Hey Mal,
Your article misses the point entirely, but I'm glad you wrote it so that I'm able to refute it;
- because the real truth is worse than any of your explanations.

The answer is 'Oversampling'; deliberately creating misleading poll statistics that favour a particular candidate.
The corporate media was biased towards one candidate, had even made campaign contributions towards one candidate and were deliberately seeking to manipulate the outcome of the election.

Why? Because you can't rig an election without first rigging the polls.
You have to rig the polls to create an artificial show of support for a particular candidate otherwise when you announce that the less popular candidate won people won't know something is up.
Also 'on-the-fence' voters want to be able to say they were on the winning team.

Hillary manipulated the election and engaged in electoral fraud all over the place in numerous different ways in order to try and steal the election.
But with Trumps and the independent media's focus on electoral vote rigging and exit polling people were paying attention and she was not able to steal a landslide vote supportive of Donald Trump.

Poll statistics can be as much a part of the campaign rather than a true indicator of whats going to happen on election day.

The consistency of recent so-called 'unexpected' voting decisions prove its really complicity from a bias media and not incompetent pollsters getting it wrong.

The independent media claimed different poll statistics all along, but the corporate media would not report this.

Wishful thinking is probably much to blame among many. Sure there was rigging by some, & others who desired a Clinton win probably disregarded some of their results so their polls agreed with those.

Of course the concentration on New York, California & Washington DC could have given them the result they wanted, without having to misinterpret anything.

It is fairly obvious that much of this polling is designed to affect the vote, not report people's intentions.