I suspect – check that, I know from my Facebook feed – that even the FBI's last-minute re-exoneration of Hillary Clinton hasn't entirely calmed the case of the panics that Clintonites and #NeverTrumpers have been experiencing in the last week or so. And I get it: As I've said for weeks, if someone came in and said there's a nuclear bomb next door that's set to go off but they're 90 percent sure they can defuse it, I'd be nervous as hell.

But in my ongoing effort to soothe those jangled nerves, here are seven more reasons why Hillary Clinton is well-positioned to win the presidency Tuesday night.

Nationally the last polls almost all have Clinton winning. Of the eight polls of the four-way race (as tracked by RealClearPolitics) that ran through at least Saturday, Clinton had leads in seven and leads of at least 4 percentage points in five of them. The RCP polling average has her up 2.9 percentage points, which is a full point increase since last Tuesday. So much for Trump-mentum.

Speaking of who's leading in how many polls, The Huffington Post's Janie Velencia crunched the numbers and found that Clinton "has consistently led in a greater portion of presidential polls in the two months heading into Election Day than President Barack Obama did in both 2008 and 2012."

Sam Wang of the Princeton Election Consortium (which, really, sounds like some sort of Bond-ian election-rigging cabal) reports that the Meta-Margin ("defined as how far all polls would have to move, in the same direction, to create a perfect toss-up") favors Clinton by 2.6 percentage points; since 2000, he finds, the popular vote winner has overperformed his polls by -1 percent (Al Gore in 2000), 1.3 percent (George W. Bush in 2004), 1.2 percent (Barack Obama in 2008) and 2.3 percent (Obama in 2012). Does this mean Clinton is a lock? No, but it does mean that polls would have to be further off this year than they were in the last three cycles; and I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the campaign that's invested in its ground game (beyond an app) is more likely to overperform its polls.

Overall HuffPo gives Clinton a 98.1 percent chance of winning; the Princeton Electoral Consortium pegs her at 99 percent; The New York Times' "Upshot" is somewhat less sanguine, with Clinton only getting an 84 percent chance of winning; and FiveThirtyEight is giving Democrats everywhere panic attacks by giving her only a 68.7 percent chance of winning (that's with their "Polls-plus," while their "Polls-only" setup gives here a mere 68.5 percent chance).

(Who's right? There's a big squabble going on among the data nerds and I generally admire their work, but ultimately who cares? It's impossible to know without experiencing Tuesday over and over again a few hundred times which is – oh thank God – not going to happen. So there's a preposterous precision lent to what is basically an angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin debate – it's 98.1, not 98.2 and it's 68.7 not 68.8? The important take-away is that everyone who watches this stuff views her as a strong to Herculean favorite.)

Editorial Cartoons on Donald Trump View All 455 Images

That's the national scene. The election is actually won or lost at the state level. So let's look at that – keeping in mind that the way the electoral map sets up, not only must Trump (he of no ground-game) sweep the toss-up states but somehow flip a state where polls have consistently shown Clinton ahead. NBC's final electoral projection, for example, rates 274 Electoral Votes worth of states as either leaning or solidly for Clinton.

First with some not-great news for Clinton: The latest New York Times Upshot/Siena College poll of North Carolina, released Monday, find the race tied in that state, with each candidate receiving 44 percent of the vote, which is a big swing in his direction there. The RCP average has Trump pulling into a slight lead in the Tarheel State in the last week. Why do I mention this? To reiterate my point about the electoral map: Trump can win North Carolina, Florida and Ohio and still lose the election if he can't pull any states from Clinton's column. This seems like a good time to note that a new Michigan poll give Clinton a 5-point lead there and a new New Hampshire poll has Clinton up 11 in the Granite State. New Hampshire seems like a genuine toss-up, but the Michigan results seems in line with other polls. And Trump probably needs to win them both to prevail.

I mentioned on Friday that Clinton was building a Nevada "firewall" – to borrow the term from Jon Ralston, the state's pre-eminent political analyst – through early voting. Ralston's current headline: "Early voting kills Trump" in Nevada. Ralston figures that with 770,000 ballots already cast – about two-thirds of the final vote – Clinton has a 40,000 vote lead. "Trump would probably need to win Tuesday by about 10 points to win," he writes. "This is almost impossible, unless the Democrats decide not to turn out voters on Election Day." Remember that Nevada is a state where Trump seemed poised to do well, passing Clinton in the RealClearPolitics average of polls there in the last week or so. If that state is indeed closed off to him to narrows his already near-impossible path to 270 electoral votes and gives her more wiggle room if she loses some place like New Hampshire.

Then there's Florida. Barring a total Midwest Clinton collapse, Trump has no path without Florida. And early voting news from Florida is looking positive for Clinton, per Steve Schale, who ran the Sunshine State for Obama in 2008 and has been blogging about the early voting data there this year. What he is seeing is a surge not only in Hispanics voters but low-propensity Hispanic voters. (Note to my mother, because she called me to ask: "Low-propensity" means voters who don't reliably vote every election.) He figures that Democrats have a 175,000-vote edge among low-propensity voters. He also sees an uptick in voters without party affiliation and notes that demographically that group is more diverse – which likely means more Clinton-prone – than the Florida electorate as a whole. "What am I worried about for HRC?" he writes Monday morning. "Really, almost nothing. I've mentioned the Palm Beach thing a few times, but right now, the diversity mix is rounding nicely into shape, and our best counties are way out-performing the state. Right now, she needs the organization on the ground to get this done on Tuesday." Similarly, University of Florida political scientist Daniel Smith did a deep-dive into early voting data to see whether either party is "cannibalizing" its Election Day vote totals by turning out people who were going to vote anyway (building up early vote, in other words, by eating into what they were going to get on Tuesday). He found that 76 percent of registered Democrats who have cast votes so far voted four years ago and 79 percent of Republicans. "So, Republicans are cannibalizing their 2012 likely voters at a slightly higher rate than Democrats," he concludes. He throws in one more potentially telling tidbit: "So far, 36 percent of the [907,000] Hispanics who have voted in 2016 didn't vote by any method in 2012. That's a full 12 points higher than whites, and will likely be the key to who wins the presidency."