United States elections live

Live coverage of the count for the US presidential election, and the rest.

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.

Author: William Bowe

William Bowe is a Perth-based election analyst and occasional teacher of political science. His blog, The Poll Bludger, has existed in one form or another since 2004, and is one of the most heavily trafficked websites on Australian politics.

837 comments on “United States elections live”

Comments Page 14 of 17
1 13 14 15 17
  1. Boerwar

    He is going to destroy Obamacare.

    That will hasten the day that the US gets a decent public health system.

    Remember that the US rose to power on the back of public education and liberal immigration and is still the major funder of most areas of science and medical research.

    Essentially the US invented modern mixed economy government[1]—enriching the whole of a generation for the first time in history—and then strangely turned away from their (unprecedented) success.

    At some point they will need to turn back, or else fade out.

    [1] The Asquith / Lloyd-George government had a go too, but they were defeated by the House of Lords and Britain ceased to be a great power as a consequence.

  2. Fess

    I started to get jittery about the election a few weeks ago, and when the FBI did that intervention, even more so. I was really anxious for the election to be over and for Hillary to have a decisive win. Anything less, would have been nothing but trouble for her Presidency. The repugs would have started the ball rolling to impeach her over anything they could conjure. Instead, Trump managed to appeal to the fears of white people not appreciating the growing diversity of the country, and also not really liking the idea of a woman President, especially in the form of Hillary Clinton. Racism, sexism, bullying culture name it what you will. It is so very disappointing

  3. Dave

    52. Cut the budget by 20 percent by simply renegotiating.

    One of the reasons that health care is so expensive is that the Republican congress passed a law preventing the government from using its market power in negotiating pharmaceutical prices. I’d be surprised if this is the only such restriction.

    So the government can get much better deals if congress allows (or if the President doesn’t care what congress says…)

  4. EGT – Inequality is that cancer that eats away at every advanced nation. Two world wars arrested the trend in the US (and here) for a while because those wars required a massive collective effort. Then the cancer started again. I don’t know how you stop it.

  5. Dave
    I’m not walking away from it at all. I was just emphasising the bar has been set pretty low. To firm up my prediction I will say Trump will be regarded here as better than GWB.

  6. diogenes @ #1311 Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 9:43 pm

    Dave
    I’m not walking away from it at all. I was just emphasising the bar has been set pretty low. To firm up my prediction I will say Trump will be regarded here as better than GWB.

    ………………………………………………………

    dio – trump has talked so much >>> lets measure all that against what he delivers.

    Thats the only measure.

    There is so much that he claimed he would do.

    My list above is just a start.

    Lets see how it goes ?

  7. Briefly
    The Repugs would have hated his acceptance speech which could have been given by any liberal. He sounds like spending up big to create jobs. I bet the GOP stops him.

  8. Dave
    My bet was that he will be better than we expect. Frankly if he doesn’t do most of the things he has said I’m likely to be right.

  9. Dave
    My bet was that he will be better than we expect. Frankly if he doesn’t do most of the things he has said I’m likely to be right.

    Very, very low expectations you have.

  10. Briefly at 9.46

    He is definitely a post-modern President. Someone whose carefully created persona was elected in place of the reality that was there for everyone to see, but they chose not to see it.

    The US has elected a simulation.

  11. diogenes @ #1317 Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 9:54 pm

    Dave
    My bet was that he will be better than we expect. Frankly if he doesn’t do most of the things he has said I’m likely to be right.

    ……………………………………………

    To start with you didn’t make a bet. you made a statement, viz –

    I’m going to swim against the tide….. and predict that Trump won’t be anywhere near as bad a POTUS as the majority of people think

    ………………………………….

    I’ve suggested this be measured against a benchmark of what he said he would do/ not do.

    How else would his performance be measured.

    Bearing in mind you are cynical on matters broadly as your board name character, why shouldn’t that measure apply to you.

  12. Anton

    EGT – Inequality is that cancer that eats away at every advanced nation. Two world wars arrested the trend in the US (and here) for a while because those wars required a massive collective effort. Then the cancer started again. I don’t know how you stop it.

