I think there’s a stronger argument that those polls were intended to suppress Trump voters into thinking they were not the majority (when in fact they were).
More than one person I've spoken to believed that when sites said things like "Hilary has a 70% chance of winning" that that was the same as getting 70% of the vote, i.e. a landslide.
I've had literal arguments with people who can't/won't understand the difference between an average and a median even when presented with 5th grade level phrasing examples.
> intended to suppress Trump voters into thinking they were not the majority (when in fact they were
Depends on what you mean by "majority". If you're just talking about Wisconsin and that specific poll, sure Trump voters ended up being in the majority, but we can't say with any certainty what that situation was in early August. Polls like that one are the best guesses we have for that particular snapshot in time.
If you're talking about an overall majority of those who ended up being actual voters, then that's also not the case, as Trump did not win a majority of votes; Clinton did. Sadly, though, popular vote majority is not how our presidential election system works.
Show your work. What evidence do you have to support that argument?
The final difference from polling in WI was 7%, other states had smaller polling errors. The fact is that 2016 was simply an extremely tight race in many states and difficult to forecast even with completely normal polling error bars.