Earlier quoted context omitted.
His dog won pretty handily in the last election, though. It's not an exact science, but his methodology seemed to eliminate a fair amount of doubt from the equation.
Nate Tin did eventually publish a post [0] outlining that his way off predictions (sub 2% at one point) [1] of the R. primaries were terribly affected by his bias. That was honourable of him to admit. Presumably he is trying to eliminate that bias going forward for the main event. [0] http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-i-acted-like-a-pundi... [1] https://i.sli.mg/hF2vOz.jpg
538 didn't fail to read data properly re Trump's nomination. Trump was a new phenomenon with no history to build a model from. 538's mistake was guessing instead of admitting they had insufficient data -- which is bad behavior, but not because their preferred methodology is bad.