Skip to 1:35 below for the key bit. I’d be curious to hear him, or the “Fox & Friends” crew, really, explain why they think the polls weren’t wrong in the primaries. If pollsters are lying now to try to depress Trump’s turnout, even at the risk of destroying their own credibility when the election results end up not looking anything like their data, why wouldn’t they have tried to take him out back in March the same way? There is a theory that could explain that, but it’s not one you’re likely to hear from Trump or his sycophants.

The polls are not “purposefully wrong.” They may end up being wrong because they underestimated white working-class turnout for Trump or they may end up being wrong by pure chance, because that’s what happens sometimes when a race is within three points or so. They may even end up being wrong for the reason Steve Doocy suggests in the clip, that there’s a meaningful crossover vote among Democrats for Trump — although, if you’re searching for “hidden Trump voters,” you need to allow that there are also hidden Hillary voters floating around, especially among Republican women. There are maybe eight different somewhat plausible ways he could have explained a poll miss here, but of course he went with the one that’s the least plausible and the most conspiratorial. Gotta stick with what you know, I guess.

Let’s have one last look at the Trumpiest poll in all the land, the LA Times tracker. Final numbers: Trump 46.8, Clinton 43.6. That’s not the only one to finish with him ahead — the well-respected IBD/TIPP tracking poll ended this morning with Trump up 45/43 in the four-way race (but, interestingly, with Clinton ahead 43/42 in the two-way) — but no poll had him on top more reliably or by a wider margin. Scan the graph and you’ll see that, apart from a handful of days, he led consistently since September 11th, the day Clinton nearly collapsed at a 9/11 event. It’s basically the flip side of the polls conducted by NBC/SurveyMonkey and YouGov, which had Clinton consistently ahead by three to five points for many weeks. In 12 hours, this is either going to be one of the most epic methodological fails in modern political history or it’s going to put the rest of the polling industry out of business. Or, I suppose, if Clinton or Trump wins by less than a point, it’ll do neither. The actual result will be somewhere in between the LA Times’s numbers and the consensus of other pollsters, which is a win on balance for the LAT.

Worth noting, though: At no point since the Times poll debuted in July did the people surveyed ever say they expected Trump to win. You can see that data by clicking the “Respondents’ Predicted Winner” tab at the link. In fact, at no point did Trump even get within the margin of error of topping Clinton in that regard. Day after day, the LA Times sample said they preferred Trump to Clinton, and day after day they expected Clinton to defeat Trump. That’s odd. Also odd is what you get when you click the “Intention to Vote by Candidate” tab. Clinton and Trump traded leads in that metric for months, but today she’s at 86.3 percent while he’s at just 83.8. It’s strange to me that a poll where he’d led dependably would have his fans less interested in voting on Election Day than Clinton’s are, but there you go. Now we wait.