What time will the UK know the result of the US election?

Your guide to the American election: when each state declares, who is likely to win it, and what kind of hot dogs you need.

So You're Staying Up To Watch The US Election.

Good on you. Hopefully you've taken the day off work tomorrow, because you are in for a long night. Also hopefully you're not cheering for a Romney victory, because if you are, smgdh.

If you haven't planned your night already, it might be a bit late to start. But here's a rough timeline for the evening:

Before the night starts

Put together your food and drink. Probably best to eat your dinner now, because you're not going to want to take time away from the HOT POLITICAL ACTION to cook something. Also, if you're anything like me, you'll need something to line your stomach for the night ahead.

You might want to eat a bipartisan salad or some Uncle Sammies while drinking an All-American if you don't want your food to say "I am a hopey-changey style person, even four years on". Alternatively, if your recipies are as fiercely partisan as you are, why not make some Chicago hot dogs and Barack Obama pizza burgers. It's probably too late to brew some White House Honey Porter (it's definitely too late to brew some White House Honey Porter), but a good American beer will go a long way. At the "beer summit" in 2009, Obama drank Bud Light. But you can do better than that.

11:30pm UK Time

Coverage kicks off. BBC 1 has David Dimbleby in Washington DC and Emily Maitlis in the studio, and also features Katty Kay on expert analysis, and Jeremy Vine, probably dressed up as an alien firing a ray-gun at astronauts or something, I don't know.

ITV's coverage is hosted by Alastair Stewart, and will also feature "contributions" from Julie Etchingham, Mark Austin, Bill Neely and Robert Moore.

If you switch over to Channel 4 and see bombs and things, DO NOT BE ALARMED: it is showing Homeland instead.

The 24-hour news channels will also be doing their thing, while if you ache with nostalgia for the bad old days, Sky Atlantic is showing the 2008 Bush v Gore docudrama, Recount.

12:00am

It begins. The first states' polls close, but do not be alarmed: five are safe Romney states, and only one is a hold for Obama. The only toss-up in this first batch is Virginia, and it is very close: in the latest polls, Obama is in the lead, but his hold is less than half a per cent.

It will take a while for exit polls and early counts to work out on which side of the fence Virginia is going fall, and call accordingly. Obama winning Virginia would be very good, but even if he loses it, he's still relatively safe. Either way, we're unlikely to find out what happens before…

12:30am

The big one. If there is one state this election is riding on, it's Ohio, and polls show him with a pretty confident lead in the state – around 3 per cent. It would be a major upset for Obama to lose the state, and its 18 electors, so make sure you're around when polls close.

At the same time, polls are closing in North Carolina. This is a crucial hold for Romney. If Obama wins these two states, he's won the election. In all likelihood, though, the states will go the way they're predicted.

1:00am

A raft of states' polls close now, but the two we are interested in are Florida and New Hampshire. (Pennsylvania is a quite close race, but expected to be a safe Obama hold – his lead is almost five per cent). Florida is an absolute must-hold for Romney. If he loses that – even if he's won all the swing states up to this point – it's likely all over. A Romney without Florida needs to hold Ohio, North Caroline, Virginia, Wisconsin, Colorado, Iowa, Nevada and New Hampshire – as well as have no upsets in his safe states – to win the election.

Romney has a lead in Florida – but it's not as strong as he would like. Latest polls put him 1.5 per cent ahead of Obama, but NYT polling-guru Nate Silver gives Obama a 52 per cent chance of winning the state.

New Hampshire is a swing-state which leans Obama, but it's four electoral votes are only going to be a key in the most marginal situations. Nonetheless, the Democrats will be pleased to take the state.

1:30am

If you are playing along at home, we've got Obama behind with 135 electoral college votes – Virginia remains a toss-up, but in the interests of an exciting race, I'm predicting it will fall to Romney by this time in the night, which gives him 149 amongst the states which have declared.

