Gelman's criticism is a little different. It's not that 538 has too much uncertainty, but the way they created the uncertainty. The way I understand it (and I'm

Gelman's criticism is a little different. It's not that 538 has too much uncertainty, but the way they created the uncertainty. The way I understand it (and I'm an amateur so I could be wrong), the criticism is that the 538 team basically fudged state-level uncertainties to get the presidential forecast uncertainty that looked right to them, with the result you get a lot of unrealisitic state-by-state breakdowns (i.e Trump wins New Jersey but can't win Alaska). Gelman's critique is not that the uncertainty is too big, but that it's not integrated correctly.