|
The neverending election has been going on for 12 months, and there is still another forty days to go. But as impossible as it seems, after a year of drama and tension, there will actually be a resolution. There will be one night that will define what happens, and we will wake up the next morning with all our questions resolved. (Unless, of course, we don't declare a winner and we get a repeat of 2000) And just like everything else about US Elections, election day and night will be irregular, with each state reporting results at different times and different rates. Some states have extended absentee voting. Some states, like Oregon, don't have any archaic in-person voting at all. Other states will have packed line and voting booths that will take hours to resolve. The first polls close at 4 AM EST in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, while the last polls close 23 hours later in the Aleutian Islands. Here, with the help of The Green Papers (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/G16/closing.phtml?format=gc) and 270towin.com , are what the map will look like as time goes on. I've speculated here a bit, but I think most readers will agree in general. All times below are given in EST. Also, bear in mind that these are times for the polls to close. Actual results might show up over the next half hour, two hours, two days, or two weeks. Before any presidential results come in, several US territories will be voting for their non-voting representatives in congress. I am sure that is exciting, but given the year's momentous presidential race, lets skip to that. 6 PM The first states where the polls close are Kentucky and Indiana. These states have polls that close at 6 PM local time. Since the states are divided into Eastern and Central districts, that means some parts close at 6 EST and others close at 7 EST. Since most of these states are in Eastern, a good picture will start showing up between 6 and 7. These states are very obviously going to be pro-Trump. The only thing to watch is how much Trump improves over Romney's 2012 margin. Keep in mind that the trend in these states might not mirror the trend in the country as a whole. Basically, don't panic.  7 PM, we get some interesting results. The Eastern part of Florida, Virginia, Georgia, South Carolina, and Vermont all report in, as do the less-interesting Western parts of Indiana and Kentucky. Florida, Virginia and Georgia all have separate urban and rural voting patterns, and different parts of those states will report in at different times. IIRC from past years, Virginia's rural parts report first, leading to a deceptively Republican result. Over the night, the suburban and urban parts will make it bluer. Florida or Georgia might have an opposite pattern, if African-American and Latino districts report first. Basically, don't get excited either way by the early results from these states. On the other hand, if Clinton has a clear lead in Florida, or even in Georgia, the night is going to be short. There isn't many scenarios where Clinton wins Florida and Virginia and Trump wins.  7:30 Two important states and one less vital one check in: Ohio, North Carolina, and West Virginia. Ohio is a big state with varying demographics that might take a long time to count its votes. In past years, North Carolina's first vote totals will be from early voting, which tends to be young, minority, and Democratic. West Virginia will be almost immediately Republican.  8 PM You might be getting nervous now because 2 hours into the election, Vermont is our only solidly Democratic state. At 8 PM, a bunch of states in the North East close their polls. This will give a big chunk of electoral votes to Hillary. This is also the earliest that we have a good idea if Hillary is going to win easily. If Hillary has a good lead in Ohio, Virginia, and Florida, the election is effectively over. If she isn't, and is also losing Pennsylvania and/or Michigan, the election is over for her. However, there is still a lot of variation going on. In my map, I've changed colors for certain states to show that fluctation. At the same time as polls are closing at 8 PM in the east, several states with 7 PM closing times in the CST will add even more variety to our map. This time between 8 PM and 9 PM Eastern is the most active hour for our map.  8:30 PM, Arkansas closes. 9 PM, New York closes in the East, Louisiana, part of Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, and Wisconsin in Central, and Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and the rest of South Dakota and Texas close. Although it might take a while to process the vote, this is kind of when the definitive result will come in. If Hillary Clinton has been doing badly in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, and has totally lost Virginia and Florida, this is kind of the earliest that we can say that she has clearly lost. On the other hand, by this point, if she is ahead in any three of Virginia, Ohio and Florida, and has held the obvious states, she is going to win. These are two maps that could both occur between 9 and 10 PM:   Notice that while in neither one of these has the leader "won", it becomes increasingly unlikely that their opponent can win. Notice that in the first case, Clinton can still pull out a victory with some probability, while in the second, Trump would need to somehow win California. 10 PM: Iowa, Idaho, Montana, and Utah, and Nevad all report in. Iowa and Nevada are probably the states to watch here. In some unusual scenarios, Utah and Montana might be important, but it if it isn't settled by now, Iowa and Nevada might be the states to do it. Notice that at this time, the map can still look like this, with Trump having a serious lead in the electoral college, and he is still almost guaranteed to lose, because the Pacific Coast and New Mexico have yet to register:  11 PM: California, Oregon, and Washington give their probably unsurprising votes to Hillary Clinton. There is, of course, a chance that the votes might still be getting counted in Ohio, Florida or Iowa, and it might turn into a recount situation, but unless there is some truly weird situation where Gary Johnson gets a strong showing and we have to wait to count to see if Alaska will go libertarian, this will be the end of the night.  There may be more wrinkles than I presented here, but in general, this is how the night will proceed. Plan your anxiety attacks accordingly.