    Adam Smith understood the problem 250 years ago (“the highest profits are in the poorest societies”).

    David Ricardo knew the answer 200 years ago.

    Henry George knew the answer 150 years ago.

    David Lloyd-George knew the answer 100 years ago (but was blocked by the House of Lords).

    FDR (and Eisenhower) knew the answer (a bit more than) 50 years ago – and unlike the rest, actually got it done: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bill_of_Rights – it was not that the war intrinsically reduced inequality (WWI in Britain impoverished the workers who had fought it) but rather that FDR used every means at his disposal (including his war powers) to reduce inequality.

    I am not suggesting that the Donald is the Messiah (though clearly he is a very naughty boy) or that he would lead America into sunlit uplands. But it is known how to make things better and it may well be that eventual consequences of this situation is force a long overdue realignment and the re-embracing of policies that are (now) known to work and which were abandoned for no real reason.

  13. Dave
    My point is that he won’t do hardly any of the things he has said (for lots of reasons), and will therefore exceed our expectations.
    That has to be cynical enough for anyone. 😀

  14. just.stunned.working all day and still in shock.
    TPOF 739pm – one thing about Nate Silver – his model is based on states NOT being independent events – thus if the “polls” are wrong in one state, they will probably also be similarly wrong in adjacent/similar states. This was very evident across Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota. That is essentially why his model was stubbornly giving Trump a much better chance than nearly all othe modellers. So I think in fact his methodology “trumps” the others (!), but obviously the raw data everyone relies on is perhaps not quite as reliable in the mobile phone / internet age.

  15. Dio nice try but it won’t work.

    You didn’t say “he won’t do hardly any of the things he has said” to start with.

    You are backpedalling, which I’m enjoying immensely.

    You tried to change the subject by calling it a “bet” but are stuck with –

    I…..predict that Trump won’t be anywhere near as bad a POTUS as the majority of people think

    So lets leave it to a majority of PB’s if you are too scared of measuring promises/ performance.

    Or do you want to make it the majority in the US opinion polls ??

  16. Dave
    Definitely happy with the majority of PBers.
    Incidentally I’m wondering if PBers would rate Abbott as better, the same, or a worse PM than they thought he would be.

  17. Democrats own this failure 100 percent. They thought they could reject their strongest candidate – the candidate with a compelling analysis of what ails the nation, a robust alternative to the rotten status quo, and impeccable integrity. Instead they went with their weakest candidate – the one who is stuck in a 1990s time warp, who offers very little policy that would significantly help anyone outside the top 5% of the wealth distribution, and who received millions of dollars from financial firms for telling them what they want to hear. She used her position as Secretary of State to do favors for people who steered tens of millions of dollars in speaking ans consultancy fees towards her household. She conducted official business on a private email server in order to bypass archiving and freedom of information laws.
    The silver lining from the election of a horrible person to the presidency is that the Democratic Party will have to rebuild. Liberal economics needs to be purged from the Democratic Party. Corrupt pay-to-play politics needs to be eradicated from the Democratic Party. Hillary Clinton’s pathetic performance against an extremely weak candidate makes it more likely that the Democratic Party will do the hard work it needs to do.

  18. I thought Abbott was worse than expected. As was Gillard. Turnbull has been way worse. Obama has been worse. David Cameron was better than expected. Not many have exceeded expectations recently but I think Shorten will.

  19. I’m sorry guys, there’s just no way I can spin this, no good in any of it. The barely healed wound of the Great Recession will be ripped open in the coming months and the world will be plunged into economic chaos. We’re fucked. Hope you enjoy watching the world burn. I’m crawling back to my cave to hibernate until the next election cycle.

  20. davidwh @ #1357 Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 10:44 pm

    Abbott performed as PM pretty much as expected.

    …………………………………………………………………………..

    Who expected Knighthood for Phil the Greek ?

    Who expected his CoS to be brevy PM ?

    Who expected the dire, consistent dive in polls?

    If tory voters expected such utter incompence, lying and backflips on such a regular basis why didn’t they elected some else ?

    >>>>>>>Of Course —– the alternatives were all worse!!!

