When will we have a new President-elect following the Nov. 2008 election?

[Reaganfan]

What time? In 2000, we had one at 2am...followed by a 36 day dabacle. Then, in 2004....we had a call for a winner at 11am the next morning.

When will we know who are next President will be following the 2008 election?

[MasterJedi]

2004 style, so it could be very late that night or early the next day.

[7,052,770]

I believe Clinton will be president-elect by midnight.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I'd rather it take a while and actually count every vote fairly, but seeing the right-wing Republicans on the Supreme Court don't like that.

In an ideal world, Indiana and Kentucky aren't called in a timely fashion for the GOP, and suddenly the Republicans realize they're looking at a whole lot of very deserved pain.

[Reaganfan]

I think Giuliani will be at 275 Electoral Votes at 1am and thus President-elect.

[Mr. Morden]

Most presidential elections are not as close as either 2000 or 2004.  In terms of the electoral vote, those were the closest since, what?  1916?  I doubt we'll get a third consecutive election like that in a row.  Thus I don't think we'll have to wait as long before knowing the winner.  In fact, there's a decent chance that the leading candidate will have a big enough lead in the polls that we'll pretty much know who's going to win before election day itself.

[Boris]

We'll probably know before election day. But the winner will be officially projected by the media at 11:07 PM on November 4, 2008.

[StateBoiler]

2am the day after.

[Erc]

No later than 12:30.

Anyone have any data on pre-2000?  I assume '96 was called pretty early, for example.

[Bacon King]

Probably called around the same time '96 was.

[Ebowed]

Democrats will have won around 7pm.

[Verily]

Democrats will have won around 7pm.

7 pm your time would have to involve the Democrats pulling off stunning upsets in Indiana and Kentucky (or, alternatively, the Republicans pulling off an upset in Vermont), those three always being the first three called.

[TomC]

I believe Clinton will be president-elect by midnight.

[Ebowed]

Democrats will have won around 7pm.

7 pm your time would have to involve the Democrats pulling off stunning upsets in Indiana and Kentucky (or, alternatively, the Republicans pulling off an upset in Vermont), those three always being the first three called.

They knew Nixon won in 72 as soon as the first state finished voting.  Same deal here.

[Person Man]

Last election, Kerry was falling behind in Ohio ans was clearly behind in the popular vote by 11pm. It was only a matter of time by then. Although it looked bad when they started counting at 6MST when Kerry came in at 40%. Maybe instead of a small enough margin to cling on to, the loser will be dispatched by 10 or 11pm.

Most presidential elections are not as close as either 2000 or 2004.  In terms of the electoral vote, those were the closest since, what?  1916?  I doubt we'll get a third consecutive election like that in a row.  Thus I don't think we'll have to wait as long before knowing the winner.  In fact, there's a decent chance that the leading candidate will have a big enough lead in the polls that we'll pretty much know who's going to win before election day itself.[/qoute]

Are you sure? this country seems so divided, but an election has never come down to a single state three times in a row and only came down to a single state once before 2000. In 1916. The swing state was California. So, unless this country is really as divided as antebellum America (hopefully the consequences will not be as bad this time because we have nukes today), there will probably be a landslide in 2008. In fact, one could probably expect the end of Republican Dominance or the end of the Democratic Party as a national party in the next election. Something *HAS* to give. It could even be wise to make prelimenary map that expects someone to get 53%...then again, it could come down to Ohio or even Iowa or Colorado in the next election.

Done by 9:30MST when Florida is called and Pennsylvania was called an hour earlier-

Done  when- Connecticut and New Jersey are called at 7MST. I might run down to the court house to register as an Independent if congress goes the same way.

[Tender Branson]

You´ll have a Democratic President when NH is called right after the polls are closed there and early returns show a 55-45 race in Indiana and Kentucky.

[Person Man]

You´ll have a Democratic President when NH is called right after the polls are closed there and early returns show a 55-45 race in Indiana and Kentucky.

Hmmm... I would say you have a DEM president if he comes in with 43 percent of the popular vote and there will be a GOP president if the DEM is under 41. Anywhere outside of 40 to 45 and its over before the fat lady even puts on her outfit, if its within 41-43.....it will probably come down to one state again.

Although if Guliani is running, and is only getting 56% in Indiana and Kentucky, he could still be able to get 52% or 54% in Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada by depressing turnout of bedroom democrats and bringing out the soldiers to vote. Then again, he would probably only get 48% in Ohio and like 46% in the Great Lakes. OTOH, Pennsylvania could go 51% for Guliani.  If Guliani is the GOP guy, it could be interesting throughout the night.

[Eraserhead]

It'll be a Democratic landslide that becomes obvious early in the night unless the Democrats nominate Clinton or the Republicans nominate Giuliani.

[RRB]

Things will probably be a little more typical than in the past two elections.  It will be easy to see who the winner is early on.  It is unlikely that the republicans can pull off this election no matter who the Dems nominate.  The country is close to begin with, not to mention all of the people who will vote Dem simply because they know that Bush is a republican.   When people get tired of Corn Flakes, they try Lucky Charms.  Not much deeper than that folks.

[Stranger in a strange land]

by midnight, and it probably won't be close.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

You´ll have a Democratic President when NH is called right after the polls are closed there and early returns show a 55-45 race in Indiana and Kentucky.

The way New Hampshire is starting to trend, I think a quick Democratic win in the state would be almost as meaningless as a quick Democratic win in Maine.

After all, they're both only 4 EV, and they're both far more socially progressive than a majority of other states.  And significantly more anti-war and anti-Bush than the national average.

[AndrewTX]

You'll probably know around midnight. I have no idea what party is going to win, but one of them will win easily.

[7,052,770]

It'll be a Democratic landslide that becomes obvious early in the night unless the Democrats nominate Clinton or the Republicans nominate Giuliani.

neither of those things will affect the Democratic victory.  In fact they could potentially make it bigger.

[Reaganfan]

It'll be a Democratic landslide that becomes obvious early in the night unless the Democrats nominate Clinton or the Republicans nominate Giuliani.

neither of those things will affect the Democratic victory.  In fact they could potentially make it bigger.

Harry, you think Dennis Kucinich would be "competitive" in 2008.

[Eraserhead]

It'll be a Democratic landslide that becomes obvious early in the night unless the Democrats nominate Clinton or the Republicans nominate Giuliani.

neither of those things will affect the Democratic victory.  In fact they could potentially make it bigger.

Nope that's just Harryland talk.