THE result of the 2020 presidential election was the slowest to be called since 2000. Covid-19 restrictions, a mass switch to early voting, high turnout and tight margins in swing states led to four anxious days of vote-counting, nail-biting and Twitter-refreshing before Joe Biden was declared president-elect.
Chart: The Economist
This year, given heavy early voting, many expect the counting will be slow again. Officials insist that ballot tallying will be faster. And although the contest is close—with six days to go, The Economist’s forecast model had it as a dead heat—there is a good chance of a decisive victory for either Donald Trump or Kamala Harris, due to a normal polling error. The results could be known just a few hours after polls close—as they were for seven of the past ten elections (see chart).
The first states to conclude voting will be on the east coast. Six states, including the key battleground of Georgia, will finish voting statewide at 7pm eastern time (midnight in London). By 8pm, 19 more states will have joined them and a flurry of data will be published. Readers should exercise caution: little of substance will be revealed at this stage of the night, unless the election is a landslide.
Chart: The Economist
Exit polls will be published in states that have completed counting. Unlike such polls in many countries, the data will not include estimates of candidates’ share of the vote. Instead, these polls include information on the composition of the electorate, their policy views and top issues—none of which will reveal who has won.
In some states, where one candidate is heavily favoured, the election result will be called almost immediately. Unless there is a major upset or a striking trend, these calls may not say much about the election overall. One of the first states to be called in 2020 was Vermont, which Ms Harris is overwhelmingly likely to win. The absence of a call may be more informative: if Virginia is not called soon after polls close, it may indicate that Mr Trump is having a good night. The reverse is true for Ohio.
The first sets of counted votes are unlikely to reveal much, either. In many states, where large urban counties that lean Democratic are slow to count, the vote will appear more Republican than the final tally. In 2020 this effect was compounded in some states by mail-in ballots (which skewed Democratic) being slowest to count. Hence the “blue shift” phenomenon: Republican vote leads wiped out by late-counted Democratic ballots, fuelling false claims of electoral fraud.
So what will be the first solid pointers on election night? One metric to watch is the change between county-level results in 2020 and 2024 (this will appear on each state’s results page on economist.com). By comparing counties which have completed their tallies, we can measure the change in support for each party’s candidate.
For example, in a key state such as Pennsylvania—with 67 counties—the early results might come from a selection of counties that Mr Biden won by ten percentage points in 2020. Suppose those counties show Ms Harris winning by five points. If that shift were replicated across the state, Mr Trump would be on track to win Pennsylvania as a whole by four points (Mr Biden won it by one point in 2020).
When the first states conclude counting, we will get more clues as to how the election has panned out. Florida finished counting before midnight eastern time in 2020. Although the state is not likely to be competitive (our forecast gives Ms Harris a five-in-100 chance of an upset), it could still indicate who has the upper hand. Using simulations from our forecast, we can see how the result in Florida relates to Ms Harris’s chances of winning overall. If she loses Florida by seven percentage points, she has a one-in-two chance of winning the presidency. If she loses the state by more than 11 points, her chances of winning the election sink below one in five.
Both of these measures are imperfect. The first counties and states to tally their votes may be unrepresentative. In 2020 Florida moved two points towards Mr Trump whereas the country as a whole moved two points towards Mr Biden.
The final result will probably come down to seven key states. In our forecast, Ms Harris has a 93% chance of becoming president if she wins Pennsylvania, for example, and Mr Trump has a 95% chance if he wins Michigan. Of the seven states, Georgia and Michigan may be the fastest to count. Georgia has mandated that results from early voting (around 70% of Georgia’s total vote) must be announced by 8pm eastern time. Michigan has changed the law to allow the processing of early votes before election day, speeding up the tally compared with 2020. North Carolina is also traditionally quick to count but may experience disruption due to Hurricane Helene.
