints at and as a at the , quickly establishing himself through contributions to The Upshot section with data-driven examinations of electoral dynamics and voter behavior. He oversees the New York Times- polling partnership, which conducts national and battleground-state surveys informing the paper's election coverage and forecasts. His analyses have highlighted shifts in voter coalitions, such as working-class realignments and the limitations of traditional demographic models in predicting outcomes, but Cohn's work and the broader polling ecosystem he engages with have drawn scrutiny for repeated failures to accurately capture support, including underestimations of 's performance in 2016 and 2020 due to factors like nonresponse bias among certain voter groups. Cohn himself has acknowledged these systemic errors and cautioned ahead of 2024 that similar underestimations of could recur if methodological adjustments prove insufficient. He authors the subscriber-only newsletter The Tilt, offering ongoing commentary on political data trends.

Early Life and Education

Upbringing and Family Background

Nate Cohn grew up in . Details regarding his family background and parents are not publicly documented in available sources.

Academic Training

Nate Cohn earned a degree in from in 2010. His undergraduate studies emphasized , culminating in an honors thesis that received the Robert Y. Fluno Award for the best paper in and Government at the institution. Cohn graduated with Honors and Distinction, reflecting high academic achievement in his major. He participated actively in competitive during his time at Whitman, partnering with Daniel Straus to place fifth at the 2009 National Debate Tournament and second at the 2010 Cross Examination Debate Association () national championships, where the topic centered on nuclear weapons policy. No records indicate pursuit of graduate-level education or advanced degrees following his bachelor's completion.

Professional Career

Initial Journalism Roles

Nate Cohn entered journalism in May 2012 upon joining The New Republic, where he launched and authored the Electionate blog. This platform provided non-partisan analysis of elections, emphasizing political geography, demographic shifts, polling data, and campaign tactics. At , Cohn's work included examining electoral dynamics, such as debates over the Democratic edge in the and responses to studies on racial factors in voting patterns. His blogging role marked his shift from prior policy research at the , a , to public-facing political commentary. Cohn's contributions at The New Republic gained attention for data-driven insights into voter behavior and geographic influences on outcomes, positioning him as an emerging voice in election analysis before his departure for The New York Times in late 2013.

Rise at The New York Times

Nate Cohn joined in November 2013 as part of a newly formed data and polling team led by , aimed at enhancing election coverage through analytics similar to Nate Silver's . Prior to this, Cohn had worked at , where he contributed polling analysis, but his recruitment to the Times marked his entry into a major outlet's data-driven effort. In this initial role, he focused on dissecting voter trends and data, contributing to the paper's preparation for the 2014 midterms. Cohn's prominence grew with the launch of The Upshot in April , a data journalism section edited by Leonhardt that emphasized interactive visualizations and empirical analysis of politics and policy. As a core contributor, Cohn authored pieces on demographic shifts and electoral dynamics, such as early examinations of turnout models for the elections. By 2016, he was described as a political for The Upshot, analyzing Trump's campaign prospects and polling anomalies, which positioned him as a key voice in the paper's election coverage. His work extended to developing the Times' election night "needle," a tool first prominently used in 2018, relying on precinct-level data and statistical modeling to estimate outcomes before final tallies. In March , ahead of the midterm elections, Cohn was appointed the Times' chief political analyst, returning to a dedicated Upshot role with expanded responsibilities over polling methodology and . This promotion reflected his established expertise in navigating polling challenges, including post-2016 adjustments for nonresponse bias among working-class voters. Concurrently, he launched "The Tilt" newsletter in September , offering subscribers detailed breakdowns of political data akin to a "cooking show for polling," further solidifying his influence within the organization. By this point, Cohn's analyses had become central to ' narrative on electoral shifts, though critics outside the paper questioned the outlet's interpretive lens on data amid broader concerns over mainstream media's ideological tilts.

