This quote kicked off something in my mind: "On Oct. 23, for instance, The New York Times argued that because Clinton had banked votes in North Carolina and Florida, it might already be too late for Donald Trump to come back in those states." It occurs to me that "analyses" like that might actually have had an impact on the election.
Consider. You are a voter who is extremely unhappy about the way that the country has been being run. But you aren't so unhappy that you want to see a loose cannon like Trump in office. You want change; not a nut case and chaos. So you have no intention of voting for him.
Then you read an article that says he has no chance to win in your state. Which lead to the possibility that you can make safely a statement about how unhappy you are, without the risk of him being elected. So you, and a bunch of others who feel similarly, vote for him strictly as a protest. And wake up the next morning to discover that those articles were wrong, and you have just contributed to a result that you in no way wanted. Oops.
All of this isn't exactly a matter of "alternative facts". That is, you weren't refusing to believe solid evidence, and making up stuff instead. But it does show what happens when uncertainty is large, and someone who purports to be an expert tells you something that you would like to believe. Critical thinking isn't easy; especially when you already know what would be convenient if it were real.