And VA was an extreme rarity.. While polls aren't the most exact of things, missing by that much isn't something that happens on an aggregate level. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/mark-warner-why-polls-missed-a-shocker-in-virginias-senate-race/
Didn't @Knave post something about polls not figuring out Latinos? If the models underrepresent latinos that are apparently voting in droves, that kind of error could be possible. OTOH, I expect a lot of Latinos voting against Trump but Republican down ballot, so I don't hold my hopes high.
I get you. As an analyst in breaking my own rules about this - just have a strange feeling with this election that the polls are underselling Clinton and the Dems
Let's talk election day numbers websites. Other than Votecaster, what websites are you watching for the numbers? As I noted earlier, TPM should have some interesting maps this year featuring 2012 numbers for comparison. And I tend to like the maps at the New York Times.
Nothing before 7pm is going to be final, so I'm focusing on weather forecasts to make sure Michigan turns out to vote.
I know it's corny, but I watched returns on CNN in 2004 and 2008, so I'll be there again. The website is awful and it crashes constantly, but it's my home on E-Day evening. I'll also go to POLITICO and 538 intermittently.
I'll be reading, most likely, and then around 9:15 or so we'll watch a couple episodes of Star Trek, Deep Space Nine (second disc of season seven), then before going to bed my wife will quietly check her phone and I'll turn on the radio (NPR) to see how well we're going to sleep. Or if.
CNN for me. I've always liked the way they cover elections on the day, not entirely sure why. It might be John King's interactive map sessions going through key counties and states.
I'm more likely going to be alternating between CNN, MSNBC, and maybe dabble in whichever Canadian broadcaster I get (I forget if it is CBC or CTV) so I can get an unbiased opinion on things. Depending on how the results are going, I may pop over to Fox to watch the fireworks. For websites, I'll probably be spending most of my time here, checking 538 as states are called (they are going to be plugging in states as ABC News calls them and then, based on that, updating their forecasting), and maybe the TPM page you mentioned.
"Kill the traitor"... http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/2/donald-trump-edward-snowden-kill-traitor/
As I said before, this is all Trump. And it will go back down in 4 years (unless some other Trump gets the GOP nomination), but hopefully it won't go down to the low historical levels, but to a level close to white turnout.
MSNBC for me. CNN has too many ****ing ppl on stage, and too many fluffy, partisan hacks who frankly aren't worth my time. It's too #bothsidedoit for my blood. MSNBC has a left-wing take, but at the very least they're examining the why's, the repercussions, the significance, etc. It's a much more elevated discourse. During commercial breaks I'll either shoot over to local news for local election concerns or cnn.com to get regular ol' headlines...
I hate myself for looking, but VoteCastr on Slate has Clinton up in FL, IA, NV, OH, PA, and WI. Close in all, but.. Daaaaang. http://www.slate.com/votecastr_election_day_turnout_tracker.html
Interesting -- but, yeah, you've gotta take these numbers with a grain of salt. The one thing I would say (and it's assuming their methods are sound, which is an iffy assumption), is that historically Democratic voters tend to vote later in the day than GOP voters. Or at least that used to be the case. I assume it still is. If it still holds true, you'd expect Clinton's numbers to pick up steam as the day went along. So if they're projecting her up now, that's a hopeful sign. But, again, grain of salt.