Election Forecasting and Polling Analysis

Methodological Approach to Polling

Nate Cohn, as The New York Times's chief political analyst, employs a data-driven approach to polling that emphasizes high-quality primary surveys through the Times/Siena partnership alongside sophisticated aggregation and adjustment techniques to mitigate known biases such as nonresponse and house effects. The Times/Siena polls, which Cohn frequently analyzes and reports on, utilize random probability sampling with a focus on live interviews, over 90% conducted on cellphones, supplemented by experiments like text-message initiation followed by calls to improve contact rates amid overall response rates around 2%. Surveys are designed to be concise, under 15 minutes, to minimize dropout, and results are response-rate-adjusted to account for differential participation, though Cohn has highlighted persistent challenges in reaching disengaged or Republican-leaning respondents, whose lower response rates signal deeper nonresponse bias favoring Democratic-identifying participants. In aggregating national and state-level polls for forecasting, Cohn's methodology involves weighted averages that prioritize recency—assigning greater influence to surveys conducted closer to election day or following major events—while capping weights for sample sizes beyond approximately 2,300 respondents and limiting the dominance of prolific pollsters to no more than about four recent surveys. Pollster quality is assessed via historical accuracy in comparable races, methodological rigor (favoring probability-based samples and live cellphone polling), (e.g., AAPOR membership and detailed ), and from sponsorship, with biased or inexperienced firms downweighted or assumed to carry a systematic 6-point tilt. House effects—consistent over- or underestimation by specific pollsters—are explicitly adjusted for, as are shifts from voter to likely voter screens, typically by applying a roughly 1% correction toward the in post-Labor Day voter polls based on likely voter . Older polls are dynamically recalibrated using trends from the pollster's recent work, with more aggressive updates near to reflect evolving . Cohn's analyses underscore caution against over-reliance on recalled past vote for weighting, a technique that can inflate representation of the prior winner's supporters—such as Biden voters in 2024 models—potentially replicating 2020's dynamics and understating shifts among low-propensity or non-college-educated groups. Instead, he advocates adjustments informed by of polling failures, including boosts to underrepresented demographics like non-college whites and historical turnout patterns, while scrutinizing crosstabs for anomalies in education-based and subgroup turnout that standard models often miss. This approach, refined after 2016 and 2020 underestimations of support, prioritizes transparency and iterative testing over predictive modeling alone, treating aggregates as descriptive tools rather than probabilistic forecasts. Despite these refinements, Cohn acknowledges ongoing vulnerabilities to nonresponse among Trump-leaning voters, as evidenced by response disparities in recent cycles.

Coverage of 2016 Election

During the 2016 presidential campaign, Cohn highlighted the significant support enjoyed among white voters without college degrees, a demographic that constituted a larger share of the electorate than some demographic models anticipated. In a June 2016 analysis, he argued that projections underestimating the white electorate's size overlooked 's potential advantage, as exit polls from prior elections had inflated perceptions of minority turnout while downplaying white non-college participation. This framing underscored an education-based in voting patterns, with Trump consolidating Republican support among less-educated whites more effectively than in 2012. The New York Times Upshot election model, which Cohn contributed to, forecasted as the favorite on election day, November 8, 2016, assigning her an approximately 85% probability of victory based on aggregated state and national polls. Despite this, Cohn's reporting emphasized uncertainties in battleground states like , , and , where Trump's gains among working-class voters could narrow Clinton's leads. On election night, Times coverage, informed by Cohn's polling insights, tracked Trump's unexpected surges in states, attributing early Clinton advantages to turnout but noting rural and suburban shifts favoring as results progressed. Following 's victory, Cohn's immediate post-election analysis on November 9, 2016, identified the decisive factor as Trump's overwhelming margins among white working-class voters without college degrees, who backed him by 39 percentage points nationally—eight points more than Romney's 2012 margin. He quantified this shift as flipping key Midwestern counties, where Trump improved on Romney's performance by double digits in areas with high concentrations of such voters. In a December 2016 piece, Cohn explained Trump's edge, noting his 306-to-232 vote win despite a popular vote loss, driven by efficient geographic distribution of support in low-turnout, Republican-leaning rural areas. Cohn's subsequent reviews dissected polling inaccuracies, concluding in November 2016 that state-level surveys systematically understated support, particularly in smaller states and the Midwest, by margins of 5-10 points in pivotal races like and . By March 2017, he rejected high Democratic turnout as the primary culprit for 's defeat, citing census data showing similar overall participation rates to 2012; instead, he pointed to compositional shifts, with overperforming among low-education whites and underperforming with expected Obama coalition groups. A May 2017 examination identified nonresponse bias—where low-education, rural s were less likely to participate in surveys—as a key error source in battleground states, corroborated by Upshot/ polling that adjusted for these gaps post-election. These findings challenged narratives blaming turnout alone and emphasized methodological flaws in capturing hard-to-reach supporters.

