Could you use the same reasoning to discount weather predictions? September 10, 2018 - Hurricane Florence predicted to be category 4 hurricane on landfall, 80%

Could you use the same reasoning to discount weather predictions? September 10, 2018 - Hurricane Florence predicted to be category 4 hurricane on landfall, 80% Septemeber 12, 2018 - Hurricane Florence predicted to be category 4 hurricane on landfall, 20% September 14, 2018 - Hurricane Florence makes landfall as Category 1 hurricane (the above numbers are demonstrative, loosely based on my memory of how events actually happened with Florence) There is something to be said for predictions about the future based on today's environment, while still allowing for the reality that the environment could change. Predicting a single baseball game right before it happens is just a different kind of prediction than simulating a model that has noisy cross-interacting inputs. Readers/listeners of 538 need to understand (and Nate spends a lot of time educating about this) exactly what the model is calculating and what it isn't. Nate calls out all the time that the model can only be as good as the polling that provides the inputs. And polls can swing for all sorts of reasons: there's not many of them for a district, only highly biased ones are available, people's actual voting intentions change from week to week. Am I missing the point of what you're trying to say?