nice visuals, but these polls and simulations were wrong in 2016, and are likely wrong now.
A model that gave Clinton a 70% chance of winning is not proven wrong if she loses.
We can't know if the model is right or wrong unless we run the election many times.
I expected better statistical understanding from this audience, but maybe that only underscores how difficult it is to get people thinking correctly about probabilities.
And, of course, a few tens of thousands of votes different on the day, below the margin of error of any poll, and no-one would be bothered about them. In a way, 538 can't win here; they said "there's a 30% chance of this thing happening", it happened, based on differences below the resolution that they could even see at, and everyone's annoyed with them.