Coverage of 2020 Election

In the lead-up to the 2020 presidential election, Cohn, as The New York Times's chief political analyst, contributed to the Upshot's forecasting efforts, which incorporated New York Times/ polls showing leading nationally by margins of around 8 to 10 points in late surveys, though with narrower leads in battleground states like (5 points) and (6 points). These polls emphasized Biden's advantages among suburban voters and older demographics, while noting Trump's resilience among white working-class voters, but underestimated shifts in support toward Trump, where exit polls later indicated a double-digit in his favor compared to 2016. Cohn highlighted methodological adjustments post-2016, such as weighting by education levels, which improved accuracy relative to the national polling average but still failed to fully capture nonresponse biases among low-propensity voters. On election night, November 3, 2020, Cohn helped guide the Times's "Needle" forecast model, which dynamically updated based on precinct-level results and projected Biden securing at least 270 electoral votes by incorporating historical turnout patterns and vote reporting sequences, correctly anticipating delays in battleground certifications due to mail-in ballots favoring Democrats. The model reflected pre-election probabilities assigning Biden over 85% chance of victory, aligning with polls that had trailing in all six key swing states, though actual results showed closer margins—Biden won by 1.2%, by 0.2%, and by 0.3%. Cohn's analysis during coverage stressed the role of high turnout, exceeding 66% of eligible voters, which amplified small polling errors into surprises like Republican Senate gains in states such as and . Post-election, Cohn dissected polling shortcomings in pieces like "What Went Wrong With Polling? Some Early Theories," attributing errors to pervasive nonresponse—particularly from white, rural Midwestern voters who behaved similarly to 2016 patterns, defying expectations of a Biden surge—and elevated Democratic survey participation driven by anti-Trump mobilization. Unlike 2016's Trump-specific biases concentrated in states, 2020 misses extended nationally and to down-ballot races, where polls overestimated Democratic support by about 3 points and Senate margins in competitive contests, contributing to unexpected GOP holds. He posited disruptions exacerbated these issues by altering response rates and turnout modeling, while demographic blind spots, such as Trump's gains among men (up to 38% support per exit data), signaled broader realignments not anticipated in pre-election surveys. Cohn advocated for enhanced weighting on past vote recall and cooperative polling efforts to mitigate future errors, acknowledging that while the presidential outcome aligned with forecasts, the aggregate underestimation of strength eroded confidence in polling's precision.

Coverage of 2024 Election

Nate Cohn provided extensive analysis of the 2024 U.S. presidential election as The New York Times' chief political analyst, focusing on polling aggregates, battleground state trends, and potential sources of error in surveys. Throughout the campaign, he emphasized the race's exceptional closeness, with Times/Siena polls showing Donald Trump and Kamala Harris tied or within 1-2 points nationally and in key swing states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Georgia, North Carolina, Arizona, and Nevada from September onward. A final Times/Siena national poll, released October 25, 2024, found the candidates deadlocked at 48% support each among likely voters, with Trump holding slight edges in most battlegrounds. Cohn repeatedly warned of risks from historical polling inaccuracies, noting that nonresponse bias—particularly among low-education and nonwhite supporters—had led to underestimation of Trump's support in 2016 and 2020, and similar dynamics could produce a decisive outcome despite tight aggregates. In late analyses, he outlined scenarios where standard polling error (around 3-4 points) could yield victories in all battlegrounds or Harris sweeps, underscoring the contest's uncertainty and the absence of pandemic-related distortions from 2020. On election night, November 5, 2024, Cohn detailed the mechanics of the Times' "Needle," a Bayesian model integrating precinct-level returns, historical patterns, and demographic data to forecast results in real time, which progressively shifted toward as votes from Republican-leaning areas materialized. The model correctly projected 's path to 312 electoral votes, capturing his advantages in and states amid early Democratic leads from urban and mail ballots. In a December 2024 post-mortem, Cohn evaluated polling performance, concluding that while national and battleground surveys underestimated Trump's final 1.5-point popular vote margin (49.8% to 48.3%) and swing-state blowouts by 1-3 points, they accurately identified core trends: Trump's gains among and voters, Harris's nonwhite weaknesses, and the absence of a Democratic "" collapse or popular vote surge. He attributed residual errors to persistent challenges in education levels and engaging infrequent voters, rather than systemic overcorrections, though critics highlighted continued shy-Trump effects in oversampled urban and college-educated samples.

Reception, Criticisms, and Influence

Accolades and Impact on Public Discourse

Cohn received the 2023 Citrin Award from the , Berkeley's Citrin Center for Research, honoring his contributions to the field of public opinion analysis and polling. The award recognized his work in dissecting election data and methodological innovations at , where he serves as chief political analyst. Through his columns in The Upshot and the newsletter The Tilt, Cohn has exerted considerable influence on public understanding of polling accuracy and voter behavior, often highlighting issues like recall vote weighting and non-response bias that contributed to errors in the 2020 election. His analyses, such as those questioning overestimations of support for Democrats based on data discrepancies, have prompted broader debates on demographic shifts and the limitations of traditional survey methods. Cohn's development of the New York Times' election needle—a dynamic tool integrating live vote tallies with statistical models—has enhanced transparency in election night projections, drawing millions of viewers and setting a standard for real-time forecasting. Appearances on platforms like The New Yorker and MSNBC podcasts have amplified his insights into polling failures, such as undercapturing Trump voter turnout, fostering skepticism toward aggregate poll averages and encouraging methodological refinements across the industry. His partnership with Siena College on surveys has similarly elevated discussions on hybrid polling approaches to mitigate biases observed in recent cycles.