  21. “Incidentally I’m wondering if PBers would rate Abbott as better, the same, or a worse PM than they thought he would be.”

    Worse. His vindictiveness and his stupidity once in power is what amazed me. He was tribal from the get go with a most ungracious victory speech. Trump avoided that trap. But what happens with all the vicious goons he has unleashed is another matter.

  22. Dio –

    David Cameron was better than expected

    You really expected the sort of situation and aftermath Cameron deliberately and for no real reason created with the Brexit promise? And that was ‘better’?

  23. Blanket criticism

    I found it strangely comical watching Turnbull do his presser after the Trump victory. His flowery words were code for Dont Panic Australia!!

  24. Dave you will have to ask those who elected Abbott that question.
    Perhaps Sir Phil Was beyond what should have been expected but Abbott never had any ethics or honesty.

  25. One of the reasons that health care is so expensive is that the Republican congress passed a law preventing the government from using its market power in negotiating pharmaceutical prices.

    So…anyone think he will get lobbied to go after our PBS then??

  26. How do you think Turnbulls handling of the upcoming Global Recession will compare to Rudds handling of the last Global Recession? I’m guessing they won’t go the stimulus route given the coalitions bloviating at the time about what a terrible idea it was, which they’ve never taken back, in spite of the fact that it worked and we were one of the only countries that weathered the storm. The coalition has barely even acknowledged the existence of the first Global Recession. To think in just a few months we’ll get to see first-hand how each party’s response to a GFC plays out.

  27. Nicholas

    Democrats own this failure 100 percent. They thought they could reject their strongest candidate – the candidate with a compelling analysis of what ails the nation, a robust alternative to the rotten status quo, and impeccable integrity. Instead they went with their weakest candidate – the one who is stuck in a 1990s time warp, who offers very little policy that would significantly help anyone outside the top 5%

    Yes.
    It’s only the progressives who have solutions in a time of rapid change.
    Which is why the GOP had to be nuked.

  28. Theodore, the truth needs to be told. Hillary Clinton was a very poor candidate. It is tragic that a small majority of Democratic primary voters were swayed by identity politics and ignored policy substance. Now all Americans face the consequences of that failure of imagination, insight, and nerve.

  29. Imacca

    So…anyone think he will get lobbied to go after our PBS then??

    That’s certainly the desire of the Republican establishment, which is essentially a protection racket using the powers of government to extract wealth from the productive economy.

    The Donald would classify the crippled negotiating position on pharmaceutical prices as an example of “losing” (and he’d be right, in this case). We know the Donald doesn’t like losers, and (as we now know) he’s a winner, not a loser…

  30. Trog

    It’s only the progressives who have solutions in a time of rapid change.
    Which is why the GOP had to be nuked.

    Had Clinton won, the GOP would’ve been revivified to work its wicked will under the cover of “opposing Hillary”. Now they’ve lost that cover.

  31. davidwh @ #1365 Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 10:58 pm

    Dave you will have to ask those who elected Abbott that question.
    Perhaps Sir Phil Was beyond what should have been expected but Abbott never had any ethics or honesty.

    ………………….

    Well the MSM batted abbott in vigorously which assisted convince many voters – they liked his disruption of the Parliament, all the carryon etc and mostly cheered abbott where ever he pounced about in floro vest etc.

    The media and many people found it difficult to accept abbott was an utter DUD as so many excuses were made over and over and over about good government “starting today (or next week etc etc)”.

    Their change of opinion showed up in the polls when they woke up.

    I’m sure there were exceptions and believe you hinted about having “found another way to vote”

  32. “Democrats own this failure 100 percent.”

    That kind of trite and tribal bollocks is just stupid. Do not dismiss what has been a major event today is such a fashion. They whys and wherefores attending to the election of such and egregiously dangerous piece of crap like Trump need to be worked out and dealt with. That may be the ONLY possible “good” to come from this. Sure as Abbott has big ears , Howard crazy eyebrows, and Hanson a chip on her shoulder, what electorates around the world are expressing has to be recognized and addressed without giving in to fear and hate driven politics.

Comments Page 14 of 17
1 13 14 15 17

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *