POST EXPLAINER, ADDED ~11am Eastern: This post will be updated through the day as the spirit moves. Some bloggers put updates at the top, so everything is reverse chronology. I’m one of those bloggers who puts updates at the bottom, so if you’re coming back and trying to catch up, scroll down. And hey, comments are welcome. To the extent that there’s KN@PPSTER “election coverage,” it will all be found in this post unless something just over the top happens that absolutely requires a separate bit – TLK]
9am Eastern: Here’s a screen shot of my state-by-state prediction for the 2016 US presidential election — that Donald Trump will carry every state Mitt Romney carried in 2012, plus Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida (you can drum up your own map at RealClearPolitics):

My friend Darcy Richardson‘s prediction is slightly different in that he has Trump losing North Carolina but carrying Wisconsin. I think those are our only differences, but I could be wrong.
We’re probably both wrong on one state. As of the most recent polling, Iowa looks like it’s going to go to Trump rather than to Clinton. But I’m not making any last-minute changes. Right or wrong, I made my prediction and we’re going to see how right or wrong it was.
I’ll update this post during the day and evening, assuming there’s something worth updating it for. And at the bottom, where you can already see abbreviations for each state set up, I will update as I see them called for one candidate or the other (some of them possibly tomorrow if I crap out and go to bed before we hear results).

Update, 10:45am: A few days ago I made my predictions regarding third party performance over at Independent Political Report. Here they are:

Gary Johnson (Libertarian Party): 2.3% +/- 0.3%
Jill Stein (Green Party): 1.9% +/- 0.3%
Darrell Castle (Constitution Party): 0.5% +/- 0.2%
Evan McMullin (“Never Trump” Republican): 23% +/- 1% in Utah

I didn’t try to predict how McMullin will do in the 10 other states where he’s on the ballot. I’m guessing low single digits in all of them, but it’s hard to tell.

Update, 12:45pm: Reuters is reporting that “Banks warn clients to brace for FX volatility after U.S. vote.” The idea being that “the gap between buying and selling prices that determines the cost of trading [is] expected to widen sharply if Donald Trump were to win.” Are the banks a little less certain of a Clinton victory than e.g. the prediction markets?

Update, 3:10pm: This blog usually racks up around a thousand page views per day. As of mid-afternoon, it is approaching TEN thousand page views today. Welcome to KN@PPSTER, new readers! If you like what you see here, feel free to poke around, and also to check out my podcast, the libertarian op-ed mill I run, and the daily email newsletter I publish.

Update, 3:20pm: I wonder if I’m having a case of confirmation bias today. That Reuters story mentioned above perked my ears up. Then a couple of minutes ago I was walking past the TV and heard the MSNBC anchor say that when they come back a reporter will be talking about “whether turnout is strong enough to keep Hillary Clinton’s hopes alive.” Is that a perception shift? It seems to me that usually phrases like “hopes alive” are said about an underdog, not a favorite.

State-by-state results. I will likely fill these in on the basis of MSNBC’s election night coverage and projections/calls.

AK
AL
AZ
AR
CA
CO
CT
DE
FL
GA
HI
ID
IL
IN
IA
KS
KY
LA
ME
MD
MA
MI
MN
MS
MO
MT
NE
NV
NH
NJ
NM
NY
NC
ND
OH
OK
OR
PA
RI
SC
SD
TN
TX
UT
VT
VA
WA
WV
WI
WY

Imported from the original KN@PPSTER