I thought that the post was fairly unclear, but for me, it seems like the main argument against 538 is that it makes unfalsifiable claims about the probability

I thought that the post was fairly unclear, but for me, it seems like the main argument against 538 is that it makes unfalsifiable claims about the probability of individual elections - picking a winner is a falsifiable claim, but assigning a probability always allows Silver to claim something like “even events with a 10% probability occur frequently” even if his model assigns a high likelihood of victory to the loser of an election. My favorite Nate Bronze takedown remains Carl Diggler[1]. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/posteverything/wp/2016/05/09/our-fictional-pundit-predicted-more-correct-primary-results-than-nate-silver-did/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/posteverything/wp/201...