It's all over but the voting.

Barring a historic failure of polling or an epic game-changing, deus ex machina event – and 11 days is long enough to make that possible but short enough to make it very hard – Hillary Clinton will be elected the 45th president of the United States on Nov. 8.

For a contrary view – not asserting that Trump will win but that he's not cooked yet – I commend you to a piece my colleague Dave Catanese published today. (And the reports that the FBI is reopening its investigation into the Clinton’s email server could end up qualifying as the proverbial event-altering “October surprise”.) But there are abundant data and anecdotal evidence to suggest that Team Clinton has all but put this away. This doesn't mean the election is "riggged;" it just means that Trump's losing and badly. Here are seven reasons why:

The national vote. It's always a good idea not to focus too much on individual polls but instead to look at the average. Nationally, RealClearPolitics has Clinton up over Trump 45.1 to 40.7 in the four-way race as of this morning; HuffPoPollster has Clinton up 47.7 to 40.7 in a two-way race; and FiveThirtyEight has Clinton up 49.6 to 43.9 in the four-way. So you're looking at a 4 to 7 percentage point gap nationally with less than two weeks to go.

The Electoral College. But! But as Al Gore can mournfully relay, we don't elect presidents nationally. We elect presidents state-by-state using the Electoral College. The magic number here is 270 – first person across that line gets an all expenses-paid stay in the White House.

Things look equally grim for Trump if you're analyzing the race at this level, though. A number of news outlets and political websites use state and national polling data to build projected electoral maps. For example, NBC News' latest electoral map has 287 electoral votes sitting in either the "Lean" or "Likely" Democrat column – that means Trump could win toss-ups Florida, Ohio, Iowa and Nevada and still lose; other analyses reach similar conclusions. In fact the website 270toWin.com tracks 14 different Electoral College projections and Clinton has at least 272 in her lean or likely column in all of them.

RealClearPolitics is somewhat more conservative (in the less adventurous sense rather than the ideological one), currently listing 252 electoral votes as leaning Clinton or stronger, with 10 states totaling 160 Electoral Votes listed as toss-ups. But RCP's more reserved view cuts both ways, as Trump only has 126 Electoral Votes in his lean-or-better column and the site lists Republican bedrock Texas as a toss-up.

Editorial Cartoons on Donald Trump View All 455 Images

The battleground map. Another way to get a sense of the direction in which the election is moving is to look at how the list of battleground states has evolved. On the one hand, states once expected to be in play, like Colorado and Virginia, are now widely believed to be safely in Clinton's column – she leads by 6.2 percentage points in the former and 8 percentage points in the latter, per RealClearPolitics. Conversely, a number of traditionally Republican states are suddenly competitive: Clinton is within five points of Trump in Texas – yes really – within 2.8 points of him in Georgia and she's actually leading in Arizona by a point-and-a-half.

Then there's Utah. The polling average gives Trump a 5.8-point lead there but obscure third-, no fourth-, no, excuse me, fifth-party candidate Evan McMullin is highly competitive and could win the state outright. Mike Pence was in Utah yesterday. Let me repeat that: The Republican presidential campaign feels sufficiently concerned about Utah that the vice presidential nominee was dispatched there with less than two weeks to go.

Early voting. Starting to move from data-driven to more anecdotal evidence (and there's a reasonable case to be made that these numbers are fairly meaningless), consider early voting.

Roughly 12.6 million Americans have voted already. "Despite weakness for Clinton in the Midwest, Clinton looks well-positioned in other states Trump still needs for an Electoral College victory," University of Florida professor Michael McDonald, who tabulates early voting stats at the United States Election Project website, wrote on Huffington Post earlier this week. (Important note: These figures are not votes that have actually been counted but votes cast by party registration or by geographic areas that are strongholds for one party or the other.) Democrats seem to be lagging in early voting in Ohio (which Obama won in 2012) because fewer people have voted early in places like Cuyahoga County – strongly Democratic – than did so at this point four years ago, McDonald noted.

Elsewhere, CNN's Marshall Cohen and Eric Bradner report, Democrats have narrowed the early voting deficits they faced at this time four years ago in Arizona (the GOP had an 8.5 percentage point advantage then but it's only 1.7 percentage points now) and Florida (then it was 6.8 percentage point advantage for the Republicans and Obama won the state – now it's 0.3 percentage points) and are ahead of their 2012 pace in Colorado (four years ago the GOP had a 6,000 vote lead but this year Democrats up by about 24,000 votes) and Nevada (an 11.3 percentage point advantage for Democrats now as opposed to 10 percent at this point in 2012). Republicans have shown improvement in Iowa, where they lagged by 55,000 votes at this point four years ago but are only 40,000 votes behind now.

And again anecdotally, NBC News reports an actual early voting emphasis at Democratic rallies and little or none at those of Republicans. Overall, by NBC's tally, more Democrats than Republicans have voted early in 9 of 12 battleground states.

Key point here: While the signals are mixed here, Trump needs to basically sweep all of these states to have a chance at victory.

Watch what people do, not what they say. You can also look at the behavior of the various campaigns to get a sense of how they see the political landscape.