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 21:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 23:21 |
|
|
Hoping for Trump to shout "you're fired!" at either Hillary (if he wins) or his campaign staff (if he loses). Also you need to factor in large scale voting fraud by either or both parties.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 15:46
|
|
|
DancingShade posted:Also you need to factor in large scale voting fraud by either or both parties. Can't tell if you're serious.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
DancingShade posted:Hoping for Trump to shout "you're fired!" at either Hillary (if he wins) or his campaign staff (if he loses). Well, if that is something that has been going on, then it would have happened in 2012 as well. And this is pretty much the way things unfolded in 2012. The thing about this time line is, some things in it are things we can be assured of. Will Trump or Clinton totally fall apart between now and election day? Are the polls totally wrong? Will Gary Johnson become the runaway breakout candidate? It doesn't matter, because, no matter what else happens, polls will be closing in Indiana and Kentucky at 6 PM. The point of the post wasn't to guess the final winner, which other people are already doing. It was more to point out that on election night, the results won't be coming in evenly from all states at once. Even in a Clinton landslide, the first hour or two will probably show her losing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 22:35
|
|
|
Ohio's counting is indeed very slow and, at least in the past two elections, the urban areas report very late. However, because of its bellweather status in some ways, in 2012 I attempted to project the overall outcome based on the minute by minute tallies of the state, which were useful in projecting the final margin on the night of. I'll see if I can't dig up the Google Spreadsheet I made for maximum Arzy potential. EDIT: Found it. And what I said above was wrong. Ohio tends to be extremely quick to report from urban areas, but extremely slow from rural areas, such that the margin tends to be 5% more favorable to the Democrat with 25% of precincts counted, 2% more favorable to the Republican with 60% of precincts counted, with some urban areas trickling in at the end as it converges on the final margin. This projection allowed me to forecast (Archives-only) that Obama would win by 3 with 30% of precincts counted. He ultimately won by 2.98%. Now this all said, this projection may not work as well this year with the higher chances for a third-party vote, but it is suggestive that Ohio may look very strongly Hillary early on, but drift to a Trump win late, if she does not have a sufficiently strong lead. ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 03:13 on Sep 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 02:55
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Ohio's counting is indeed very slow and, at least in the past two elections, the urban areas report very late. However, because of its bellweather status in some ways, in 2012 I attempted to project the overall outcome based on the minute by minute tallies of the state, which were useful in projecting the final margin on the night of. I don't know if that will be the pattern this year, but I wouldn't be surprised. There is a good chance that the vote in Ohio is going to be more polarized. If there has been any modernization (hah!) the vote might come in quicker. There is more than a little bit of a chance that it will be 2 AM (or 3 days laters) and we have a map like this: 
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 16:11
|
|
|
Isn't this whole idea about New Hampshire going red in presidential elections pretty dated? If we're going to play by 1996 rules can we pretend Clinton has a shot in Arkansas and Missouri? If anything all of those Free State Project jerkoffs are going to vote for Gary Johnson and dilute the Republican vote there. Pakistani Brad Pitt fucked around with this message at 16:58 on Sep 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 16:56
|
|
|
MrChupon posted:Isn't this whole idea about New Hampshire going red in presidential elections pretty dated? If we're going to play by 1996 rules can we pretend Clinton has a shot in Arkansas and Missouri? I don't think there is much of a chance of New Hampshire voting Republican, but its been an unusual year. That particular example was more to illustrate that if the Ohio vote wasn't counted, we could end up with a situation where the results from Ohio won't come in until very late. There are many other situations where that could happen. There is also this:  Basically a lot of ways that the slow and close results in Ohio, as well as in Florida, Virginia, and North Carolina could keep us up. There are also cases where Ohio, North Carolina, and Florida are uncalled, but Virginia is for Clinton. In some of those cases, Colorado and Nevada might get called quickly with the other states up in the air, and it will be moot. But Colorado and Nevada won't be closing until 9 PM or 10 PM. So it might not be until 10:30 PM, where even if Nevada is going strongly for Clinton, that we will know. glowing-fish fucked around with this message at 02:55 on Sep 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 18:12