Critiques of Bias and Accuracy

Critiques of Nate Cohn's polling analyses and election forecasting have centered on persistent inaccuracies in underestimating Republican voter turnout and support, particularly in the 2016, 2020, and 2024 presidential elections. In 2016, the New York Times' Upshot model, which Cohn contributed to, assigned Hillary Clinton an 85% chance of victory on election night via its "needle" visualization, despite Donald Trump's win; Cohn later reflected on this as part of broader polling failures driven by overlooked non-college-educated white voter shifts. Similar errors occurred in 2020, where national polls overseen or analyzed by Cohn through the Times-Siena partnership overestimated Joe Biden's popular vote margin by approximately 4 points (polls averaged +7.5% for Biden, actual +4.5%), attributed by Cohn to differential nonresponse where Trump supporters were underrepresented due to lower survey participation rates. In 2024, despite Cohn's pre-election warnings of ongoing nonresponse bias—such as white Democrats being 16% more likely to respond than white Republicans in final polls—Times-Siena surveys showed Kamala Harris competitive or leading in battleground states like Pennsylvania and Michigan, yet Trump won the national popular vote by 1.5% (50.3% to 48.3%) and secured narrow victories in those states, marking another systematic undercount of GOP performance estimated at 2-3 points. Methodological challenges have drawn specific scrutiny from statisticians. Columbia University professor Andrew Gelman contested Cohn's defense of polls by respondents' recalled vote from the prior election, arguing that such recall systematically overstates the previous winner's share—favoring Democrats post-2020 due to Biden's victory—thus anchoring current polls toward outdated results and exacerbating errors in dynamic electorates. Cohn maintained that this weighting stabilizes aggregates without directional , but Gelman cited from poll data showing predictable distortions, as seen in stable but inaccurate 2024 aggregates toward 2020 outcomes. These debates highlight broader polling vulnerabilities, including reliance on and online samples prone to partisan nonresponse, which Cohn has acknowledged but critics argue remain insufficiently adjusted in Times analyses. Allegations of ideological bias against Cohn are less direct but often link to ' institutional left-leaning tendencies, documented in studies showing disproportionate negative coverage of conservatives and underrepresentation of right-leaning in political . Cohn's work, while empirically oriented, has been faulted by some conservative commentators for framing errors in ways that downplay structural Democratic advantages in polling methodologies, such as over-sampling and educated demographics. However, Cohn's recent emphases on Trump-favoring biases—like education polarization and low-propensity voter mobilization—have led even skeptics to view him as relatively even-handed compared to peers, though persistent misses fuel claims that media-affiliated polling, including his, embeds subtle partisan optimism for Democrats through unaddressed systemic flaws. No peer-reviewed analyses have indicted Cohn personally for fabrication, but the cumulative forecasting shortfalls underscore calls for greater in nonresponse adjustments and reduced reliance on recalled behaviors.

Evolution in Response to Polling Failures

Following the 2016 U.S. presidential election, in which and state polls underestimated 's performance by an average of about four points, advocated for methodological adjustments at , including weighting state-level polls by to address the underrepresentation of non-college-educated white voters, a group that broke heavily for . These changes aimed to correct for nonresponse bias observed in 2016, where lower-propensity Republican voters were less likely to participate in surveys. Such weighting proved effective for the 2018 midterm elections but did not fully mitigate errors in subsequent cycles. In analyzing the 2020 polling misses, where Joe Biden's leads were overstated by similar margins to 2016—such as a polled +10-point advantage in reducing to under one point—Cohn theorized that post-2016 education weighting overlooked evolving dynamics, including unexpected shifts in voter support toward by double digits and stagnant Democratic gains among white non-college voters in rural Midwest areas. He attributed persistent errors to heightened nonresponse bias driven by , where survey participation increasingly correlated with vote preference, compounded by effects that may have deterred Republican respondents more wary of the . Cohn noted that while adjustments from 2016 reduced undecided voter assumptions—fewer in 2020 than the 10-15% in 2016—they failed to account for deteriorating underlying survey quality across even reputable firms. In response, refined its election needle model for , incorporating precinct-level data and turnout estimates, which accurately projected outcomes like Trump's win and Biden's edge despite aggregate poll errors. By 2024, Cohn's analyses emphasized ongoing vulnerabilities to nonresponse bias, warning that white Democrats remained 16 percent more likely to respond to polls than white Republicans, a pattern echoing and undercounts of support. He critiqued the growing reliance on weighting by recalled 2020 vote choice, a post-failure intended to bolster voter inclusion but which he argued induced "herding" toward Biden-era results, creating inconsistent narratives—narrow Harris national leads without it, broader ones with—and potentially masking shifts like reduced Democratic early-voting edges. Cohn recommended closer monitoring of partisan response rates and demographic differentials to gauge bias, acknowledging that while pollsters had iterated on lessons, fundamental challenges like low cooperation rates (often under 1 percent) persisted without complete resolution. This reflective approach marked a shift toward greater of unadjusted aggregates, with Cohn frequently forecasting tighter battleground races than poll averages suggested.

