Yup. Disliking the guy is no reason for academic dishonesty though. He gave 70/30 odds. The key part about odds though is that they're basically confidence ratings.
He was wrong and surprised, along with basically everyone else.
Guy came up with the method basically everyone uses to combine and aggregate polling data now, which is far more accurate than previous methods. It's weird to say he's an idiot.
I feel like if we get to that point, we've given up on the constitution. "He can't run for president because he's term limited, but he's still eligible to be president, therefore we can make him vice president so the president can resign and he can be president" is such an abuse of the term "eligible" where you turn "cannot be elected but otherwise good to go" into "eligible to be in the highest elected office in a Democratic government".
If the way it's written isn't clear cut enough then the court would find a way to say anything wasn't clear cut.