1:30 is the quiet period – only Arkansas, a Romney cert, closes its polls then, adding another six votes to his tally. Take the opportunity to go to the loo, make a midnight snack, or run out to the 24hr off-license, because coming up is the big one.

2:00am

By this time, voting will have ended in 40 states. Amongst the safe seats, Mitt Romney's big hitters have all closed – Texas alone will give him 38 electors, while Arizona gives another 11, and the midwest a further 17. New York State also closes its polls, the last of the east coast to shut, and will likely send 29 to Obama. Before we look at the swing states, Obama's electoral tally is at 165 to Romney's 229.

Michigan is the safest battleground state featured here, but is still worth a look. Obama is polling at 49.2, compared to Romney's 45.4, but he really needs the state – one which has been hit hard by the recession, and isn't seeing much of the recovery either.

Colorado is always a swing state, going blue for Obama, but having been Republican for the three elections before that. Although Obama should win there – and is polling in the lead – a win for Romney there would put him in a very interesting position – which we'll come to.

Wisconsin is another battleground in name only. The Democrats are polling almost four per cent above the Republicans, and the state – and its 10 electors – are likely to go to Obama.

At the end of this rush, then, we've put Obama on 191 and Romney on 238. The states have mostly fallen down the line, except for Colorado and Virginia, which we've given to Romney. What next?

3:00am

Montana and Utah turn red instantly, giving Romney another nine electors. But what of the last two battleground states, Iowa and Nevada?

Both have a strong lead for Obama, well over two per cent. But we are getting late enough in the day that turnout is starting to be affected by the calls made elsewhere. In our imaginary scenario, could Romney winning Florida and Virgina early on motivate turnout? Could he win those two states?

If he did, then we'd have a very interesting situation indeed: a near-certain tie. If Romney takes Florida, North Carolina, Virgina, Colorado, Iowa and Nevada, then the candidates are near certain to have 270 269 electors each. That would boot the decision over to the newly elected congress, where the House of Representatives would elect the president, and the Senate would pick the vice-president – which, given the split in control, would mean a Romney/Biden presidency, the first split White House in over 200 years, when John Adams had to govern with his opponent Thomas Jefferson.

In reality, that's unlikely to happen. Obama will most likely win Iowa and Nevada, leaving him with 203 votes to Romney's 247. Although the numbers don't show it, at this point, he has won the election – and in fact, will have even if he loses one of Iowa or Nevada – because in an hour…

4:00am

The east west coast declares. California, Oregon and Washington state will all turn blue, giving Obama another 84 votes, and pushing him over the 270 he needs to win.

And the rest is history.

If you want to stay up later still, the Daily Show/Colbert Report election special begins now on the Comedy Central website, and runs until 5:00am UK time.

Or you could just go to bed.

Watching politics in style. Photograph: BarackObama.com

Alex Hern is a technology reporter for the Guardian. He was formerly staff writer at the New Statesman. You should follow Alex on Twitter.

Getty.
Show Hide image

Andy Burnham and Sadiq Khan are both slippery self-mythologisers – so why do we rate one more than the other?

Their obsessions with their childhoods have both become punchlines; but one of these jokes, it feels to me, is told with a lot more affection than the other.

Andy Burnham is a man whose policies and opinions seem to owe more to political expediency than they do to belief. He bangs on to the point of tedium about his own class, background and interests. As a result he’s widely seen as an unprincipled flip-flopper.

Sadiq Khan is a man whose policies and opinions seem to owe more to political expediency than they do to belief. He bangs on to the point of tedium about his own class, background and interests. As a result he’s the hugely popular mayor of London, the voice of those who’d be proud to think of themselves as the metropolitan liberal elite, and is even talked of as a possible future leader of the Labour party.

Oh, and also they were both born in 1970. So that’s a thing they have in common, too.

