the most likely result predicted by 538 was 312 for trump [0]
the issue with the model was the 2nd most likely result was 319 for harris.
they thought the odds of a recount being decisive was around 10%.
That hardly seems evidence of "predicting a split election". which prediction are you thinking of?
[0] https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2024-election-forecast/
I don't know what Nate Silver was predicting. Was he predicting a near-split election or the situation where "someone is decently likely to win decisively, but we don't know who"?
Who was? A 50% chance to win does not imply that the vote count will be close.
Also: statistical uncertainty is a feature not a bug. A lot of the idea behind statistics is the ability to quantify the certainty of the point estimate. As another commenter put it: a statistically sound "idk" is a better result than a confidently incorrect estimate, from a statistical standpoint.
The data he has to back up his "too close results to be true random polls" is fantastic.
Nate Silver has recently written about the clear problems in polling, and in particular the herd-like way they were reporting implausible numbers:
https://www.natesilver.net/p/theres-more-herding-in-swing-st...