I like Nate Silver. He broke new ground. But I've grown less enamored this most recent cycle because his predictions seem to be a lot more of the Nostradamus type--pre-analyze outcomes on three possible resolutions, then get credit for being right. Most of his wins come because polls have a tendency to tighten up to the actual numbers the closer they are to the election, as any latent bias gets washed out. He gets graded on more accurate information, not when uncertainty is high. (This isn't inherently a problem, but it does expose why he 100% missed the Trump primary phenomenon...he's trying to address it with "fundamentals" and other alternate models, but this is just more hedging so that at least one story makes sense.)

He's not deceptive about this--I will give him that. It's all in the open. But it seems to amplify a kind of narrative fallacy if these mistakes aren't revisited anew (rather than just saying "as predicted, since outcome C actually happened, it was due to voter bloc X doing it as we said."

But I can't complain about a pundit class not giving actionable data--that's not their job. Silver's job is to add data to the discussion, and to stimulate the discussion. And I give him a "B" for that.

That said, this cycle, I've rediscovered Sam Wang at http://election.princeton.edu/ and think he maybe gives a purer approach to analysis, one not so much driven by clicks. He doesn't seem to hedge as much as Silver.