"Texas is a toss-up"

"With the exception of Ohio, the Rust Belt is solidly blue."

"Minnesota isn't in play"

"Clinton +11 in New Hampshire" 11/06/2016

"Clinton +7 nationally" 11/07/2016

"Trump +1 in Ohio" 11/04/2016

"Clinton +5 in Michigan" 11/04/2016

"Clinton +8 in Wisconsin" 11/02/2016

"Trump +6 in Missouri" 11/5/2016

Pollsters screwed up by focusing on weighting the population by food groups instead of looking for actual voters. They also really wanted to drive home a HRC win narrative due to Trump's unwinnable stance on immigration and globalism. They have been pimping this narrative for 15 years.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

No doubt the polling was garbage. Does this mean that polling is irrelevant from this point forward? I was actually expecting a close race, but it looks like, once Michigan, NH and Arizona go Trump that this wasn't even that close.

Texas actually was a lot closer than the final polls indicated (and ended up about where Ohio did in terms of Trump/Clinton numbers). How many other states actually broke more for Clinton than the polls were suggesting? Not many - Colorado maybe? There were a lot of polling failures but the Texas toss-up was a lot closer to the truth than all the others you mentioned.

People were told the polls were garbage for 3 months.

Nah, Hillary was typically up by about 5% in the Colorado polls and ended up winning by 2.2%

Maybe Nevada, which was polling at a dead heat and Hilldawg ended up winning by 2.4%.

Have they officially called Michigan, Arizona, New Hampshire, or Minnesota?

Not that it matters, I'm just curious.

I don't know. But the fact that Minnesota is in doubt for Clinton may be the most telling of all the state results. Minnesotans didn't even vote for Reagan.