> The explanation is that the polling data was simply made up.

You don't feel like you are oversimplifying a bit, and applying your own bias? Any pollster knows (and I realize you may ignore this point due to that opening bit) that there are margins for error as long as your sample size is any smaller than 100% of the population. Further, any pollster knows that your data will be skewed by how a question is worded.

The data wasn't made up, and each outcome was within the predicted margin for error. Many people will accuse the statistician of using large margins for error to cover any issues in the data, but that is straight from the opposite end of the spectrum of error.

> People want to believe they aren't biased or that everything they read and see everyday is somehow "clean" or being presented by rational experts. That is a scary thought process...

No one believes that everything they read is clean; anyone who does has (again) oversimplified the world. It isn't black and white. Every day, the margin for error is being examined, polls are being refined, questions are being tweaked. If the pollsters thought they had it all nailed down, why would they even be re-evaluating the method?

The only way to get 100% accurate data would be to poll 100% of the people who are going to vote -- and 0% of the people who aren't. Oddly, that is what happens on voting day -- at great expense, through great manpower, and with great effort. Pollsters simply don't have those kinds of resources.

> There are direct financial rewards for telling people exactly what they want to hear.

People do love to be reinforced, but again you are drastically oversimplifying a more complex issue. No matter what happens, no matter the outcome, people want to read the polls.

I mean, why do we even have them otherwise? So regardless of the error bars or margins, polls are going to keep happening; some will be correct, some won't. Most will fall within fairly narrow margins for error, but often the <50%> marker is in that margin -- so the opposite outcome could happen, even within the poll's own admitted rules.

> So instead of thinking like this, they crack open statistics textbooks and start reading chapter 4 at you. Its a defense mechanism to avoid reality.

Unnecessarily inflammatory, I think. The worst part about this rant is that the polls were so close to accurate -- especially if you count the popular vote, instead of the electoral college outcome. It all seems to be a symptom of a country that is, perhaps, too large and diverse for a federal government. I would argue for States' rights here, or say States should be more largely self governing -- but you do need a mechanism to get money from California (taxed $405B, received $343B in federal expenditures) to Kansas (taxed $9.9B, received $24.2B).

That was a bit of a tangent; the point is that the setup of the United States government, both from the State side and Federal side could use some work.

> What is Nate Silver's punishment for being wrong over and over again?

And what is his reward for how often he is right? He works in an industry with a large margin for error. Are you arguing that statistics should basically be abolished? Fivethirtyeight does far more than political polling, mind.

The other thing is relative; Nate Silver was far closer to the mark than any other publication, and his data were more robust. If you are arguing that Nate should lose traffic, every other organization (including those that argued for a Trump win based on similarly faulty statistics) should receive even more loss?

> If what Nate Silver was doing was really "data journalism," shouldn't his following online have dropped off a cliff?

But he was working with the data he had. Fivethirtyeight doesn't even do its own polls; it aggregates data from other polling organizations. Should Nate have made up the data? That is the exact opposite of what you are arguing, and I think your anger is misplaced.

> I am fairly disgusted by humanity at this point as a result.

If a set of polls being off by less than 3% is your threshold for a disgust in humanity, I am afraid your view is narrowed to the point of being useless. There are bigger things to worry about, at least as far as I am concerned.

I just wanted to point that out, in the end.