He has the advantage of being able to consult his forecast, but sometimes he has hot takes that contradict it. Will those takes be vindicated?

In 2024, Nate wrote two weeks before the election in the New York Times that his gut leaned Trump — but by Election Day his instinct switched to Harris, and he said he'd maybe put her odds at 52% instead of his forecast's 50.015%. It was a close situation, but I resolved the corresponding market NO.

In 2022, Nate wrote an article called "Why I'm Telling My Friends That The Senate Is A Toss-Up" (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-senate-is-a-toss-up/ ) when his forecast showed Democrats leading, but his forecast turned out more correct.

In 2020, Nate sent this tweet after the election, which I think captures the subject of this market pretty well:

I will do my best to resolve in good faith, and won't bet after initializing the probability. It would have resolved NO for the 2020, 2022, and 2024 elections since his forecast was more accurate than his own personal opinions.

If Silver does not release any kind of midterm election forecast, this will resolve N/A.

General policy for my markets: In the rare event of a conflict between my resolution criteria and the agreed-upon common-sense spirit of the market, I may resolve it according to the market's spirit or N/A, probably after discussion.