It's a common hypothesis, but I think there are some questions to answer.
1) If social desirability effects were a factor, why didn't they show up in the Republican primaries? Trump slightly underperformed his polling there.
2) If they were a factor, why were they such a small one? And how can we claim to see the effect in such a small polling error? Polls were more accurate this time around than 4 years ago, and I don't think anyone thought there was a social desirability effect in 2012.
Thought the article was great overall. I would nitpick the jumping off point a bit though.
The polls appear to have been wrong by around 2-2.5 points. That's actually closer than they were in the last election, and is a very typical amount of error. To ask polls to be any more accurate than this is a very tall order, and polls accurate to within 2-3 points are still extremely useful.
If someone thought this election was a lock then the error was looking at the wrong sources. It was not a failure of the system to make a reasonable prediction. 538 and the betting markets had Trump's chances in the 20-30% range. Elections don't have to get very lopsided at all to end up 90%-100% in favor of one candidate. Both sources deemed Hillary the favorite, but also clearly categorized the election as too close to call.
To clarify, do you think you woke up more or was it just more disruptive when you did because you'd reach for the dream journal?
It's my understanding we wake up multiple times through the night, but have no recollection of it because we go right back to sleep.