Today was a slow polling day. I've noticed Fridays-Sundays usually are, apparently pollsters need weekends too. We're holding steady at 91% / 8%.
I did find an updated USC/LA Times tracking poll showing Clinton +1, and a poll showing Trump +7 in Indiana. Both polls are slightly good for Clinton. The Indiana poll barely matters, but the state averages there had her down more than 7 so her odds of winning Indiana improved slightly. But if she wins Indiana she's winning the election in a landslide.
The USC/LA Times poll is more interesting. Nate Silver wrote a long piece on it. Most polls sample voters randomly, and ask who they'll vote for. But the LA Times poll samples the same people over and over, and asks them to assign probabilities to who they'll vote for. It's an interesting approach that might be better than traditional polling. It also forced me to adjust how I treat that poll. Because I know it's the same voters each time, when I get a new LA Times poll I zero out prior polls and only count that poll. Essentially, I'm updating what those specific voters think of the election.
The problem is they seem to have caught a sample heavy on Trump supporters. So far the LA Times poll has consistently shown worse results for Clinton than the national average. I adjust the poll using 538s house effects, but I'm not sure even they fully capture its Trumpiness.