Here is PolitiFact's final tally of Trump vs. Clinton in the contest to see who lies their ass off the most:

For the arithmetically challenged, 51 percent of Trump's statement were categorically false, compared to 13 percent of Clinton's.

The only reason I'm putting this up is because we've all gotten so bored with it. Trump lies so consistently and so baldly that we barely even notice it anymore unless he says something truly outrageous—with the bar for "outrageous" moving upward all the time. Trump has ushered in an era of not merely exaggerating or cherry picking or twisting or evading. He just says anything he wants, and his followers buy it. This isn't normal, and we shouldn't accept it as normal.

On the flip side of the coin, we now have 25 years of evidence that Hillary Clinton is a pretty honest politician. Sure, she evades sometimes and she tries to tap dance around the truth sometimes. But she doesn't do this any more than most politicians. She's simply been the target of a massive, never-ending campaign from conservatives and the press to pay far more attention to her misdemeanors than they do to any other politician.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Hillary Clinton is one of the most honest politicians on the American stage.

Tyler Cowen points us this morning to a new paper by Enrich Cantoni that uses county-level administrative data from 1992 to 2014 to estimate the effect of voter ID laws. Here's the nut of it:

In other words, voter ID laws of all kinds have almost no effect on voter turnout and almost no effect on Democratic vote share:

The estimated average effects on turnout are fairly precise zeros. The implementation of an ID law of any type is associated, on average, with an insignificant .4 percentage point increase in voter turnout. Likewise, strict-photo ID laws induce an insignificant .5 percentage point decrease in county-level voter participation .

This tracks pretty well with previous research, which suggests that photo ID laws have a very modest effect. But why? Is it because they're just ineffective, or because they piss off Democrats, who then mount an extra strong GOTV push? I don't think anyone knows.

It's worth pointing out that although reduced participation—even 0.5 percentage points—is a good reason to oppose strict photo ID laws, it's never been the main reason. The main reason is that these laws are aimed very precisely at African-American and Hispanic voters. Is this because of crude racism? Or are blacks and Hispanics just collateral damage in an effort to hurt Democrats? It doesn't matter. For reasons that should be too obvious to need pointing out, any voting law that has an outsized impact on black voters—accidental or not—deserves the very strictest scrutiny. If there were a truly pressing justification for photo ID laws, maybe you'd allow it. But voter fraud is virtually nonexistent, and reducing the Democratic vote is obviously not a very pressing justification. No court should allow this kind of thing.

One day left! The final poll averages are all moving Hillary Clinton's way. Pollster has her up by 5.2 points. The Upshot has her up by 3 points. 538 has her up by 3.2 points. But instead of looking at poll averages, let's just look at the polls today. Here's the latest:

ABC/Post
NBC/WSJ
NBC/Survey Monkey
UPI/CVOTER
CBS/Times
IBD/TIPP
Fox
Monmouth
Bloomberg/Selzer

Clinton +4
Clinton +5
Clinton +7
Clinton +3
Clinton +4
Clinton +1
Clinton +4
Clinton +6
Clinton +3

And don't forget that Clinton also has a much getter ground game than Trump. Feeling better yet?

For months Donald Trump attacked the FBI as a corrupt, rigged organization because it had failed to indict Hillary Clinton. Then, when they announced an ongoing review of some new emails last week, he suddenly declared that he was "very proud" of the FBI. But now they've announced that they found nothing new and still have no plans to indict Clinton. What does Trump think of that?

Trump's handlers have taken away his cell phone, so we don't know. However, we'll always have his surrogates, who continue to have access to America's Agora:

Obviously Comey caved to the Clinton machine and is every bit as corrupt as they thought. Drain the swamp!

Oh hey. Remember all those new emails on Huma Abedin's computer that were going to deliver the goods on Hillary Clinton once and for all? Well, um, not so much:

The F.B.I. informed Congress on Sunday that it has not changed its conclusions about Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server as secretary of state, removing a dark cloud that has been hanging over her campaign two days before Election Day.

James B. Comey, the F.B.I. director, said in a letter to members of Congress that “based on our review, we have not changed our conclusions that we expressed in July with respect to Secretary Clinton.”

Well, that's good to hear, though hardly a surprise. It might have been nice if Comey had waited until today to say anything in the first place, though.

The New York Times has a truly remarkable piece this morning about the final days of the Trump campaign:

Aboard his gold-plated jumbo jet, the Republican nominee does not like to rest or be alone with his thoughts, insisting that aides stay up and keep talking to him. He prefers the soothing, whispery voice of his son-in-law.

....Mr. Trump’s candidacy is a jarring split screen: the choreographed show of calm and confidence orchestrated by his staff, and the neediness and vulnerability of a once-boastful candidate now uncertain of victory.

