12.52pm ET. Clinton grimly hanging on in New Hampshire on the NYT projection, with Trump having a slight edge on the vote. It also has also all but called it for him in Pennsylvania.
12.20pm ET. A tightening has been evident in Pennsylvania and Michigan, but the big shock of Wisconsin looks all but sure to win it for Trump. However, Clinton looks no less sure of winning the popular vote, by a margin currently projected at a bit over 1%.
11.54pm ET. The NYT at least has Clinton back ahead in Minnesota now.
11.46pm ET. A point of interest for Australians: Maine is holding a ballot initiative for “ranked choice voting”, what we would call preferential voting. Yes leads narrowly on 52.8%.
11.40pm ET. Also a big night for people who were pushing Brexit parallels. Decaying industrial areas have performed the same role as their English counterparts in Sunderland.
11.33pm ET. NYT now has Minnesota slipping over the line to Trump, holding steady in Pennsylvania and Michigan, home and hosed in Wisconsin.
11.27pm ET. If Clinton does win Michigan and Pennsylvania, it starts to come down to Maine CD-2 and Nebraska CD-2, and FiveThirtyEight has Trump the favourite in both.
11.26pm ET. Dan Rosenheck of The Economist: “I think HRC still has a prayer in MI and PA, though the Upshot is very bearish. But WI, which polls had as safer, looks like her Waterloo.”
11.12pm ET. NYT effectively calling the election for Trump; the always more cautious FiveThirtyEight has him at 61%. Former says Trump is a 72% chance in Michigan and 63% in Pennsylvania, but I gather the ladder is essentially treating any “too close to call” state as 50-50, where NYT is mostly projecting Trump as favourite.
11.01pm ET. So anyway, the big shock is that the industrial rust belt states have responded heavily to Donald Trump. It makes perfect sense when you say it like that, but the polls missed it. Whatever the final result, losers of the night include polls and forecasters, with a qualified exception for Nate Silver, whose cautious projection has been vindicated (and left Wired and Huffington Post looking silly).
10.58pm ET. Some rare PB brickbats for the ABC. Out driving just now, I have five ABC stations on offer, and not a hint of election news from any of them. Had to listen to commercial talk radio. And ABC News 24 has underused Antony Green and been taking upwards of half an hour to notice what’s going on.
10.26pm ET. You can probably read the NYT projection as well as I can, but it says there’s nothing at all in it in Pennsylvania, and Trump can get there anyway with Michigan and Wisconsin, both of which are looking good for him. FiveThirtyEight now has Trump at a 55% probability. The Senate will stay Republican: they are all but sure to hold Missouri, home and hosed in New Hampshire, Indiana and North Carolina.
10.16pm ET. Trump keeps moving to victory on the NYT projection amid an unexpectedly strong performance in the rust belt, now being credited with narrow leads in Wisconsin as well as Michigan. FiveThirtyEight still has Clinton at 60%, but I gather that’s based on an arbitrary 50-50 probability split in Michigan.
9.56pm ET. The latest update from Michigan has nudged the count from 21% to 23%, and increased Trump’s projected lead at NYT from 1.1% to 1.2%.
9.48pm ET. Looks like everything hinges on Michigan. New York Times projects a 55% Republican win probability.
9.41pm ET. The New York Times projection is increasingly tipping to Trump, and now has him leading in Michigan, with Clinton grimly hanging on in Pennsylvania. Its Electoral College projection is Trump 275, Clinton 263.
9.37pm ET. Richard Burr (R) home in North Carolina; Kelly Ayotte (R) with her nose in front in New Hampshire; too early to tell in Missouri, but overall the Senate is looking difficult for the Democrats.
9.26pm ET. Time to close the door on Florida, I gather.
9.21pm ET. Michigan though is close for comfort. New York Times has Clinton at only a 58% probability, owing to the fragility of her leads in Michigan and Pennsylvania.
9.20pm ET. However, Colorado is looking good with 25% counted, suggesting it will join Virginia as a Trump roadblock.
9.18pm ET. Numbers coming in for Michigan and Pennsylvania, both showing with Clinton with moderate leads.
9.16pm ET. About 70,000 votes have been added in Broward, and they’ve perhaps been less favourable for Clinton than required, going 55.0% to 40.0% her way.
9.14pm ET. Virginia still looks like Clinton’s firewall: the New York Times projects her for a 91% probability and a margin of 3.2%.
9.10pm ET. The New York Times has Clinton a 69% chance, which tends to suggest this is another presidential election where Nate Silver has ended up looking pretty good.
9.10pm ET. Still slow progress in Broward.
9.08pm ET. The New York Times now has Trump with his nose in front in all the close states, and betting and financial markets are rushing to price in a higher risk of a Trump win.