|
|
|
Looks likely you posted the same map twice.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 01:38
|
|
|
reignonyourparade posted:Looks likely you posted the same map twice. I did, sorry. Juggling a lot of URLs with these maps.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 02:56
|
|
|
Wait a minute. The polls close in at least 2 states (sorry, I didn't spend much time juggling timezones at 3am) close at 6pm? That seems really hosed up, as someone who usually votes after work. What is the deal with that?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 03:07
|
|
|
glowing-fish posted:Well, if that is something that has been going on, then it would have happened in 2012 as well. Well first off you must have missed Russia already loving with voting systems databases and second this is nothing like 2012 don't be ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 03:32
|
|
|
tsa posted:Well first off you must have missed Russia already loving with voting systems databases and second this is nothing like 2012 don't be ridiculous. I recognize that you are latching onto any excuse to freak out, but there will not be major systemic election fraud in the United States, especially not perpetrated by either major political party. Not only would that be impossible to carry out with any secrecy in a country with fifty-one completely separate voting systems (that matter), and with each one of those a patchwork of different voting methods, but both parties believe, rightly or wrongly, that they can win via a free and fair election. Voter fraud would be high-risk, low-return gambit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 03:52
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:Wait a minute. The polls close in at least 2 states (sorry, I didn't spend much time juggling timezones at 3am) close at 6pm? That seems really hosed up, as someone who usually votes after work. What is the deal with that? A couple of things. Those states are in the trailing western end of the Eastern time zone, so 6 PM there is going to be darker and feel "later" than it would in the eastern part of the Eastern time zone. So people just adjust their clocks a little. Its also the case that those states are pretty conservative. Conservative states, in general, like to close their polls early so that minority and young voters don't get a chance to vote. Older people get up early and vote first thing in the morning while working people don't get a chance to vote. It sucks. That is also why this map is so heavily tilted at the beginning, because those Red states close their polls first.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 05:28
|
|
|
Quorum posted:in a country with fifty-one completely separate voting systems (that matter)
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 09:05
|
|
|
Because the outline of the race has changed since the OP, it is possible that the night might go much slower. The thing is, even in a Clinton landslide, the first hour of the race, with Indiana and Kentucky, is still going to show Trump running strongly, probably ahead of Romney in 2012. Once Virginia and North Carolina show up, it might be clear who the winner is. If Clinton is running ahead of Obama in North Carolina and Virginia, there isn't a lot of ways for Trump to win. Virginia is hardly a swing state anymore, and North Carolina has been polling for Clinton since the first debate. There are some scenarios where Clinton does really well in North Carolina and Virginia and then totally falls apart in the Midwest, so they won't call it then and pundits might draw it out for the drama, but we might be looking at this being wrapped up around 8:15 or so, East Coast time. Maybe, the race can still change.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 14:45
|
|
|
Hasn't the media stopped making calls before, I think, the west coast closes after 2000? Officially anyway. (Assuming of course Hillary doesn't hit 270 with Colorado or something.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 14:53
|
|
|
Polygynous posted:Hasn't the media stopped making calls before, I think, the west coast closes after 2000? Officially anyway. (Assuming of course Hillary doesn't hit 270 with Colorado or something.) Yeah, they rightfully did, and without California, Oregon and Washington, the only way for Clinton to actually get 270 electoral votes is win all the swing states plus reach states like Georgia or Missouri. Which, if Clinton does win Georgia or Missouri, I doubt they will be called early: its going to be a narrow margin, and it will take all night to count it up to make sure. But even without calling the race, the media is probably going to keep the narrative of a close race going as long as possible. If Clinton is ahead, they are probably going to talk about Trump's chances in the "swing states" of Michigan and Wisconsin. I mean, there are some scenarios where Trump does very well in the Midwest, but the coverage is going to be on this as a real possibility.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 15:12
|
|
|
Its been a busy week for the campaign. Along with all of the other news, Trump's campaign is removing resources from Virginia to "focus on North Carolina". Basically, the Trump campaign is going to focus on winning North Carolina, Florida, Ohio AND Pennsylvania. Trump has to win all four to survive past this point, without Virginia. If Trump is clearly losing all four early in the night, he is almost assured of losing. There are situations where he loses Pennsylvania, but wins Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Iowa, Colorado and Nevada...and still wins. So there is a small chance it won't be settled that early in the evening. But there is a good chance that it might be settled pretty soon after 8 PM Eastern. On the other hand, the race has been strange enough that even if Hillary is doing bad in the East, reports from Colorado, Nevada, Arizona and even Utah, Montana and Alaska might make the difference. There are non-crazy but possible scenarios where its midnight Eastern Time and the map looks like this:  And we are waiting to see if Alaska throws the election to the House. That isn't that likely, but the take away remains: A Trump loss is going to be clear by 8-9 PM, while a Hillary loss won't be clear until after midnight.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2016 18:40
|
|
|
Its been over two weeks since I've updated this thread. In that time, Clinton has peaked at a level where people thought it would be a blow-out victory, and then, due to some suspicious news stories, and the fact that Trump has managed to keep his mouth shut, mostly, the race has "tightened" This doesn't make too much of a difference for our timeline. Whether Hillary Clinton is winning in North Carolina by 5 points, or losing by 5 points, the result is going to take about the same time to come in. I would estimate that it takes about a 10 point margin, in a fairly homogenous state, before the results are going to be apparent. The smaller margins mostly make it more likely that if Ohio, Florida, North Carolina and Iowa are ambiguous, it might be the result in Colorado that will settle the night, before those states are decided. So probably what the bullshit October surprise brought to us by Trump and maybe the Russian intelligence is: another hour or two of worry.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 20:06
|
|
|
For the sake of those of us for whom it's been a looooong time since Political Science 101 and an even longer time since high school or middle school civics stuff, could someone remind us how things work if the election does get thrown to the House? Just to cover all the bases.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 21:10
|
|
|
Spacewolf posted:For the sake of those of us for whom it's been a looooong time since Political Science 101 and an even longer time since high school or middle school civics stuff, could someone remind us how things work if the election does get thrown to the House? pfff, as if they cover that in high school. Anyway, may as well just quote https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States) quote:Contingent presidential election by House So the doomsday scenario goes something like: the election is really close, and McMullin takes Utah (and/or Johnson takes Alaska, and possibly other crazier scenarios) and neither Clinton nor Trump gets 270 electoral votes. (There's also the 269-269 tie case but let's ignore that for the moment.) Then the House would choose from the candidates with the top three EVs, with each state getting one vote (gently caress you DC). Presumably this would be done by each states' Representatives voting amongst themselves, so totally random example consider NC, or more likely in the case this actually happens, just PA. Hillary will likely win PA, but PA's vote will go to whoever PA's 13 Republican and 5 Democratic House members decide on. Yeah. (I think it's the incoming Congress that holds this vote, but that's not likely to change much. fake edit: EC meets in Dec, and it says "immediately" above, so maybe not.) So that's bad enough, but there's a further wrinkle in that the vote could end up like 20 Clinton 20 Trump 10 McMullin. I think the Constitution (with Amendments) only states that Congress just keeps voting until someone gets 26+ votes. (Or if they're truly deadlocked by Inauguration Day the VP-elect is President per the 20th. Maybe.) The assumption is the various state delegations will come to some compromise  but assuming we actually end up here the perhaps more likely outcome is a constitutional crisis, dogs and cats living together, etc.But that probably won't happen. Probably.  e: Further  - I was wondering if the Democrats could just go "gently caress all this poo poo" to prevent a quorum due to the situation with like PA above, and... per the 12th: "a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states". Neat! ... edit the third: Comedy option: PA's Dems lock the Rs in a closet.  Also a similar but of course different process applies to the Senate picking the VP. Fun. Polygynous fucked around with this message at 00:15 on Nov 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 23:18
|
|
|
