In my opinion, 538 did some of the best analytics work in the 2016 election. They were the only ones who came anywhere close to property estimating the chances of the outcome that actually occurred, and they were one of only a couple models who took sufficiently seriously how unusual things were - particularly, the massive unpopularity of both candidates.

I'm getting really irritated with people (in this thread and other) attacking 538 along partisan or personal lines for not making the same predictions they did personally. 538 made a model, not a poll; they are only ever as good as the polls they represent, and even then, they still managed to be better than quite a lot of public polling and commentary. If Hillary Clinton had won, the same kinds of people on the other side would be attacking 538 for being too bullish on Trump.

The worst part is that a lot of this is predicated on the idea that giving something a 1 in 3 chance is the same as saying it'll never happen, when it's almost the opposite. There are some critical misunderstandings of statistics going on here, on all sides.