National Democrats seem to feel so secure about a Clinton victory that they are starting to turn their attention to her coat tails and specifically bringing the Senate along with her. So in the last week you've seen Clinton and President Obama on the campaign trail not simply making the case against Trump and for Clinton but also against the targeted Republican and for the Democrat in the local senate race.

And the Clinton campaign announced last week that not only was it pouring new money into eight presidential swing states with competitive Senate races but it was also moving money into Indiana and Missouri, neither of which figure to be competitive for her but both of which have key Senate races.

At the same time a super PAC established for the purpose of electing Clinton is not only targeting Senate races but has started running ads in a House race.

On the other side, as I mentioned, Pence was campaigning in scarlet red Utah this week.

And away from the Trump campaign, you're starting to see Republicans make a checks-and-balances argument down-ballot: A super PAC affiliated with Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell started running ads last week advocating for the re-election of Missouri Sen. Roy Blunt on the theory that he'll stand up to a President Clinton; the U.S. Chamber of Commerce made a similar pitch in New Hampshire for Sen. Kelly Ayotte. And The New York Times reported this week that a major super PAC supporting House Republicans will start running ads branding targeted Democrats as "rubber stamps" for the forthcoming President Clinton.

More bluntly, Politico ran a story Tuesday with the headline: "GOP candidates give up on Trump and run against Clinton."

What does that look like? The National Republican Congressional Committee – the national party apparatus responsible for getting Republicans elected to the House – is running an ad praising Illinois GOP Rep. Bob Dold for having "stood up to Donald Trump months ago" and running a clip of the lawmaker criticizing his party's nominee, National Review's Alexis Levinson reports. The ad doesn't mention Clinton at all.

Finally, and perhaps most comically, the Huffington Post's Matt Fuller reported Monday, five Republican House candidates, four of them incumbents, are threatening to sue local television stations for airing ads tying them to Trump. Fuller wrote: "Trump is so terrible, these Republicans are essentially arguing, that tying them to him amounts to defamation." In case you're wondering political candidates don't normally view association with their party's presidential nominee as defamatory.

Oh and: In addition to what people are doing you can also listen to what they say; to wit even Trump insiders admit that he's behind.

Follow the money. The Clinton campaign entered the stretch run financially loaded for bear. Politico's Ken Vogel and Isaac Arnsdorf reported Friday that as of Oct. 19, the most recent date covered by disclosure filings, Team Clinton had $172 million in its campaign coffers while Team Trump had $73 million. This after the Democratic side pulled in $120 million in the first three weeks of the month as compared to $65 million for Trump. Among the people whose contributions to Donald Trump have petered out: Donald Trump, who claims to be worth $10 billion but contributed a mere $33,000 to his own cause this month according to the records. (He's said that he's kicked $100 million of his own money – a figure he falls roughly $46 million short of, per Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo, or $36 million short of, if his reported $10 million cash infusion turns out to be true.)

None of this should come as a surprise. According to NBC News, for example, Clinton's campaign and affiliated groups have outspent Trump and his allies by a margin of $245 million to $96 million in television ads. She's gone long stretches having the airwaves all to herself.

Where is the money going? Having given up on the presidential contest, top GOP donors are sending "a river of cash" to key Senate and House races, The New York Times' Nicholas Confessore and Rachel Shorey report. ""I hear that people are concerned that Hillary's going to be president, so you'd better get Republicans in the Senate so you have a firewall," a top Trump donor told the reporters. "I think people are done giving. It's too late."

Editorial Cartoons on the 2016 Presidential Elections View All 596 Images

The ground game. As important is the ground game – the operation that identifies potential and actual supporters, contacts them and turns them out to vote.

According to The Hill newspaper's Reid Wilson and Joe DiSipio, Clinton, the Democratic National Committee and state parties have 5,138 paid staffers operating in 15 battleground states; by contrast, the Trump campaign, the Republican National Committee and the state GOPs have 1,409 paid staffers in 16 states.

This is because Trump has expressed little interest in get-out-the-vote activities and essentially outsourced it part and parcel to the RNC. And while the national committee has worked hard to prepare its ground operation, it did so with idea of working with a professional presidential campaign rather than having to handle the whole operation itself.

So Democrats have 500 paid staffers in Ohio as compared to a bit more than 100 for Republicans; in North Carolina it's roughly 3-to-1 in favor of Democrats; in Nevada it's nearly 4-to-1; it's more than 4-to-1 in Florida, in Iowa it's more than 6-to-1 and it's almost 8-to-1 in Pennsylvania. And in Arizona, the unlikely battleground? The Democratic Party paid 230 staffers in September while the state GOP had a staff of 12.

For context, political scientists Ryan Enos and Anthony Fowler conducted a study analyzing voter turnout in media markets that crossed the borders between battleground and uncontested states in 2012; that way they would have two populations exposed to the same television ad bombardment with one of them targeted by get-out-the-vote operations. They found that GOTV accounted for a 7-8 percentage point increase in turnout.

So yeah, like I said – it would take something extraordinary and unforeseeable for Trump to turn this thing around.

That said, though, if you're not one of the 12 million Americans who's already voted, make sure to get out and do it. Whether you're voting for Clinton, Trump or one of the other three, whether you're convinced your candidate's going to win or is hopelessly doomed – vote.