9.02pm ET. Trickles of votes coming in now for Broward county, which will need to be plentiful to get Clinton over the line in Florida.
9.01pm ET. Clinton continues to firm in Virginia, which closes a lot of pathway for Trump.
8.59pm ET. In North Carolina, Richard Burr has his nose in front to retain the Senate seat for the Republicans, but Clinton retains a slight edge in the presidential vote.
8.48pm ET. Clinton looking good in New Hampshire.
8.43pm ET. New York Times has Clinton maintaining tiny leads in North Carolina and Iowa, but Trump slipping ahead in Ohio and holding firm in Florida. That Virginia is not absolutely nailed down, and a number of important states further west are yet to report, means there is still a theoretical path for Trump.
8.42pm ET. A lot seems to hinge on Broward county in Florida, which has only reported its early voting results to this point.
8.39pm ET. FiveThirtyEight gives Republicans 69% chance of retaining the Senate.
8.38pm ET. Evan Bayh fails to win Indiana Senate for the Democrats.
8.36pm ET. Florida back to Trump +0.6% at New York Times, nothing in it in North Carolina, Clinton still with her nose in front in Ohio.
8.35pm ET. Now I’m hearing less encouraging talk on North Carolina, for both presidency and Senate.
8.34pm ET. NBC News projects Republican House majority.
8.32pm ET. New York Times projection on Florida drifting slightly to Clinton: Trump’s lead down from 0.6% to 0.3%.
8.25pm ET. Wise heads on Twitter sound doubtful that Trump is doing as well as New York Times projections suggest: “Someone tell me how Trump overcomes what’s still out in Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach”.
8.21pm ET. And Ohio better than anticipated for Clinton as well.
8.20pm ET. But Clinton appears to be performing well in North Carolina.
8.19pm ET. The New York Times model is projecting a 0.5% lead for Trump, so some mixed signals there.
8.17pm ET. New York Times projects early lead for Clinton in Ohio, which is good news (I won’t pretend to be impartial here).
8.13pm ET. More indications of Clinton outperforming Obama in North Carolina, which Romney won 50.6% to 48.4%.
8.10pm ET. Really good results and projections display from New York Times.
8.09pm ET. Republican Marco Rubio’s anticipated re-election to Florida Senate confirmed.
8.08pm ET. No one’s calling any battleground states, but encouraging indications for Clinton in Florida and North Carolina, and betting markets moving her way.
8.07pm ET. NBC News confirms anticipated Democratic Senate gain in Illinois.
8.03pm ET. Could be wishful thinking, but Daily Kos sounds encouraged about North Carolina Senate race, where persons of good conscience will be hoping Deborah Ross ousts Republican incumbent Richard Burr.
7.56pm ET. Hugely important Miami Dade county in Florida swinging 3% to Clinton compared with Obama’s winning performance in 2016.
7.53pm ET. Clinton just shot to the lead in the raw count in Florida. Probably just goes to show you the limitation of looking at raw results, particularly in such an electorally diverse state.
7.49pm ET. Republican Senator Rob Portman’s re-election in Ohio confirmed. Always looked a disappointing race for the Democrats.
7.45pm ET. Australia’s ABC (i.e. Antony Green) is calling Democrats 182, Republicans 94, but none of the calls are in battleground states.
7.41pm ET. Enjoy footage of Nevada judge dressing down douchebag Trump lawyer over “voter fraud” lawsuit here.
7.36pm ET. Trump camp talking head on ABC News 24 talking tosh about “oversampling” by lying pollsters.
7.35pm ET. Jonathan Swan of The Hill: “In the presidential, Clinton looking strong in Pa., Colo., N.H., Mich., Wis., per exits. Florida she’s a squeak ahead. Ohio tied.” Colorado and New Hampshire would close any path to a Trump victory.
7.31pm ET. More good signs for Clinton in Florida, from Duval county: “Clinton over Trump 49-47 w/ 300K votes in. If that doesn’t change, it’s over. GOP can’t win statewide w/o Duval.”
7.28pm ET. Latino Decisions reports: “Latino vote in Florida now posted: Clinton 67 – Trump 31 (+36) 2012 was Obama 58 – Romney 40 (+18)”. Also talk of particularly strong turnout in Latin areas of Miami.
7.20pm ET. Stephen Bush at the New Statesman notes there is “a swing towards Clinton in Kentucky, though Indiana looks bad for both rural Ohio and Evan Bayh’s chance of taking the Senate seat back for the Democrats”.
7pm ET. Polling stations close in the first of the key states around about now, so here begins live coverage of today’s momentous US elections. See here for my final poll aggregation and Senate review.
RM – I’m not sure about that. Trump might decide to trample over the congressional republicans! If he can’t deliver pork to the rust-belt because of them he will have no choice but to attack them. Remember, only one senator endorsed him. He owes them nothing. Indeed, his base expects him to take on the bastards in washington. Will he care if the Republicans get crushed in the mid-terms? I doubt it.
