I apologize, I should not have said, "every", there are tons and tons of polls, and they definitely don't all agree with each other (as we saw how inaccurate a lot of them were for these first three states).

When you observe the bad history of some of those pollsters (CBS, YouGov, unlisted and unreliable sources like Surveymonkey and Morning Consult, Suffolk's had some questionable poll numbers compared to results) and their terrible accuracy even in individual states, you start to take some of them with a grain of salt. Quinnipiac has a stellar history so far, and Fox News has either been dead on the money or in favor of Clinton in the last state polls compared to their outcomes. So no, I did not lie, I had some pretty shitty wording and I should have taken the time to explain myself, but I see a load of pollsters with inaccurate history saying Clinton is up by 5-10%, some of which were conducted by groups with special interests tied to Clinton, and then I see groups that aren't tied to Clinton placing the nationals at roughly tied +-3. If a pollster repeatedly came out with polls that all swore support for a single side as being much lower than the actual outcome, would you seriously continue placing much weight on that pollster? No, of course you wouldn't, and that's my reasoning. Given pollster history and conflicts of interest, some should be taken more seriously than others. Some other polls conducted, at least the ones that I am aware of, may as well be linked.