In 2024, Nate’s model accurately predicted the exact electoral map.

He doesn’t do any polling. He aggregates other pollsters, weights it based on past performance and then uses other factors (he calls them fundamentals) to produce an outcome. And I think it’s misguided to suggest that Democratic leadership is looking at Nate’s polls to reinforce their own positions.

Here’s a quote from a column he wrote for the NYT

It may even feel as though we’re Ping-Ponging between radically different futures, never quite certain what lies around the bend. Yet on the whole in 2024, polling did not experience much of a miss and had a reasonable year. Ms. Harris led by only one point in my final national polling average. And Donald Trump led in five of seven key states, albeit incredibly narrowly. The final polling averages were correct in 48 of 50 states. The final Times/Siena national poll (including third-party candidates) had Mr. Trump one point ahead. There was plenty of data to support a Trump win.

Remember that the Biden campaign had an internal poll showing Trump winning ~48 states in a total landslide victory, but they maintained that Biden was the best candidate.

I’m reminded of this Nate Silver quote from the election:

Democrats, however — and here, I’m not referring so much Silver Bulletin subscribers but in the broader universe online — often get angry with you when you only halfway agree with them. And I really think this difference in personality profiles tells you a little something about why Trump won: Trump was happy to take on all comers, whereas with Democrats, disagreement on any hot-button topic (say, COVID school closures or Biden’s age) will have you cast out as a heretic. That’s not a good way to build a majority, and now Democrats no longer have one.