Perhaps, but it is reasonable to question whether the polling was correct and if there was some common flaw in the polls done by the various polling places.
Lets try a thought experiment. Lets assume I did a random sample of the US population and the results were that I received responses from 90% men and 10% women. Although, such a result is possible for a random sample I would need to question whether my method of selection was in fact random.
When the current crop of polls showed a stronger democrat response than what would be expected, it is perfectly normal to question whether the sampling methods were flawed. Unfortunately for us we do not have access to the actual methods these pollsters use in order to see if they are applying a different methodology. We also have instances in the past where these pollsters have erred.
One such reason that made sense to me that could have caused a common error for all polls was the greater emphasis on cell phone contacts. Being a newer method I could understand that wrong assumptions on who the population was could have an unknown effect on the sample.
Did Nate have a statistical method to determine if the sample internals were representative? Were the samples actually flawed like many thought and the polls were actually wrong but the result was affected by other factors?
Nate ended up being right.
Of course it's reasonable to question whether there was some sort of common flaw in the polls. The problem is that the typical reaciton around here (and on other conservative sites/talk radio/etc.) was not to question whether the polling was correct, but rather to assume that the polling could not possibly be correct, because people simply could not believe that the electorate would look anything like 2008. People took anecdotal evidence of enthusiasm for Romney (and against Obama)--lawn signs, crowd sizes, the sheer hatred of Obama that people see in conservative areas and on conservative news sources--and assumed that this observed enthusiasm could be extrapolated to the electorate as a whole, despite polling evidence to the contrary.
In a way, this election was sort of like a reverse-2004. Just like the Bush-haters on the left, some conservatives--here and elsewhere--have been so blinded by their own desire to get rid of Obama, that they simply could not accept that a (slight) majority of the electorate did not feel the same way.