EGT – That performance of Turnbull completely reframed how many see him. It’s been absolutely down-hill since there. A total disaster.
Anton
But you must admit one thing about the election winner’s sour grapes: it was innovative
So Trump won white non-college educated women 62-34. That looks like a failure of Clinton to win over women. But, looking more closely, Trump won the white non-college educated men 72-23.
So she did a lot better with women in that demographic. Just that the white non-college educated demographic is Trumps base.
I’m not sure how you expect him to do that. It takes legislation to deliver pork. It takes legislation to take on bastards and clean up scum. Trump doesn’t have any legislative powers. He can veto, and he can propose legislation, but he can only pass what Congress will allow him to pass. The more energy he wastes on attacking them, the less inclined they’re going to be to give him any of the things he wants.
Case in point, Trump’s idea of an Amendment to create term-limits for Congress isn’t actually that bad. However he’s never going to get even a simple majority of Congressmembers to vote for kicking themselves out of office, let along the two-thirds majority he’d need to actually pass a Constitutional amendment.
I think he’ll quickly discover that what the president can actually do is a fair bit less than what he thinks the president can do. No telling what’ll happen then, but it’ll probably be funny to watch.
Sanders gave oxygen to Trump. Smart move?
AR – Of course Trump can’t deliver pork without congress. But:
1. Trump is the molotov cocktail that blue-collar America has thrown at the political system AND the Republican Party (very important). They haven’t made him President to get patted on the head. If he doesn’t persuade congressional republicans to give him pork (which they would be insane to deny him) his only other option, if he wants to maintain popularity with his base, is to tear into them. I don’t think the Donald would care if he leaves the Republican Party a smoking ruin, and his base would cheer their heads off.
He’s in a strong position because Congressional Republicans know he’s a boorish thug and will take the Samson Option if necessary. That gives him a lot of power.
But we will see.
Or let me put it another way:
Q: How many Republican senators endorsed Trump?
A: One!
They said if Trump ran for President that there’d be riots.
Why are the Left so violent?
Oh FMD – Fitzgibbon on PM Agenda claiming income inequality is the driving force for One Nation and Trump. Complete Bollocks
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/george-brandis-backs-down-over-controversial-solicitorgeneral-directive-20161110-gsm63n.html
What a surprise!
compact crank @ #1609 Thursday, November 10, 2016 at 4:20 pm
Very good question, when it is the right that has all the guns …
Where’d everyone go?
Compact Crank
Everyone is in shell shock mode!
Today I feel dismay. America has chosen self-harm. How sad for them. How very sad. Steinbeck would see that very little has changed in the decades since he wrote Of Mice and Men. We can see decadence, triumphant, exultant. So very, very sad.
The Crank
When considering the electoral college, one should ask: what would the Donald say?
Clear enough I suppose…
http://imgur.com/TOGIbcP
This is what I meant earlier. Clinton just failed to get people to come out and vote. Or maybe polling after polling showed her winning, so people got complacent and didn’t come out to vote for her.
The last time people were this disconnected, Dubya Bush got voted in. (In contrast his re-election got the numbers up again.)
Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/5c5k4e/i_made_a_chart_showing_the_popular_vote_turnout/
The Crank
Where’ve you been, we’ve missed you
CC
It’s not bollocks, he just forgot to mention the right’s plan to divide and isolate us in our own bubbles and to cede our power to private interests acting only for their own profit.
AR
There are eleven congressman and senators currently serving who have been there for more than 37 years. It’s like a sinecure.
Anton
Of course he can
However, I think it’s more likely he’ll try to run the Oval office the same way he’s run his “business” since the 1990s bankruptcies. He realised then that he was a hopeless businessman but hit on the idea of reality television in which he pretends to be a businessman. Having a pretend President has happened before: Warren Gamaliel Harding, but the differences are:
– Harding “looked Presidential” – in fact that was the main reason for his selection as candidate
– The United States reaped the one-time benefit of capital flight from Europe as a result of the war, with the result that any economic policy at all was almost certain to meet with apparent success (giving rise to a whole lot of incorrect conclusions)
Paul Ryan’s first budget will be along the lines of Brownback’s Kansas budgets; and look how well those worked out.
The US could come unstuck big time.
Origin of the US electoral college – similar to electing a Pope apparently.
http://uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/INFORMATION/electcollege_history.php
http://kevinbonham.blogspot.com.au/2016/11/trump-wins-another-major-poll-and.html
Trump Wins: Another Major Poll And Modelling Failure
with special bonus Eric Abetz section 🙂
Some commentator on one of the US cable channels suggested the other day that Trump could directly instruct the US Federal Reserve to print more money if he needed it for bridges, roads, military etc. Without Congressional approval.
Not sure how true that is??!!
Yep, and that’s the interesting part. Trump has to deliver on the crazier of his promises (jail Hillary, deport millions of illegal immigrants and their families, stop Muslim immigration and refugees, build the border wall and make Mexico pay for it, etc.) or his base is going to feel like they’ve been conned.
Bigger problem for Trump is that his base isn’t enough to keep him in power. They only just won him the election (without even carrying the popular vote), mostly because Hillary was so deeply unpopular and unmotivating (Trump underperformed Romney by 1.3m votes, and was saved only because Hillary underperformed Obama by a massive 6m votes). And if he does crazy things to pander to his base he’s going to erode his support among mainstream Republicans and galvanize the Democrats against him. Either of which spells electoral loss.
So which Trump will we get? Is it going to be Campaign Trump, who pursues discriminatory, Unconstitutional, and tyrannical policies in order to keep his base? Or will we get Moderate Trump, who leaves his base behind in order to expand his support with Republicans and right-leaning Democrats? Or something else entirely?
I don’t think anyone knows. Though I do think Campaign Trump would be a career-limiting move, politically. And I also think we’ll see Selfish Trump, pushing through changes to income and estate tax that will leave himself and his family millions of dollars better off. That’s one promise I’m sure he’ll keep, and that a GOP Congress will support.
According to Richard Branson; Trump is a vindictive and revenge obsessed person.
He will not give up on Hillary going to gaol, he will try to pursue Obama in whatever ways he can after he was mocked so comprehensively by Obama a number of times and he will have a long list of other targets. No wonder Mike Pence will be so very busy as Trump will be too focussed on revenge to spend time on the nation.
BOOLEANBACH – Let’s hope then he gets revenge on all the Republicans who didn’t endorse him!
AR – Trump’s supporters don’t expect him to carry through on the crazier promises. But they expect PORK and lots of it (with apple sauce). He doesn’t deliver that, he’s in deep s…
What’s amazing though is that we have a republican president talking about massive capital works. Previously the Republicans promised their base that they would shrink govt to make sure the minorities didn’t get welfare. Now Trump is talking about spending more to deliver pork. I think this is a big change.
KB
I’ve observed that people seem to use Left and progressive interchangeably, same for conservative and Right. One of the questions we should ask is whether squashing everything down to Left and progressive vs Right and conservative is distorting our understanding. Surely there are more dimensions than that?
Even taking the typical two dimensional political space, with Left vs Right and conservative vs progressive along two different axes, is likely to be better.
What is the world we (the West) find ourselves living in? Would it be fair to characterise it as mostly progressive and Right? Culturally, progressives have been somewhat successful, while the systems and processes we are increasingly subject to are Right in nature.
If that picture is reasonable, it explains why the conservative Right and the progressive Left can both find things to complain about. Each* is only getting half of what they want, while their diametric opposites are getting the other half. The progressive and Right have created a mess, and these other two groups are now in a contest to explain it.
* The conservative Left that would be diametrically opposed to the world we live in seems to be an endangered species :P.
[Citation needed]
I’d characterize Trump more as someone who executed a hostile takeover of the Republican party than as an actual Republican. Which is why I give Moderate Trump a chance of existing. It’s possible that the entire election campaign was just a show.
AR – Common sense. His voters do NOT expect him to ban all Muslims from the US. They know that was an electoral flourish.
displayname @ #1654 Thursday, November 10, 2016 at 6:35 pm
I frequently prefer analyses that put people on multiple axes, eg distinguishing economic and social attitudes.
But when it comes to the political campaigning classes I think there is a lot of culture-warring going on in which one routinely encounters left-wingers who are economically restrictive and socially liberal and right-wingers who are the reverse. And however much both these sides disagree with their side’s nominee or leader, when the chips are down they will tend to revert to partisan cue and line up with them anyway. Not all will, but most.
I think L/R – Progressive/Conservative simplifies society to a meaningless level.
Society is likely shaped more like a bell curve than a two-sided square.
A big chunk of those Trump voters probably fell within one SD of the mean who were fed up with things not related to left/right.
Ab
Trump himself might have been thinking it was all a rhetorical flourish but, IMO, a significant number of his supporters think he meant ALL muslims when he SAID all muslims. This would be the same group who were chanting ‘hang her’ and something about doing something to the ‘witch’ at his rallies.
These guys are literalists.
They do not do poetic licence, like Dylan, for example.
If you get a chance, look at the Michael Moore videos about the election. He clearly says Trump will win, and says he will win the rustbelt states, and it will be the biggest fuck you ever to a political system. Trump is their human Molotov cocktail. Easily the best prediction I’ve seen.
Here’s one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29xpn94_CL4
New thread.