To be honest, this reads as quite the Luddite article.

Not to mention the focus on Simulmatics is akin to using the 19th century use of bleeding as the basis for a criticism of modern medicine.

Also, the modern example of Cambridge Analytica obviously has essentially nothing to do with what 538 actually does...

Towards the end, the criticism of if a predictive model is falsifiable is an accurate one given that its output is probabilistic, and given the small number, and relative infrequency of, American elections (especially presidential ones) - which impacts the model's calibration. But, Nate actually brings this up quite often (which I assume the author would attribute to him "covering his bases").