Or "our long national nightmare is almost over thread".
In Dixville Notch, Hillary Clinton beat Donald Trump 4-2. Libertarian Gary Johnson received one vote, and the 2012 Republican candidate, Mitt Romney received a surprise write-in ballot. In the slightly larger burg of Hart's Location, Clinton won with 17 votes to Trump's 14. Johnson got three votes, while write-ins Bernie Sanders and John Kasich each got one. And in Millsfield, Trump won decisively, 16-4, with one write-in for Bernie Sanders.
And in banks across the world
Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Jews
And every other race, creed, colour, tint or hue
Get down on their knees and pray
The raccoon and the groundhog neatly
Make up bags of change
But the monkey in the corner
Well he's slowly drifting out of range
For the last several years (since 1980), Guam residents have correctly chosen the winner of each presidential race. The island’s voting record was upset in 1996, however, when a typhoon hit Guam on the nation’s voting day.
Votes from Guam, however, don’t count, as the island has no representation in the Electoral College.
I went to CNN's website to see what they have going now and the largest headline says "The Dwindling White Vote". That's not alarmist or inflammatory in the least lol.
So I wonder where my goto site should be now that 538 has basically done their job. Nate Silver said not much else for them to do after this morning...so now it's time to find a good solid site that counts votes as they come in. Any suggestions?
Carpet_pissr wrote:So I wonder where my goto site should be now that 538 has basically done their job. Nate Silver said not much else for them to do after this morning...so now it's time to find a good solid site that counts votes as they come in. Any suggestions?
Is 538 not liveblogging the results as the polls close? Their liveblogs during the debates and the primary votes were interesting.
In any case Slate, TPM, and no doubt many others will be covering developments. Josh at TPM indicated that they would have a tool tracking battleground states county-by-county and comparing them to 2012 results.
Slate has a fun feature where they run twitter feeds of all the most valuable commentators, left and right in parallel columns. In fact it's already going.
Ralph-Wiggum wrote:Votecastr must have some really deep data that others don't; they show Stein with 1% of the vote in NV even though she's not on the ballot!*
*pointed out by Triggercut over at Qt3
From Slate:
Why VoteCastr’s Early Vote Numbers Look Different Than the Ones on Other Sites
As some astute readers have noticed, VoteCastr's estimated early vote totals do not add up to the totals released publicly by a number of states. In Nevada, the secretary of state has reported that 770,149 total ballots were cast early while VoteCastr has tracked only 593,893. In Colorado, the secretary of state had counted 1,852,029 votes as of Monday while VoteCastr has tracked 1,656,947. And in Florida, the secretary of state has reported a total of 6,511,712 early and mail-in ballots compared to 3,680,611 for VoteCastr.
What accounts for the difference? VoteCastr is able to apply its microtargeting model when it knows the identities of early voters. (I explained the ins and outs of that model here.) Because of the way early votes are reported—essentially, it’s a piecemeal process that happens at the county level—VoteCastr does not have specific voter identity information for every single early ballot. As a consequence, VoteCastr’s top-line numbers are going to be smaller than the ones you might find elsewhere. But, VoteCastr argues, its data are more robust.
The VoteCastr team believes using voter preference estimates allows it to make more specific forecasts about the early voting split. Most modelers sort returned ballots by party affiliation in those states where that information is available. There are several problems with sorting by party, the most obvious of which is that those models ignore the sizeable swath of voters who are unaffiliated with one of the major parties. Meanwhile, those slightly more advanced models that divvy up independent voters among candidates using broad demographic information—such as county or race—are making guesses based on far less information than VoteCastr has. Their advantage over the VoteCastr model, however, is that they have a larger sample to work with. VoteCastr believes a closer reading of a slightly smaller sample set is better than a broader reading of a larger one.
What about Jon Ralston, the long-time Nevada journalist, who effectively called his home state for Clinton last week after getting a look at partial early voting numbers? Ralston has more intimate knowledge of Nevada than pretty much any journalist working today, and his predictions very well may come true. One major difference between Ralston’s approach and VoteCastr’s is that he is making an explicit prediction about what will happen, while VoteCastr is focused on the present: not who will win, but who is leading now. As of 2:10 p.m EST, VoteCastr has Hillary Clinton leading by 10,000 votes.
VoteCastr works with a third-party vendor to collect early voting data, which means there’s some lag time before specific voter identities make it into their system. As a result, VoteCastr has decided to stop tracking any additional early votes today, and will instead focus its resources on tracking real-time turnout at polling stations.
One additional wrinkle in Nevada: VoteCastr made a mistake in its pre-Election Day polling by listing Jill Stein as an option, even though the Green Party candidate is not on the state ballot. The VoteCastr team believes Stein is unlikely to draw enough support to significantly affect their estimates, but the jury is still out on that. Consider that a specific example of how this is a real-time experiment, one that remains untested on this scale.
HARRY ENTEN 3:18 PM
We’ve gotten a lot of questions about Slate’s Votecastr. Slate hopes to tell people who is winning at any time “by combining proprietary, large-sample polls taken prior to Election Day with targeted, real-time tracking of voter turnout on Tuesday.” We here at FiveThirtyEight don’t dismiss the method out of hand, but it is untested. Therefore, we’re not relying on Votecastr in any capacity, although we are interested in seeing how predictive it ends up being.
"Better to talk to people than communicate via tweet." — Elontra
I can't help it, I'll be watching TV news all night. I'm just undecided on where to be watching. I usually default to PBS, but I kind of want to watch the CNN Trump pundits implode on air.
I can't imagine, even at my most inebriated, hearing a bouncer offering me an hour with a stripper for only $1,400 and thinking That sounds like a reasonable idea.-Two Sheds
Defiant wrote:Exit polls show that 98% of voters want the election over already.
Exit polls aren't always reliable.
CHRISTIANNA SILVA 1:45 PM
Americans Are Done With This Election
This isn’t exactly shocking news, but voters are not psyched about this election. An online exit poll of early and Election Day voters shows that more than eight in 10 Americans just want this election to be over. More than half of voters said they were angry and half said they were sad about the election, and 39 percent said they were depressed. Hopefully, we’ll see the results by the end of the night and make that 85 percent a little less unhappy.
"Better to talk to people than communicate via tweet." — Elontra
All state systems just went down in Colorado. They are attempting to have people vote one at a time in Denver and lines are rapidly growing. Yikes.
Edit: systems fixed in Denver already, still not clear about the rest of the state.
My blog (mostly photos): Fort Ephemera - My Flickr Photostream
“You only get one sunrise and one sunset a day, and you only get so many days on the planet. A good photographer does the math and doesn’t waste either.” ―Galen Rowell
And now NC is having an emergency meeting about extending voting hours in Durham County due to voting issues. This could obviously delay calling the election if it comes down to NC.
My blog (mostly photos): Fort Ephemera - My Flickr Photostream
“You only get one sunrise and one sunset a day, and you only get so many days on the planet. A good photographer does the math and doesn’t waste either.” ―Galen Rowell
Meanwhile the Colorado Secretary of State will *not* extend voting hours after voter verification system went down for 29 minutes. That's pretty lame.
My blog (mostly photos): Fort Ephemera - My Flickr Photostream
“You only get one sunrise and one sunset a day, and you only get so many days on the planet. A good photographer does the math and doesn’t waste either.” ―Galen Rowell
Enough wrote:Meanwhile the Colorado Secretary of State will *not* extend voting hours after voter verification system went down for 29 minutes. That's pretty lame.
I'm confused as to why a delay would require voting hours to be extended. If you're in line at close, you get to vote. So if you are in line but it takes you longer to vote due to this delay, the SoS need not do anything to 'resolve' that situation, as you're in line. Is the thinking that since it went down earlier, folks are likely to leave and not come back until after regular closing time?
Enough wrote:Meanwhile the Colorado Secretary of State will *not* extend voting hours after voter verification system went down for 29 minutes. That's pretty lame.
I'm confused as to why a delay would require voting hours to be extended. If you're in line at close, you get to vote. So if you are in line but it takes you longer to vote due to this delay, the SoS need not do anything to 'resolve' that situation, as you're in line. Is the thinking that since it went down earlier, folks are likely to leave and not come back until after regular closing time?
I think so. It pretty much stopped voting during that time or at least slowed it to a trickle. There were tweets of people leaving the voting lines due to the glitch. In my mind, many of those are just lost votes. A lot of those folks might have voted during the day due to not being able to vote after work hours. That might have been when they had time. So adding time isn't going to help them. I just think in fairness if the system was busted for half an hour than you extend voting times by a similar margin.
All of this said, most people vote by mail in CO and of those that do it in person many just bring in completed ballots and drop them in the ballot box (like me, I love having an election day experience). So any impact is likely to be moderate. But... given how close some of our state legislative races have been the last couple of cycles that could actually be a deciding factor if key voters in tight districts give up due to the lines.
Last edited by Enough on Tue Nov 08, 2016 7:11 pm, edited 2 times in total.
My blog (mostly photos): Fort Ephemera - My Flickr Photostream
“You only get one sunrise and one sunset a day, and you only get so many days on the planet. A good photographer does the math and doesn’t waste either.” ―Galen Rowell
Our polling places have red and blue tags - they are supposed to indicate which ballot you get as some of us have different questions than others. One polling place was asking if you were Republican or Democrat and then handing out the appropriate color tag.
Then there was the church being used as a polling place that had their big LED sign flashing "Vote No! on Question 1".
Both required a phone call to get things fixed. Those are the worst things I've heard - so doing pretty well.
I'm pretty sure we might get lucky and have an early call for HRC based on turnout. I also predict the Senate will drag on possibly into the week or more before we get to know the final winners. I am sort of feeling it for the 50/50 split.
My blog (mostly photos): Fort Ephemera - My Flickr Photostream
“You only get one sunrise and one sunset a day, and you only get so many days on the planet. A good photographer does the math and doesn’t waste either.” ―Galen Rowell
I went, arrived and saw a line of about 50 people. But there are two precincts that vote there, walked forward to my line, which was three people (hurray for white priv). In and out in under 5 minutes.
My only complaint is that we have machines with curtains that wrap around the voter, thereby precluding the ability of husbands to verify their wives votes.
stessier wrote:Our polling places have red and blue tags - they are supposed to indicate which ballot you get as some of us have different questions than others. One polling place was asking if you were Republican or Democrat and then handing out the appropriate color tag.
Perhaps they should have selected non-US colors like green and yellow.
Fitzy wrote:Watching CNN. If there was a drinking game where the word "historic" was a trigger, I'd be dead. Five or six times over.
And if they could stop referring to Kentucky and Indiana as key races, I would appreciate it.
And in banks across the world
Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Jews
And every other race, creed, colour, tint or hue
Get down on their knees and pray
The raccoon and the groundhog neatly
Make up bags of change
But the monkey in the corner
Well he's slowly drifting out of range
Well, if these two did nothing else -- they got people out to vote.
Longest lines I've seen since I started voting in 1992.
It's 109 first team All-Americans.
It's a college football record 61 bowl appearances.
It's 34 bowl victories.
It's 24 Southeastern Conference Championships.
It's 15 National Championships.
At some places they play football. At Alabama we live it.
