Wrong. You are confusing pollsters with an exaggeration of a subset of the set of analysts working with data from those pollsters (and the subset in question is whose approach was criticized by the most well-regarded in the broader set for the exact thing that led to overstating Clinton's likelihood of victory.)

This error though reflects exactly a frequent propaganda line from the Trump camp, and when it gets echoed here and in other forums its often corrected the, so at this point I have begun to doubt whether is ever an honest error rather than deliberate injection of "alternative facts" into the discussion as a distraction.