Oh, shut up, Nate. You were wrong. You were wrong from the start. You were wrong about the primaries. You were wrong about the election. No one should put any faith in your erroneous models ever again.
Keep in mind that Silver not only called a 72 percent chance of a Clinton victory, but actually INCREASED it from 65 percent on the day of the election. This isn't "statistical science"; it's not even "statistical analysis". It is nothing more than postmortem media CYA.
I'll never forget as the New York Times was increasing the chances of Trump winning to over 55%, the folks at 538 used their models to increase the chance of the Clinton presidency from 72% to 73% at 10 p.m.
These guys were using their Garbage Aggregator and simply ignoring the rising Trumpslide. Later these same monkeys had Trump and Clinton tied while in the real world Clinton had lost.
I can understand getting the forecast wrong but being blind to the result as it was unfolding was just dumb. Of all places, the New York Times had the most comprehensive, clear and correct updates of the presidential election.