Loading…
Loading…
Published without a byline, this record belongs to the publication rather than to a named writer.
Writes at Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar
Across 3 graded calls in 2 articles, Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar scores 0% accuracy and a MissedTakes Score of -101, which means their calls were worse than a naive guess on the same claims. That is a provisional record, fewer than ten graded articles, so the numbers are not yet meaningful and they are not ranked on the leaderboard.
Fewer than 10 graded articles. Treat this as provisional.
100% of their claims were specific enough to check. Most of what they said committed to something.
They hedged 50% of their claims — a “probably”, a “could”, a “wouldn’t be surprised”.
Every number here is computed from the published methodology, and every call below shows its own arithmetic.
“So yeah, I definitely think you would rather be the Republicans, just because again, economic concerns. Democratic failures to message on economic concerns probably going to override the benefits that they have there in terms of unionization.”
“But in terms of who has the edge right now to win the most votes on election day looking like Walker... That's where if you know, again, if I had to put my money, that's probably where it would go.”
“It's going to be a very tough race, very tough race uphill climb in a Trump district or district that he won pretty handily for for any Democrat in this environment. So I probably would put my money on bog Net, but he's lost before. Yeah, if right, if if, If you're gambling, he's probably favored in this environment.”