Both I and the author of that blog both know what the EMH is and equilibrium is, and the problem is not as simple as you claim it is. Please don't be condescend

Both I and the author of that blog both know what the EMH is and equilibrium is, and the problem is not as simple as you claim it is. Please don't be condescending. While I agree that he seems to have overvalued the 1% difference in intrade and 538 re:North Carolina, do note that he concludes that 538 was the better election predictor. That one sentence does not make the whole article "completely insane", and I'd like to know what else from the article you thought was insane. Furthermore, your last paragraph is completely and utterly incoherent. For one thing, you claim that a complicated, proprietary, untested, statistical data model, whose data is gathered by a person of unknown sympathies, represented the best available model of the empirical data. (How can you even argue that now, after a single election result?) Then you claim that markets should be efficient in reflecting that data, except that they had quite large differences in some states. Which somehow adds up to "yawn". Color me unimpressed.