Recent Developments and Ongoing Work

Post-2024 Analyses

Following Donald Trump's victory in the 2024 presidential election, Nate Cohn published a review asserting that national polls, while registering average errors against final results, accurately identified major demographic and political trends months in advance. He highlighted their success in forecasting Trump's gains among young and nonwhite voters, including a 19-point rightward shift among voters (from D+91 in 2012 to D+72 in 2024), a 29-point shift among Hispanics (D+39 to D+10), and a 17-point shift among Asians (D+35 to D+18). Polls also correctly anticipated reduced racial —the lowest since —Trump's edge among low-turnout groups, Republican advantages in party identification, and a narrowed gap between popular vote and outcomes, with Trump winning by 1.7 points alongside a 1.5-point national popular vote margin. Cohn acknowledged systematic underestimation of support for the third consecutive cycle, marking a persistent miss despite overall closeness in projections. In a separate , he attributed Democrats' losses to erosion among core constituencies, including a 14-point rightward shift among voters aged 18-29 (D+25 to D+11) and modest gains for among working-class voters without degrees (R+13 increase). He linked Kamala Harris's defeat to Biden's unpopularity, her own candidacy, and broader post-pandemic economic pressures, arguing no viable path existed for Democrats to reclaim prior dominance among these groups. By October 2025, Cohn's commentary reflected on enduring shifts from 2024, noting health care's diminished salience—cited as a top issue by under 1% in Times/Siena polling—as priorities pivoted to , cultural backlash, and democratic concerns. Democrats' push for a over expiring Obamacare subsidies and protections, despite low voter prioritization even among their base, underscored a mismatch with a public where 92% held insurance and appetite for expansions waned. This evolution, Cohn argued, signaled the end of 20th-century safety-net debates that once favored Democrats, complicating their messaging amid Republican compromises on the issue.

Contributions to Broader Political Debates

Cohn has analyzed the realignment of working-class voters toward the , arguing that Donald Trump's three presidential campaigns marked the decline of the traditional Democratic base reliant on these groups. In a November 25, 2024, analysis, he contended that Trump's victories reflected a broader shift where non-college-educated voters, including Hispanics and some voters, increasingly prioritized economic and cultural concerns over historical party loyalties, challenging assumptions of inevitable Democratic gains from demographic changes. This perspective drew on exit polls and survey data showing Trump's expanded margins among these demographics compared to prior Republican candidates. In discussions of populism, Cohn highlighted parallels between the 2016 Brexit vote and U.S. trends, emphasizing how appealed to working-class voters in traditionally left-leaning areas by addressing globalization's dislocations. A June 28, 2016, article noted that such movements redrew political lines, with education levels emerging as a key divide rather than traditional class or urban-rural factors alone. He extended this to Trump's 2016 win, attributing it to underperformance among white working-class voters for , who received about 28% support from non-college whites per national exit polls, down from Barack Obama's 2012 share. Cohn has critiqued the notion of "demographics as destiny" in electoral , using polling to demonstrate in group patterns driven by issues like , , and rather than fixed ethnic or racial affiliations. In a , , piece, he described Trump's re-election as inaugurating a new era post-2012, where the polarization—GOP dominance among non-graduates—superseded the Obama-era of professionals and minorities. His analyses, often based on New York Times/ polls, have informed debates on why identity-based strategies faltered for Democrats, as evidenced by Trump's gains among men (up to 45% in some battleground states) and younger voters. These contributions underscore causal factors like economic , with Cohn linking widespread voter dissatisfaction—over 60% viewing the negatively in mid-2022 surveys—to support for populist alternatives.

References

  1. [1]
    Nate Cohn - The New York Times
    Nate Cohn is The Times's chief political analyst. He covers elections, public opinion, demographics and polling.Page 4 · Page 6 · Page 5 · 10Missing: biography | Show results with:biography
  2. [2]
    America's Most Powerful Pollster Has Some Doubts
    Jun 3, 2024 · Nate Cohn, who runs the New York Times–Siena poll, discusses Joe Biden's 2024 challenges, the Times' awesome power, and the limits of public ...Missing: career achievements
  3. [3]
    Nate Cohn Explains What the Polls Got Wrong | The New Yorker
    Nov 9, 2020 · Isaac Chotiner interviews Nate Cohn, a domestic reporter who oversaw the New York Times' polling efforts for the 2020 election, ...
  4. [4]
    What Went Wrong With Polling? Some Early Theories
    Nov 10, 2020 · But make no mistake: It's not too early to say that the polls' systematic understatement of President Trump's support was very similar to the ...Missing: controversies | Show results with:controversies
  5. [5]
    NYT chief political analyst explains why polls could be ...
    Nov 3, 2024 · New York Times chief political analyst Nate Cohn warned Sunday that pollsters may not have solved the underlying issues they encountered in ...Missing: career | Show results with:career
  6. [6]
    The Tilt - The New York Times
    Nate Cohn, The Times's chief political analyst, makes sense of the latest political data. Sign up for The Tilt newsletter, for Times subscribers only.Missing: biography | Show results with:biography
  7. [7]
    What did we learn from the NYT's live-action 8th Congressional ...
    Sep 28, 2018 · Cohn has more than a passing interest in Washington state politics, as someone who grew up in Auburn and graduated from Whitman College. On ...
  8. [8]
    Nate Cohn - Scoville Fellowship
    Nov 30, 2021 · While at Stimson he co-wrote a report on the nuclear weapons budget that was cited in the Washington Post. Articles by Nate Cohn. Why Democrats ...Missing: early | Show results with:early
  9. [9]
    Nathan Cohn - Stimson Center
    Nathan Cohn holds a BA from Whitman College in Politics with Honors and Distinction. He was a fall 2010 Herbert Scoville Jr. Peace Fellow at the Stimson Center.Missing: education background
  10. [10]
    Copeland Award | National Debate Tournament
    5th: Whitman College – Nate Cohn & Daniel Straus. 2011 1st: Emory University – Ovais Inamullah & Stephen Weil 2nd: Harvard Univeristy – Eli Jacobs & Alex ...<|separator|>
  11. [11]
    The New York Times Has Hired Nate Cohn
    Nov 20, 2013 · Nate Cohn joined The New Republic in May 2012 after spending two years at Stimson Center as a research assistant. Franklin Foer, editor of The ...
  12. [12]
    I am Nate Cohn, Election Blogger at The New Republic - Reddit
    Oct 2, 2012 · Here's a little bit of background about me: I'm following the polls, the evolution of the electorate, and campaign tactics at TNR. Campaigns ...
  13. [13]
    Yes, Nate Silver, Democrats Got Lucky in the Electoral College
    Feb 28, 2013 · A redrawn U.S. map starts a debate over how the party got its edge.
  14. [14]
    Yes, Racism Cost Obama Four Million Votes - The New Republic
    Apr 12, 2013 · As a graduate student in economics, I have used Google search data to quantify the cost of racism on President Barack Obama's vote total.
  15. [15]
    Nate Cohn Latest Articles - The New Republic
    Author Nate Cohn. All Articles. December 4, 2013. Nate Cohn. You Can See the North Dakota Shale Boom From Space.
  16. [16]
    N.Y. Times hires 4 for new data vertical - POLITICO
    Nov 20, 2013 · ... join David Leonhardt on the new FiveThirtyEight-esque vertical. They are: The New Republic's Nate Cohn, graphs and chart maker Amanda Cox ...
  17. [17]
    The New York Times Launches The Upshot
    Apr 22, 2014 · New Politics and Policy Venture, edited by David Leonhardt, Uses Data and Analytics to Help Readers Navigate the News The New York Times ...
  18. [18]
    'Upshot' Analyst to Speak on Trump's Election Prospects - Dartmouth
    Jul 7, 2016 · “Whatever you think of Donald Trump,” writes New York Times political correspondent Nate Cohn, “it is clear that this election has the potential ...Missing: biography | Show results with:biography
  19. [19]
    Video: The Election Needle Is Back. Meet One of Its Creators.
    Nov 5, 2018 · Nate Cohn, who covers polling and demographics for The New York Times, describes what informs our election night forecast tool known as the ...
  20. [20]
    Making Sense of Polling With Nate Cohn - The New York Times
    Sep 27, 2022 · The Times's chief political analyst, Nate Cohn, wants his newsletter, The Tilt, to be like a “cooking show for polling.”Missing: career | Show results with:career
  21. [21]
    Behind Nate Silver's war with The New York Times - POLITICO