Why it is this approach to politics should have worked so much better for the mayor of London than the would-be mayor of Manchester is something I’ve been trying to work out for a while. There are definite parallels between Burnham’s attempts to present himself as a normal northern bloke who likes normal things like football, and Sadiq’s endless reminders that he’s a sarf London geezer whose dad drove a bus. They’ve both become punchlines; but one of these jokes, it feels to me, is told with a lot more affection than the other.

And yes, Burnham apparent tendency to switch sides, on everything from NHS privatisation to the 2015 welfare vote to the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn, has given him a reputation for slipperiness. But Sadiq’s core campaign pledge was to freeze London transport fares; everyone said it was nonsense, and true to form it was, and you’d be hard pressed to find an observer who thought this an atypical lapse on the mayor’s part. (Khan, too, has switched sides on the matter of Jeremy Corbyn.)

 And yet, he seems to get away with this, in a way that Burnham doesn’t. His low-level duplicity is factored in, and it’s hard to judge him for it because, well, it’s just what he’s like, isn’t it? For a long time, the Tory leadership’s line on London’s last mayor was “Boris is Boris”, meaning, look, we don’t trust him either, but what you gonna do? Well: Sadiq is Sadiq.

Even the names we refer to them by suggest that one of these two guys is viewed very differently from the other. I’ve instinctively slipped into referring to the mayor of London by his first name: he’s always Sadiq, not Khan, just as his predecessors were Boris and Ken. But, despite Eoin Clarke’s brief attempt to promote his 2015 leadership campaign with a twitter feed called “Labour Andy”, Burnham is still Burnham: formal, not familiar. 

I’ve a few theories to explain all this, though I’ve no idea which is correct. For a while I’ve assumed it’s about sincerity. When Sadiq Khan mentions his dad’s bus for the 257th time in a day, he does it with a wink to the audience, making a crack about the fact he won’t stop going on about it. That way, the message gets through to the punters at home who are only half listening, but the bored lobby hacks who’ve heard this routine two dozen times before feel they’re in the joke.

Burnham, it seems to me, lacks this lightness of touch: when he won’t stop banging on about the fact he grew up in the north, it feels uncomfortably like he means it. And to take yourself seriously in politics is sometimes to invite others to make jokes at your expense.

Then again, perhaps the problem is that Burnham isn’t quite sincere enough. Sadiq Khan genuinely is the son of a bus-driving immigrant: he may keep going on about it, but it is at least true. Burnham’s “just a northern lad” narrative is true, too, but excludes some crucial facts: that he went to Cambridge, and was working in Parliament aged 24. Perhaps that shouldn’t change how we interpret his story; but I fear, nonetheless, it does.

Maybe that’s not it, though: maybe I’m just another London media snob. Because Burnham did grow up at the disadvantaged end of the country, a region where, for too many people, chasing opportunities means leaving. The idea London is a city where the son of a bus driver can become mayor flatters our metropolitan self-image; the idea that a northerner who wants to build a career in politics has to head south at the earliest opportunity does the opposite. 

So if we roll our eyes when Burnham talks about the north, perhaps that reflects badly on us, not him: the opposite of northern chippiness is southern snobbery.

There’s one last possibility for why we may rate Sadiq Khan more highly than Andy Burnham: Sadiq Khan won. We can titter a little at the jokes and the fibs but he is, nonetheless, mayor of London. Andy Burnham is just the bloke who lost two Labour leadership campaigns.

At least – for now. In six weeks time, he’s highly likely to the first mayor of Greater Manchester. Slipperiness is not the worst quality in a mayor; and so much of the job will be about banging the drum for the city, and the region, that Burnham’s tendency to wear his northernness on his sleeve will be a positive boon.

Sadiq Khan’s stature has grown because the fact he became London’s mayor seems to say something, about the kind of city London is and the kind we want it to be. Perhaps, after May, Andy Burnham can do the same for the north – and the north can do the same for Andy Burnham.

Jonn Elledge edits the New Statesman's sister site CityMetric, and writes for the NS about subjects including politics, history and Daniel Hannan. You can find him on Twitter or Facebook.