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].
My favorite Nate Bronze takedown remains Carl Diggler[1].
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/posteverything/wp/201...