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

Donald Trump ushers in a new era of kakistocracy: government by the worst people

Trump will lead the whitest, most male cabinet in memory – a bizarre melange of the unqualified and the unhinged.

“What fills me with doubt and dismay is the degradation of the moral tone,” wrote the American poet James Russell Lowell in 1876, in a letter to his fellow poet Joel Benton. “Is it or is it not a result of democracy? Is ours a ‘government of the people by the people for the people’, or a kakistocracy rather, for the benefit of knaves at the cost of fools?”

Is there a better, more apt description of the incoming Trump administration than “kakistocracy”, which translates from the Greek literally as government by the worst people? The new US president, as Barack Obama remarked on the campaign trail, is “uniquely unqualified” to be commander-in-chief. There is no historical analogy for a President Trump. He combines in a single person some of the worst qualities of some of the worst US presidents: the Donald makes Nixon look honest, Clinton look chaste, Bush look smart.

Trump began his tenure as president-elect in November by agreeing to pay out $25m to settle fraud claims brought against the now defunct Trump University by dozens of former students; he began the new year being deposed as part of his lawsuit against a celebrity chef. On 10 January, the Federal Election Commission sent the Trump campaign a 250-page letter outlining a series of potentially illegal campaign contributions. A day later, the head of the non-partisan US Office of Government Ethics slammed Trump’s plan to step back from running his businesses as “meaningless from a conflict-of-interest perspective”.

It cannot be repeated often enough: none of this is normal. There is no precedent for such behaviour, and while kakistocracy may be a term unfamiliar to most of us, this is what it looks like. Forget 1876: be prepared for four years of epic misgovernance and brazen corruption. Despite claiming in his convention speech, “I alone can fix it,” the former reality TV star won’t be governing on his own. He will be in charge of the richest, whitest, most male cabinet in living memory; a bizarre melange of the unqualified and the unhinged.

There has been much discussion about the lack of experience of many of Trump’s appointees (think of the incoming secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, who has no background in diplomacy or foreign affairs) and their alleged bigotry (the Alabama senator Jeff Sessions, denied a role as a federal judge in the 1980s following claims of racial discrimination, is on course to be confirmed as attorney general). Yet what should equally worry the average American is that Trump has picked people who, in the words of the historian Meg Jacobs, “are downright hostile to the mission of the agency they are appointed to run”. With their new Republican president’s blessing, they want to roll back support for the poorest, most vulnerable members of society and don’t give a damn how much damage they do in the process.

Take Scott Pruitt, the Oklahoma attorney general selected to head the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Pruitt describes himself on his LinkedIn page as “a leading advocate against the EPA’s activist agenda” and has claimed that the debate over climate change is “far from settled”.

The former neurosurgeon Ben Carson is Trump’s pick for housing and urban development, a department with a $49bn budget that helps low-income families own homes and pay the rent. Carson has no background in housing policy, is an anti-welfare ideologue and ruled himself out of a cabinet job shortly after the election. “Dr Carson feels he has no government experience,” his spokesman said at the time. “He’s never run a federal agency. The last thing he would want to do was take a position that could cripple the presidency.”

The fast-food mogul Andrew Puzder, who was tapped to run the department of labour, doesn’t like . . . well . . . labour. He prefers robots, telling Business Insider in March 2016: “They’re always polite . . . They never take a vacation, they never show up late, there’s never a slip-and-fall, or an age, sex or race discrimination case.”

The billionaire Republican donor Betsy DeVos, nominated to run the department of education, did not attend state school and neither did any of her four children. She has never been a teacher, has no background in education and is a champion of school vouchers and privatisation. To quote the education historian Diane Ravitch: “If confirmed, DeVos will be the first education secretary who is actively hostile to public education.”

The former Texas governor Rick Perry, nominated for the role of energy secretary by Trump, promised to abolish the department that he has been asked to run while trying to secure his party’s presidential nomination in 2011. Compare and contrast Perry, who has an undergraduate degree in animal science but failed a chemistry course in college, with his two predecessors under President Obama: Dr Ernest Moniz, the former head of MIT’s physics department, and Dr Steven Chu, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist from Berkeley. In many ways, Perry, who spent the latter half of 2016 as a contestant on Dancing with the Stars, is the ultimate kakistocratic appointment.

“Do Trump’s cabinet picks want to run the government – or dismantle it?” asked a headline in the Chicago Tribune in December. That’s one rather polite way of putting it. Another would be to note, as the Online Etymology Dictionary does, that kakistocracy comes from kakistos, the Greek word for “worst”, which is a superlative of kakos, or “bad”, which “is related to the general Indo-European word for ‘defecate’”.

Mehdi Hasan has rejoined the New Statesman as a contributing editor and will write a fortnightly column on US politics

Mehdi Hasan is a contributing writer for the New Statesman and the co-author of Ed: The Milibands and the Making of a Labour Leader. He was the New Statesman's senior editor (politics) from 2009-12.

This article first appeared in the 19 January 2016 issue of the New Statesman, The Trump era