Quote (Pollster @ 3 Nov 2016 17:36)
The easiest path for Clinton remains MI/WI/PA/CO/VA/NH for 272 EVs, and even that allows for the off chance that the less-educated, more-rural ME-2 congressional district narrowly drifts to Trump (and keeps the Omaha-based NE-2 at a tossup). She's using NV as insurance since the early voting numbers continue to look good there (very similar to 2012), and is aggressively playing for NC and FL because a win in either would cut Trump off almost immediately.
It'd seriously be the height of stupidity to think that it'd be a disappointment if Clinton doesn't outperform the largest NPV win in the last 30 years (we tend to ignore 1996 since it'd be unfair to Dole to compare a guy who was triaged to people who weren't). There should be no confusion why Clinton isn't winning by a historic margin: that rarely happens anymore, and she's held to an entirely different standard in every way. Her media coverage was overwhelmingly negative (especially in 2015), whereas Trump received an unprecedented sum of free media that actually graded out as positive since most of it came in the form of his rallies being televised with no commentary.
The craziest statistic of 2016 is that even Clinton's issue-based media coverage was 84% negative. And this is an area where she stands head and shoulders above not only Trump but every other candidate in the field. No nominee has ever faced something like what Clinton did with the press this cycle, that's a huge reason why she's not leading by more.
This was your gold standard poll aggregator this year
Good game loser