Others could well be slower. Pennsylvania, the most likely pivotal state according to our forecast, will not start processing millions of postal ballots until the morning of election day. Arizona and Nevada, in the west, finish voting later that day and take longer to count their mail-in ballots, which are popular in both states. Nevada accepts and counts ballots which arrive after election day, too (although these are unlikely to flip the state).
The timing of the final call will depend on how close the election is. In 2000, when the presidency was decided by just over 500 votes in Florida, it took weeks to determine the result. In 1984, when Ronald Reagan won by a landslide, the result was called at 8pm eastern time, while voters on the west coast were still casting ballots. A decisive victory for either candidate would reduce the opportunities for spurious litigation and election denialism—a pastime of Mr Trump’s which may slow the announcement of the final result.
Eyes on the prize
The median scenario from our forecast has Ms Harris winning her pivotal 270th electoral-college vote by less than half a percentage point. But there is also a substantial chance of a polling miss of a scale that would give one or other of the candidates a comfortable win. In one in six scenarios from our forecast, the winning margin in the pivotal state is greater than five points—matching Barack Obama’s re-election in 2012. If that were to happen, we would probably have a clear indication early in the night (the 2012 election was called before midnight eastern time). In three out of four forecast scenarios, the margin of victory in the pivotal state is larger than Mr Biden’s in 2020.
The tail risk of election-night becoming election-week or election-month is still significant. If the presidency comes down to a few thousand votes in Wisconsin or Pennsylvania—the central estimate of our forecast—it could take weeks to resolve. Election interference could extend the wait even further. But there is also a fair chance that the result is known sooner than many expect. Election-watchers, adjust your sleep schedule accordingly. ■
Stay on top of American politics with The US in brief, our daily newsletter with fast analysis of the most important electoral stories, and Checks and Balance, a weekly note from our Lexington columnist that examines the state of American democracy and the issues that matter to voters.
Guests and attendeess mingle and walk through the atrium during the IMF/World Bank Group Spring Meetings at the IMF headquarters in Washington, DC, on April 24, 2025.
Jim Watson | Afp | Getty Images
After years dominated by the pandemic, supply chains, energy and inflation, there was a new topic topping the agenda at the World Bank and International Monetary Fund’s Spring Meetings this year: tariffs.
The IMF set the tone by kicking off the week with the release of its latest economic forecasts, which cut growth outlooks for the U.S., U.K. and many Asian countries. While economists, central bankers and politicians have been engaged in panels and behind-the-scenes talks, many are attempting to work out whether trade tensions between China and the U.S. are — or perhaps are not — cooling.
These were some of the main messages from ECB members this week.
Christine Lagarde, European Central Bank president
On inflation and monetary policy:
“We’re heading towards our [inflation] target in the course of 2025, so that disinflationary process is so much on track that we are nearing completion. But we have the shocks, you know, and the shocks will be a dampen on GDP. It’s a negative shock to demand.”
“The net impact on inflation will depend on what countermeasures are eventually taken by Europe. Then we have to take into account the [German] fiscal push by the defense investments, by the infrastructure fund.”
“We have seen successive movements, you know, announcement [of U.S. tariffs], and then a pause, and then some exemptions. So we have to be very attentive… Either we cut, either we pause, but we will be data dependent to the extreme.”
On market moves:
“When we had done our projections, we anticipated that… the dollar would appreciate, the euro would depreciate. It’s not what we saw. And there have been some counter-intuitive movements in various categories.”
“The German market has obviously been shocked in a positive way by the program soon to be put in place by the German government, with a commitment to defense, with a commitment to a big fund for infrastructure development.”
Klaas Knot, The Netherlands Bank president
On tariff uncertainty:
“If I look back over the last 14 years, in the initial days of the pandemic I think that was comparable uncertainty to what we have now.”
“In the short run, it’s crystal clear that the uncertainty that is created by the unpredictability of the tariff actions by the U.S. government works as a strong negative factor for growth. Basically, uncertainty is like a tax without revenue.”
