Slate/Votecastr real time election projections

[Mallow]

you might have to use a VPN if you're outside the USA. I am currently and I couldn't access it without one.

I can access http://votecastr.us/ , and the button link to "Slate" appears clickable, but it still links to nothing (javascript:void(0)) for me.

[Mallow]

Eh... PA and NH aren't looking great, and NV still looks weird, but yes, OH, IA, FL and WI looking very good for Hillary.

Considering PA started the day (with early votes) with Trump in the lead, I'll take the Clinton advantage we have now.

[Mallow]

There was a new data dump, vote totals in Florida are now about 7.3 million. A lot of that is early vote, but the morning wave was dumped in as well... so the EV margin is holding.

Put it another way, if Clinton adds another 400k votes, and Trump adds another 500k votes, they hit the Obama/Romney margin. They are very close to 2012 totals already.

Exactly. The fact that a lot of today's votes are now in the model and she still is significantly closer to Obama's total than Trump is to Romney's total (she's 377k away, he's 537k away), has got to be a good sign.

[Mallow]

I am pretty sure that OH map would point to a Trump win.

Almost certainly.

Then why would their model have Clinton ahead? That doesn't make sense--their numbers are based on that map. Just because a map that looks like that might have historically been a R win doesn't mean it would in this election. It's completely reasonable (in fact, exactly as expected) to assume that rural/suburban counties would shift towards Trump while urban counties would shift towards Clinton, meaning fewer "blue" counties but a similar overall margin.

[Mallow]

These numbers are beyond inefficient to hold off the working class/after work Trump vote. Looks like 2000 all over again at the very best.

in Ohio?

Everywhere. If these are anywhere near correct Trump is going to sweep the swing states.

This makes zero sense. Please stop posting/concern trolling.

[Mallow]

I am pretty sure that OH map would point to a Trump win.

Almost certainly.

Then why would their model have Clinton ahead? That doesn't make sense--their numbers are based on that map. Just because a map that looks like that might have historically been a R win doesn't mean it would in this election. It's completely reasonable (in fact, exactly as expected) to assume that rural/suburban counties would shift towards Trump while urban counties would shift towards Clinton, meaning fewer "blue" counties but a similar overall margin.

This isn't an estimate of the final vote, it's an estimate of the current vote

Then why does it not match the values above? See IA, for instance--the numbers above have Clinton ahead 444,300 to Trump's 421,396. The map below has Clinton 45%, Trump 46%. They can't both represent an estimate of the "current vote".

[Mallow]

I am pretty sure that OH map would point to a Trump win.

Almost certainly.

Then why would their model have Clinton ahead? That doesn't make sense--their numbers are based on that map. Just because a map that looks like that might have historically been a R win doesn't mean it would in this election. It's completely reasonable (in fact, exactly as expected) to assume that rural/suburban counties would shift towards Trump while urban counties would shift towards Clinton, meaning fewer "blue" counties but a similar overall margin.

This isn't an estimate of the final vote, it's an estimate of the current vote

Then why does it not match the values above? See IA, for instance--the numbers above have Clinton ahead 444,300 to Trump's 421,396. The map below has Clinton 45%, Trump 46%. They can't both represent an estimate of the "current vote".

Anybody know why this is?

[Mallow]

It appears the Slate site updated FL total votes now... with Clinton just under 90k votes away from Obama's total in 2012. Trump still 270k away from Romney total.

If this model is correct, the polls were very wrong in FL.

For what it's worth, I've been tracking Hillsborough County's votes by registration all day. Early on, today's votes were 34.2% Democrats, 39.4% Republicans. Currently they're 34.7% Democrats, 37.9% Republicans. Basically, the Republicans have led by about 3,500 votes all day. Add today's votes on top of the early votes and Democrats currently still have a greater than 25,000 vote advantage in Hillsborough County.

[Mallow]

And the bad news for Trump keeps coming:

Update: 3:06 p.m.: The state maps previously displayed on this page represented only Election Day data but not early vote estimates. They have been removed and will be reposted when they are updated.

You freaking mean they just allotted the damn early vote based on today's vote.  God damn they are amateur hour.

Actually, they did have maps based just on early vote earlier today (Wisconsin/Iowa/Ohio were much more blue, FL about the same) and then those maps turned quite a bit more Trump friendly. I think they are saying they forgot to merge the data from Map 1 into Map 2, and that Map 2 was just ED vote. I think.

Exactly, and this explains why the IA numbers at the top of the page (which have Clinton ahead) didn't match the map on the bottom (which had Trump leading).

[Mallow]

Pennsylvania: C+3
Clinton 48%
Trump 45%

Florida: C+3
Clinton 48%
Trump 45%

Colorado: C+2
Clinton 46%
Trump 44%

Iowa: T+1
Clinton 45%
Trump 46%

Nevada: C+1
Clinton 46%
Trump 45%

Ohio: T+1
Clinton 45%
Trump 46%

Wisconsin: C+5
Clinton 48%
Trump 43%

New Hampshire: C+4
Clinton 47%
Trump 43%

Which would mean:
http://www.270towin.com/maps/wOZZQ

Where are these numbers from? Are they projections for end-of-day, or the current state?

[Mallow]

Pennsylvania: C+3
Clinton 48%
Trump 45%

Florida: C+3
Clinton 48%
Trump 45%

Colorado: C+2
Clinton 46%
Trump 44%

Iowa: T+1
Clinton 45%
Trump 46%

Nevada: C+1
Clinton 46%
Trump 45%

Ohio: T+1
Clinton 45%
Trump 46%

Wisconsin: C+5
Clinton 48%
Trump 43%

New Hampshire: C+4
Clinton 47%
Trump 43%

Which would mean:
http://www.270towin.com/maps/wOZZQ

Where are these numbers from? Are they projections for end-of-day, or the current state?

This is the current state based on votes cast, not a projection.

From votecastr for election day alone, I take it? Because the numbers don't match the election day+early voting numbers they have on their site:
http://www.slate.com/votecastr_election_day_turnout_tracker.html

[Mallow]

We're going on 2 hours here with no updates and outdated/confusing maps. This is a bust.

I think the maps make sense if they're (still) just election day only maps. But like you said, still no update in quite a while.

[Mallow]

Clinton now ahead in all states...

Are you talking about this data?
http://www.slate.com/votecastr_election_day_turnout_tracker.html

If so, she's been ahead in all states all along (except the EV Ohio numbers).