Who knows, Hal - were you referring to this:

CORRECTION (Nov. 7, 2016, 10:15 p.m.): An earlier version of the headline on the table in this article misstated Clinton’s average lead in recent polls. It is is 3 to 4 points, not 2 to 3 points.

Or this:

UPDATED 8:58 PM | NOV. 7, 2016

Seven of the 19 polls have Clinton leading by 4 points; another four have her ahead by 3 points, then we have a smattering of 1’s, 2’s and 6’s — along with two pollsters, IBD/TIPP and Los Angeles/USC Dornsife, who still have Trump ahead. (We admire the L.A. Times poll for not changing its methodology in midstream, even though the poll has its issues.) On average, Clinton leads by 2.9 points in the polls, although the highest-rated pollsters 2 have her a bit higher at 3.8 points, on average. 

Or this:

It’s worth raising an eyebrow, though, when the polls (other than the L.A. Times) show a range this tight at the end of an election, especially given that they’d diverged so much earlier in the campaign. That probably reflects some degree of herding — for instance, because pollsters stick surveys that seem to be outliers in a file drawer rather than publishing them. So the tight range of polls shouldn’t be taken to mean that everyone’s figured exactly how to poll this challenging election just in the nick of time. Still, the polls clearly agree that Clinton is the favorite, and perhaps has a slight wind at her back for Election Day.

Or this:

First things first: Hillary Clinton has a 70 percent chance of winning the election, according to both the FiveThirtyEight polls-only and polls-plus models. That’s up from a 65 percent chance on Sunday night, so Clinton has had a good run in the polls in the final days of the campaign. Clinton’s projected margin of victory in the popular vote has increased to 3.5 percent from 2.9 percent.

Or this:

On Excellence

BETHANY HECK / GETTY IMAGES

NOV. 1, 2016, AT 8:07 PM

Election Update: Yes, Donald Trump Has A Path To Victory

If the race tightens any further, Clinton’s electoral edge is fragile.

By Nate Silver

Filed under 2016 Election

Tuesday was another pretty good day of polling for Donald Trump. It’s also not an easy day to characterize given the large number of polls published. You could cherry-pick and point to the poll that has Trump up 7 percentage points in North Carolina, for example, or the ABC News/Washington Post national tracking poll that has Trump up 1 point overall. And you could counter, on the Hillary Clinton side, with a poll showing her up by 11 points in Pennsylvania, or a national poll that gives her a 9-point lead.1

Our model takes all this data in stride, along with all the other polls that nobody pays much attention to. And it thinks the results are most consistent with a 3- or 4-percentage point national lead for Clinton, down from a lead of about 7 points in mid-October. Trump remains an underdog, but no longer really a longshot: His Electoral College chances are 29 percent in our polls-only model — his highest probability since Oct. 2 — and 30 percent in polls-plus.

Whenever the race tightens, we get people protesting that the popular vote doesn’t matter because it’s all about the Electoral College, and that Trump has no path to 270 electoral votes. But this presumes that the states behave independently from national trends, when in fact they tend to move in tandem. We had a good illustration of this in mid-September, when in the midst of a tight race overall, about half of swing state polls showed Clinton trailing Trump, including several polls in Colorado, which would have broken Clinton’s firewall.

Or this:

Trump has (almost) no path if he loses the popular vote by 3-5 points

Or see the graph through the election period - 538 only had Trump tied at the end of July, 3 months before the election (tho the swing state tightening occured in September - still long before most voters pay attention):

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

Other relevant articles:

https://www.vox.com/2016/11/3/13147678/nate-silver-fivethirtyeight-trump...

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2017/03/nate-silver-says-conventi...

And the chance that media overconfidence in their polls translated into lower Clinton voter turnout:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/02/study-fivethirtyeight-2016-v...

And a nice post-mortem from WaPo:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/09/27/your-critique...

(considering how much i was following Harry Enten, Nate's Bayesian model - which for one highlights a 70% = a 30% chance of losing), and Silver's concern that Midwest fluctuations affected or foretold neighboring states' movements more than polls reveal - as well a their general feeling that by Nov 8 there were too many unknowns and unknown unknowns to be sure) - well, funny for Hal to hang this all on 1 statement about 1 poll i can't remember in whichever context...

Yeah, context - Hal doesn't do context. He cherry picks stuff. Perhaps I had a weak moment of cherry-picking - I'm fallible of course - or Hal missed 99% if what i was saying cuz he was fervently looking for that "Bernie was right/Hillary's a witch/socialist workers will unite" moment like a dog fervently scouring the landscape for a bone.

Will you ever grow out of this, Hal? Seems not. Your Socialist Revolution has escaped you, but to you it's always just over the next hill, and your picayune grudge matches are ever by your side.