....Aides to Mr. Trump have finally wrested away the Twitter account that he used to colorfully — and often counterproductively — savage his rivals. But offline, Mr. Trump still privately muses about all of the ways he will punish his enemies after Election Day, including a threat to fund a “super PAC” with vengeance as its core mission.

His polished older daughter, Ivanka, sat for a commercial intended to appeal to suburban women who have recoiled from her father’s incendiary language. But she discouraged the campaign from promoting the ad in news releases, fearing that her high-profile association with the campaign would damage the businesses that bear her name.

How...Nixonian. Yikes.

With 2 days left until our long national nightmare ends, we are now arguing about the statistical models underlying poll averaging. Seriously. Last night, Nate Silver got into a massive war with Huffington Post writer Ryan Grim after Grim published an article headlined "Nate Silver Is Unskewing Polls — All Of Them — In Trump’s Direction." Grim basically accused Silver of applying an ad hoc correction to his polling model so that it would show a tighter race. Silver responded pithily: "This article is so fucking idiotic and irresponsible....The article made clear you have **no fucking idea** what you're talking about."

Well. I guess it's not surprising that a historically nasty presidential race has also produced a historically nasty wonk war. This morning, however, Silver was on This Week, where he defended himself in more family-friendly terms:

STEPHANOPOULOS:  Another variability that we've seen here right now. There have been a lot of other forecasts out there, Princeton Election Consortium, Huffington Post, several others — and The New York Times.  Yours is much more bullish for Donald Trump and more cautious on Hillary Clinton than theirs are. Why?

SILVER:  Because we think we have a good process [and, presumably, the other guys have lousy processes. –ed]....Look, you have some forecasts that show Clinton with a 98 or 99 percent chance of winning. That doesn't pass a commonsense test, which is we've seen lots of elections where there's about a three-point polling error. In 2012, in fact, Obama beat his polls in many states by about three points. If Clinton were to beat her polls by three points and you see something we call a borderline landslide, but if it goes the other way, and all of a sudden Trump could very easily win the electoral college.

I have a couple of comments. First, I don't get the point of making a prediction about the percentage chance that a candidate will win. It's useless. If Hillary Clinton wins, every pollster will be able to say they called it, because every pollster has her with more than a 50 percent chance. What's the point of this? Better to just tell us the national and state averages, and leave it at that. I think everyone is smart enough to tell a tight race from a blowout.

Second, Silver is being a little disingenuous here. Have we really seen a "lot" of elections where there's a three-point polling error in the poll averages? Sure, in some state contests, where there aren't very many polls. But in a presidential election, where there are dozens? In the case of Obama 2012, Silver had Obama ahead of Romney by 2.1 points a couple of days before the election. Obama won by 3.9 points. Pollster was farther off, showing Obama ahead by 1.5 points. But even that's still an error of only 2.4 points.

Silver's point about a 99 percent chance of winning defying common sense is well taken. Stuff happens. Maybe all the polls are missing something. Even if Clinton were five points ahead, I'd probably still operate under the assumption that Trump had a one in twenty chance of winning. That said, a three-point lead with two days left really is pretty overwhelming. You can make a case that maybe Clinton will only win the popular vote by one point, but will then lose all the swing states and lose the Electoral College. But even that strikes me as a one-in-twenty kind of deal. If Al Gore had won the popular vote by 1 percent in 2000, he would have won the Electoral College handily.

Anyway, Hillary Clinton has been ahead of Trump by a steady 3-4 points for the past year, and I've come to believe that most of the variability in the polling averages is fictitious. On Tuesday, I'll bet she wins by a solid 3-4 points, maybe a bit more because Trump's ground game is so amateurish. That's my prediction.

POSTSCRIPT: By the way, the latest ABC and NBC polls have Clinton up by 5 points.

I needed to kill a little time this morning, so here's a comparison of three different polling averages for the presidential race. I've stretched them out so that all three are roughly to the same scale. The Pollster model shows a very steady race, with just a little tightening but no real trend for either candidate. Upshot and 538 both show significant tightening, but with Hillary Clinton still in a solid lead with only 48 hours to go.

Who's right? We'll probably never know. If Clinton wins by, say, four points, all three will most likely be able to say they were within a point of the final number. On the other hand, if Clinton wins by six points, then Pollster was clearly closer than the other two. If she wins by one point, then the Upshot was closest. Exciting, isn't it?

So how is the economy doing this year compared to when President Obama took office? Mostly pretty well, though some economic indicators are a little sluggish. In any case, the numbers are the numbers. If you want to know what they are, with no editorializing, here they are:

Tonight's news: at a Trump rally in Reno, a guy lifted his hands to hold up a sign. Someone nearby panicked, thinking he was raising a gun. The Secret Service hustled Trump offstage, and Trump reappeared shortly after it became clear that nothing had happened. Here's the reaction—as always, nothing but class from Trump and his supporters: