I'll be interested to see the final count and compare on all states, but Trafalgar's issues are deeper than just deltas in my opinion. They had an arbitrary "shy trump voter" factor, which may be justifiable, but any "shy voter" effect is tautologically immeasurable (and thus just a guess on Trafalgar's part). They had weirdly consistent results where Trump was up by 3 points in lots of purple/blue states, which doesn't line up with the differences we saw in other polls and in the results (so far). I agree that the polling errors are significant in many of the mainstream models, even in the states that were called correctly. These deltas so far are worse than 2016, and should be looked into. But _if_ Trafalgar ends up with a lower delta over all 50 states when this is all finished, they still gave the wrong result in most of the key states that matter for the election. That's significant, because the polls are measuring 50 winner take all systems, and 538 told us 90% chance Biden win, while Trafalgar told us that Trump was favored in almost any state that was worth watching this year. That was wrong, and Trafalgar deserves criticism for it.
They didn't have an "arbitrary shy Trump voter" factor. That's not how they did it. They observed that Trump voters were less likely to answer polls and tried to get at the data other ways.
Also, who cares about 50-state results? One of the key points Trafalgar's founder has made is that polling is a state-by-state exercise. All pollsters use data to estimate e.g. turnout among different demographics. National pollsters use things like exit polls, but Trafalgar digs into state-level voter registration data.