    Aug 15, 2019 · The paper's onetime data guru can't stop kicking his ex-employer for its 2020 polling analysis and supposed capitulation to Trump.
  22. [22]
    You Ask, We Answer: How The Times/Siena Poll Is Conducted
    Sep 29, 2025 · How can 1,000 people represent the country? What is the difference between polls of likely voters and those of registered voters? How accurate ...Whom do you talk to, and how... · How can you be sure the...
  23. [23]
    A Worrisome Pattern Re-emerges in Seeking Response From ...
    Nov 1, 2022 · But the wide disparity in Democratic and Republican response rates was most likely symptomatic of a deeper nonresponse bias: Biden voters, ...
  24. [24]
    Polling isn't broken, but pollsters still face Trump-era challenges
    May 30, 2024 · After two presidential election cycles with large polling error, pollsters are trying to reach more Republicans and gauge turnout in 2024.
  25. [25]
    2024 Election: How The Times Calculates Polling Averages
    Apr 23, 2025 · Why a weighted and adjusted poll average? Poll averages may sound simple, but even the simple ones face important challenges. Which polls should ...
  26. [26]
    Methodology: How the Upshot's Presidential Polling Averages Are ...
    Sep 15, 2020 · Much of our approach will be familiar to poll watchers: We adjust polls to the universe of likely voters, based on polls that publish a result ...<|separator|>
  27. [27]
    How One Polling Decision Is Leading to Two Distinct Stories of the ...
    and perhaps obvious — consequence of weighting by recalled vote is that it makes poll results look more like the 2020 election ...
  28. [28]
    Two Theories for Why the Polls Failed in 2020, and What It Means ...
    Oct 23, 2024 · Under some theories, polls may be much better in 2024; under others, pollsters are still vulnerable to another misfire.
  29. [29]
    There Are More White Voters Than People Think. That's Good News ...
    Jun 9, 2016 · And it calls into question the prevailing demographic explanation of recent elections, which held that Barack Obama did very poorly among whites ...
  30. [30]
    2016 Election Forecast: Who Will Be President? - The New York Times
    Nov 8, 2016 · The Upshot's elections model suggests that Hillary Clinton is favored to win the presidency, based on the latest state and national polls.Recent changes ↘ · State by state ↘ · Other forecasts ↘
  31. [31]
    Election Night Live Coverage - The New York Times
    Nov 8, 2016 · Times reporters provided real-time analysis of Donald J. Trump's stunning upset in the presidential election on Tuesday.
  32. [32]
    Why Trump Won: Working-Class Whites - The New York Times
    Nov 9, 2016 · Clinton was safe. National exit polls suggested that President Obama won the 2012 presidential election despite faring worse among white voters ...
  33. [33]
    Why Trump Had an Edge in the Electoral College
    Dec 19, 2016 · His Electoral College lead should be substantial, since he won states worth 306 electoral votes to 232 from states won by Hillary Clinton. Yet ...
  34. [34]
    Putting the Polling Miss of the 2016 Election in Perspective
    Nov 13, 2016 · In 2016, state polls understated Republican support by large margins in many small states. In the five states in bold, Hillary Clinton lost the statewide vote.
  35. [35]
    A 2016 Review: Turnout Wasn't the Driver of Clinton's Defeat
    Mar 28, 2017 · In the aftermath of the 2016 presidential election, many analysts suggested that Hillary Clinton lost to Donald J. Trump because of poor ...Missing: coverage | Show results with:coverage
  36. [36]
    A 2016 Review: Why Key State Polls Were Wrong About Trump
    May 31, 2017 · At least three key types of error have emerged as likely contributors to the pro-Clinton bias in pre-election surveys.
  37. [37]
    Needle Update: What to Expect on Election Night
    Nov 8, 2020 · They have experience with absentee voting, and they close their polls early in the night. Much of the vote in North Carolina and Florida is ...
  38. [38]
    Presidential Election Results 2020: Biden Wins - The New York Times
    Nov 3, 2020 · Joseph R. Biden Jr. was elected the 46th president of the United States. See full results and maps from the 2020 presidential election.
  39. [39]
    Election 2024 Polls: Harris vs. Trump - The New York Times
    Nov 5, 2024 · Our polling averages track the latest trends in the presidential race, using data from national and battleground state polls.
  40. [40]
    State of the Race: A Close Race Gets Closer - The New York Times
    Oct 15, 2024 · There's no sign that a deluge of surveys from Republican-aligned firms is meaningfully affecting the polling averages.
  41. [41]
    Harris and Trump Deadlocked to the End, Final Times/Siena ...
