You can't establish credibility from a sample size of one

[Shaula🏳️‍⚧️]

Some posters on here like to establish credibility by pointing out that they got the 2022 midterms mostly accurate while most people overestimated Republicans.
However, that is a sample size of one election cycle. You can't make a pattern out of a sample size of one.

I remember a lot of posters said a similar thing in the leadup to the midterms about how they didn't overestimate Biden like most posters did. They made the same mistake.

Logically, you should have a record of getting election cycles right when they overestimate democrats and overestimate republicans, that would prove you have some sort of skill.

Because if you got the midterm cycle (including all the off-cycle elections inbetween) right and that's it, there's a good chance that person just always wishcasts for democrats, and democrats happened to overperform.
In the same way, if in 2017 someone bragged about getting 2016 right and didn't predict anything else, there's a good chance that person just always predicts Republicans to win.

Therefore, I think if you want to brag about your ability to predict elections is better than polling, you would have had to predicted democrats to overperform polls significantly in 2022, and you would have had to predict Trump would overperform polls significantly in 2020.
If you've only been predicting since after the 2020 election, sorry to say but you just don't have enough of a record to establish a pattern of credibility.