I think one crucial assumption that we're all missing is the stark assymetry of each campaign's GOTV efforts. Every time someone says "it's only good for a percent!", that assumes both sides are trying more or less equal things with more or less equal resources/effort to try and turn out their voters on or before election day. Trump is doing so very little of all of that, and I believe that even if the polls only read "Clinton +4", I think we could be in for some extremely interesting results. Something like this, maybe:  Just because the Democrats have been the only folks actually going out and doing the things that need to be done in any organized fashion - it could get really weird IMO.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 23:32
|
|
|
I hope stuff like this happens again. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TwuR0jCavk Only reason to watch election coverage anymore.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 23:57
|
|
|
I like this map if only because it somehow connects all blue and red states into contiguous masses. Well, except South Carolina, but who cares.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 02:14
|
|
|
MODS CURE JOKES posted:I think one crucial assumption that we're all missing is the stark assymetry of each campaign's GOTV efforts. Every time someone says "it's only good for a percent!", that assumes both sides are trying more or less equal things with more or less equal resources/effort to try and turn out their voters on or before election day. Trump is doing so very little of all of that, and I believe that even if the polls only read "Clinton +4", I think we could be in for some extremely interesting results. Something like this, maybe: But to get back to the point of this thread, even in a 350+ EV Clinton electoral vote, it won't change when we know the results. Like, even on that map, we might know 10 minutes earlier in the night than we did for Obama in 2012. Because even if Hillary Clinton wins Georgia, Florida, Ohio and North Carolina, even Missouri, its probably going to be by less than a 5 percent margin. That vote will still be getting collected in Miami by the time the final tally in Colorado rolls in. There is a few ways we can extrapolate, but its still going to be a long night, most likely. ...much like Game 7 of the World Series with the Cubs ahead by one run in the 10th inning.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 05:24
|
|
|
Very interesting: https://twitter.com/TheFix/status/793811294751252482?lang=en
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 03:06
|
|
|
Listen, we all remember all the Florida bullshit in the 2000 election but what about the 2012 election? Did you know that Obama only beat Romney by ~70,000 votes? Did you know that Florida was undecided for almost a week after the election? Did you know that Florida was the last state to be called in the 2012 election, and the closest? This leads me to this map, the equivalent of 2016 Nightmare Mode: In this scenario, Florida's final vote total is not arrived at for weeks, if not months. Perhaps the courts are involved. It's Florida! During this time, the entire country gets to imagine what a Presidential Election in the House in January 2017 would look like. Trumpublicans stockpile weapons and get ready for every eventuality. Each candidate continues to make speeches and hold rallies. Paul Ryan becomes the most important man in the country.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 11:22
|
|
|
If Ohio, North Carolina, Nevada, Iowa, and New Hampshire all go Trump, of course Florida is probably going to go the same way. But let's say it comes down to a few thousand or even a few hundred disputed votes. And let's say that even if the disputed Florida election goes the expected direction at the end of a grueling process it would still mean an election thrown to the House at the expected end? Months-long national nightmare even worse than the one we're in.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 11:30
|
|
|
Teriyaki Hairpiece posted:Listen, we all remember all the Florida bullshit in the 2000 election but what about the 2012 election? Did you know that Obama only beat Romney by ~70,000 votes? Did you know that Florida was undecided for almost a week after the election? Did you know that Florida was the last state to be called in the 2012 election, and the closest? This leads me to this map, the equivalent of 2016 Nightmare Mode: I think the thing everyone is missing is that Paul Ryan won't be the speaker of the house. Before the new house can vote on the President, the first order of business is to vote a new speaker of the house. The first order of business is to elect the person who ascends to the presidency if they don't get a consensus behind Trump. There's no way that doesn't descend into absolute chaos. The cherry on that cake is the possibility of the Senate coming out 50/50 democrats and republicans with no vice-president to break a tie and the same situation for president pro tem of the senate. So if there is no President, Vice-President, Speaker, or President Pro tem? Technically the cabinet positions are not required to resign, it's just done as a matter of tradition. Maybe the Democrats don't have any reason to play ball with the Republicans if they think the deadlock results in President Kerry. It sounds ridiculous but really the least likely part of that scenario is a split electoral college. The probability of a 50/50 Senate is about 15-35% depending on who you ask. It took over a month to choose Ryan with way lower stakes and a lot of negotiation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 13:14
|
|
|
FourLeaf posted:Very interesting: https://twitter.com/TheFix/status/793811294751252482?lang=en So the top five states in terms of calling the vote are: 1. Florida (4 days) 2. Virginia (5 and a half hours) 3. Ohio (a little under 4 hours) 4. North Carolina (a little over 3 and a half hours) 5. Missouri (around 3 hours) So, yes, we could have a long night indeed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 16:14
|
|
|
FourLeaf posted:Very interesting: https://twitter.com/TheFix/status/793811294751252482?lang=en Based on that map, and the current 538 scores, this is what it might look like around midnight, eastern time:  (I left North Carolina blank even though it was called earlier in 2012, polls seem to show it being tighter this year)
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 16:27
|
|
|
Leviathan Song posted:I think the thing everyone is missing is that Paul Ryan won't be the speaker of the house. Before the new house can vote on the President, the first order of business is to vote a new speaker of the house. The first order of business is to elect the person who ascends to the presidency if they don't get a consensus behind Trump. There's no way that doesn't descend into absolute chaos. I looked up what happens when there is no president-elect or vice-president elect. The twentieth amendment specifies that congress shall have the power to make a law covering that eventuality; according to wikipedia, no such law has ever been passed. However, the votes in the house and senate to determine the president and vice president start happening on January 6th, while inauguration day isn't until January 20th. This means that the votes in the senate all happen under Joe Biden, and in the extremely unlikely scenario of electoral deadlock, house republicans being unable to decide between McMullin and Trump, and and 50-50 senate, we'll have president Tim Kaine
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 09:15
|
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:I looked up what happens when there is no president-elect or vice-president elect. The twentieth amendment specifies that congress shall have the power to make a law covering that eventuality; according to wikipedia, no such law has ever been passed. However, the votes in the house and senate to determine the president and vice president start happening on January 6th, while inauguration day isn't until January 20th. This means that the votes in the senate all happen under Joe Biden, and in the extremely unlikely scenario of electoral deadlock, house republicans being unable to decide between McMullin and Trump, and and 50-50 senate, we'll have president Tim Kaine Interesting. I did not consider that technicality. The new congress with the old vice-president is pretty weird but it makes sense to have that covered. I still think that's way more likely than the house coming together behind Trump. I honestly think there are enough Republicans who would prefer Kaine to Trump to deadlock the house by refusing to vote in a speaker of the house.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 13:35
|
|
|
How accurate are the US exit polls considered to be? In the UK, they are generally considered pretty accurate (as opposed to pre-polling which everyone has lost all faith in after the last election & Brexit vote). I'm thinking of staying up until then and unless they suggest a very close result should be a god indication of the final result.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 14:08
|
|
|
glowing-fish posted:But to get back to the point of this thread, even in a 350+ EV Clinton electoral vote, it won't change when we know the results. Like, even on that map, we might know 10 minutes earlier in the night than we did for Obama in 2012. Because even if Hillary Clinton wins Georgia, Florida, Ohio and North Carolina, even Missouri, its probably going to be by less than a 5 percent margin. That vote will still be getting collected in Miami by the time the final tally in Colorado rolls in. There've been six million votes cast in Florida already. Will they be counted already when the polls close?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 14:24
|
|
|
Ewan posted:How accurate are the US exit polls considered to be? In the UK, they are generally considered pretty accurate (as opposed to pre-polling which everyone has lost all faith in after the last election & Brexit vote). I'm thinking of staying up until then and unless they suggest a very close result should be a god indication of the final result. They're not that reliable. 2004 exit polls had Kerry winning.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 14:32
|
|
|
10 hours and this will all be over.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 14:51
|
|
|
AtomikKrab posted:10 hours and this will all be over. The fight for the White House 2020 begins now!
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 15:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 23:21 |
|
|
kapparomeo posted:The fight for the White House 2020 begins now! lol it started 5 years ago ya maroon
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 15:23
|
|
