Polling was incapable of accurately determining what the odds really were. If that die was six-side, but I told you there was a consistent 10% chance of rolling a 1, then I'm providing you with a bad probability. The media and pollsters did the same (for whatever reason).
Nope.
If polling couldn't determine what the odds really were, the probabilities, which showed it was well within the realm of possibility that trump would win, aren't evidence the polls were out of alignment with reality.
Semantics at this point. I'll rephrase your comment with consistent terms:
If polling couldn't determine what the odds really were, the odds, which showed it was well within the realm of possibility that trump would win, aren't evidence the polls were out of alignment with reality.
The possibility of Trump winning does not exonerate the accuracy of the odds presented by polls. The odds were not correct, and the polling data was flawed.
If there are 10% odds of something happening and it happens after one event, that's absolutely not a reason to say the data points that generated the odds are flawed.
That is the reason you presented.
I'll clarify, to help.
The reason not to trust polling data presented today is that the probabilities presented in the past were not accurate.