    Nov 6, 2024 · If the 2024 presidential election were held today, who would you vote for if the candidates were Kamala Harris and Donald Trump?
  42. [42]
    So, Can We Trust the Polls? - The New York Times
    Nov 1, 2024 · Until the Trump era, this was not a serious problem, as Democrats and Republicans fared equally well among voters with or without a college ...
  43. [43]
    The Polls Are Close. The Results Might Not Be. - The New York Times
    Nov 4, 2024 · We are just a very normal polling error away from either candidate landing a decisive victory, especially in the Electoral College.
  44. [44]
    How the Election Could Unfold: Four Scenarios - The New York Times
    Nov 5, 2024 · The 2024 election is close and deeply uncertain. One reason? On paper, neither side ought to win. For Democrats, it's a textbook challenge.
  45. [45]
    How We Model Election Results With the Needle - The New York ...
    Nov 5, 2024 · Our live election night forecast is known as “the Needle.” Nate Cohn, chief political analyst for The New York Times, explains how it works.
  46. [46]
    What You Need to Know About Election Night Results and The New ...
    Nov 5, 2024 · Here's how we will bring you the latest vote totals and estimates of the outcome on the presidential race and other contests around the ...
  47. [47]
    2024 Review: A Few Misses, but the Polls Got the Big Stories Right
    Dec 14, 2024 · They told us a lot about the major demographic and political trends, well before the election.
  48. [48]
    How did the polls do in 2024? It's complicated. - Silver Bulletin
    Feb 17, 2025 · The polls underestimating Trump again is concerning, especially because of how much work pollsters put into avoiding this exact result.
  49. [49]
    How US Pollsters "Underestimated" Trump Support And ... - NDTV
    Nov 7, 2024 · Opinion polls underestimated the level of Donald Trump's support for the third US presidential election in a row, predicting a neck-and-neck race with Kamala ...
  50. [50]
    2023 Citrin Award Lecture: Where Polling Stands Heading Into 2024
    Oct 19, 2023 · The Citrin Center is pleased to recognize Nate Cohn of The New York Times with the 2023 Citrin Award, for his achievements in public opinion ...
  51. [51]
    The Tilt Newsletter - The New York Times
    Nate Cohn, The Times's chief political analyst, makes sense of the latest political data.
  52. [52]
    Discussing the state of polling with Nate Cohn: podcast and transcript
    Apr 4, 2024 · Chris Hayes speaks with Nate Cohn, chief political analyst at the New York Times, about the polling landscape in 2024.
  53. [53]
    A Perfect Partnership in Polling | Siena University
    Oct 6, 2023 · The Siena College Research Institute (SCRI) is known internationally for the accuracy and impact of its election polling, particularly the Upshot polling they ...
  54. [54]
    A question for Nate Cohn at the New York Times regarding a claim ...
    Oct 28, 2024 · The tendency for recall vote to overstate the winner of the last election means that weighting on recall vote has a predictable effect.
  55. [55]
    Ego And Bias: Pollster Explains How National Polls Got The Election ...
    again — in this year's presidential election. A national political pollster told Cowboy State Daily that ...
  56. [56]
    How Democrats Lost Their Base and Their Message
    Nov 25, 2024 · It has belatedly become clear that his rise may have meant the end of the Democratic Party as we knew it as well. After three Trump elections, ...
  57. [57]
    Democrats Play the Hits on Health Care. But Fewer People Are ...
    Oct 9, 2025 · The basic political conflict in America has changed to something very different than the one putting health care to the fore.Missing: commentary | Show results with:commentary
  58. [58]
    Right-Wing Populism Is Prevailing in Left-Wing Strongholds Around ...
    Jun 27, 2016 · If there is a lesson for the United States in the decision by British voters to exit the European Union, it is the importance of the emerging ...
  59. [59]
    Trump's Re-election Defines a New Era of American Politics
    Dec 25, 2024 · The Obama-Romney race in 2012 was the last in a familiar pattern in U.S. politics, which has since become defined by Donald Trump's ...
  60. [60]
    What the Closeness of This Election Suggests About the Future of ...
    Oct 17, 2024 · Isaac Chotiner interviews Nate Cohn about the 2024 Presidential election and unpacks the theories of how the Black and Hispanic electorates ...
  61. [61]
    Americans Are Pessimistic And It's Changing Our Politics
    Jul 18, 2022 · In this installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, Nate Cohn, the chief political analyst at The New York Times, joins the crew to ...