I don't think anyone has implied that. If people use polls as meaningful information, such as campaign managers, citizens who like that kind of crap, the media, etc, they should bother to look at the methodology of the poll and decide for themselves how accurate they think it is.
In the case of the 2016 campaign, the media slobbered all over any poll that favored Clinton, which was the majority, and those that didn't weren't featured as prominently. It happens. Most of those polls had a weighting bias that would favor the Democratic candidate, in some cases by a wide margin.
The methodology of the LA Times poll was the one that made the most sense to me during the election cycle. If you aren't familiar, it is based on a large sample of likely voters without regard to stated political affiliation. The same group is sampled repeatedly over time and I believe gives a much better reflection of voter response to the campaigns than any of the other methodology. The pre-election day results were the closest to the election results. The poll showed the same thing in 2012. It was widely criticized by the talking heads because its results didn't mirror other polls despite it using a different methodology. Apples and oranges.
I haven't looked at this particular poll to have an opinion. I also don't care about polls less than 3 weeks into a presidency, so I doubt I'll bother to look at it.
