Yes, I agree. If you are tasked for example with analyzing a coin to assess its bias, you could do a very thorough job, measuring precisely its mass distribution, its contours, etc and come up with an extremely accurate estimate that say, the probability of it landing Heads is 73.22%.

If the coin is subsequently flipped and comes up Tails, it doesn't mean your analysis was wrong.

On the other hand, 538's simulation was based on probabilities of winning each state, and as I think most will agree, before and after the election, the most important states were Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. On election day, 538 gave the following probabilities:

Wisconsin 83.5% Clinton [1]

Pennsylvania 77.0% Clinton [2]

Michigan 78.9% Clinton [3]

I think Nate really screwed the pooch here. The vast bulk of his effort should have been spent on these states. If that is in fact the case, then I retract my criticism.

[1] https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/... [2] https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/... [3] https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/...