On the inflation impact:
“In the short run, we will have lower growth. We will probably also have lower inflation. As we also see, the euro is appreciating as energy prices have also come down. So together with the sort of negative factor uncertainty in the short run, it’s crystal clear that it will accelerate the disinflation.”
“But in the medium term, the inflation outlook is not all that clear. I think there are still these negative factors. But in the medium term, you might get retaliation. You might get the disruption of global value chains, which might also be inflationary in other parts of the world than the U.S. only. And then, of course, we have the fiscal policy coming in in Europe. So this is actually a time in which you need projections.”
On a June rate cut and market pricing for two more ECB rate cuts in 2025:
“I’m fully open minded. I think it’s way too early to already take a position on June, whether it would be another cut. It will fully depend on these projections.”
“I would need to see a more structured analysis of the impact on the inflation profile ahead of us, and only then can I say whether the market is pricing fair or whether I don’t.”
Robert Holzmann, Austrian National Bank governor
On the need to wait for more data and news on tariffs:
“We have not seen this uncertainty now for years… unless the uncertainty subsides, by the right decisions, we will have to hold back a number of our decisions, and hence, we don’t know yet in what direction monetary policy should be best moved.”
“Before looking at data in detail, the question is, what kind of political decisions will be taken? Is it that we will have some tariff increases? Is it that we will have strong tariff increases? Is it that we will have retribution by high counter tariffs?”
On the ECB’s April rate cut:
“I think there’s a broad consensus [on rates]. But of course, at the margin, people differ.”
“My assessment is that at this time, it wasn’t clear yet to what extent [tariff] countermeasures were being taken. Because with countermeasures in Europe, prices may have increased. Without countermeasures, quite likely the price pressure is downward. And for the time being, we don’t know yet the direction.”
On the direction of interest rates:
“I think if the recent noises about an arrangement [on trade] were to be true, in this case, quite likely it is more towards the downside than the upside with regard to prices. But this can be changed with different decisions and the result of which, we may even imagine in [the] other direction. For the time being, no, it will be down.”
“There may be further cuts this year, but the number is still outstanding.”
Mārtiņš Kazāks, Bank of Latvia governor
On opportunity from tariffs:
“With all this uncertainty and vulnerability, this is also the time of opportunities for Europe.”
“It’s a time for Europe to grasp all the aspects of being an economic superpower and becoming a really fully-fledged political and geopolitical superpower, and this requires doing all the decisions that in the past, were not carried out fully.”
“This requires political will, political guts to make those decisions, and to strengthen the European economy and assert its place in a global world.”
On market reaction to tariffs:
“So far it seems to be relatively orderly … but if one looks at the spillovers to Europe, the financial markets are working more or less fine, we haven’t seen spreads exploding or anything like that.”
“But in terms, however, of the macro scenarios, this uncertainty is extremely elevated in the sense that, given the possible outcomes, the multiple scenarios and their probabilities are very similar with the baseline [tariff] scenario.”
US President Donald Trump speaks during a bilateral meeting with Prime Minister of Norway Jonas Gahr Store in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, DC, on April 24, 2025.
Saul Loeb | Afp | Getty Images
President Donald Trump denied that an aggressive bond market sell-off influenced his decision earlier this month to hold off on aggressive “reciprocal” tariffs against U.S. trading partners.
“I wasn’t worried,” Trump said in a Time magazine interview during which he was asked about financial market tumult after his April 2 “liberation day” announcement.
In the decree, Trump slapped 10% across-the-board duties against all U.S. imports and released list of tariffs against dozens of other nations. The extra levies were based on trade deficits the U.S. had against the respective countries and raised fears about inflation, a potential recession and disruption of long-held trade agreements.
Markets recoiled following the release. Treasury yields initially headed lower but quickly snapped higher. The 10-year yield rose half a percentage point in just a few days, one of its quickest moves ever, as investors also ditched stocks and the U.S. dollar.
Ultimately, Trump issued a 90-day stay on the reciprocal tariffs to allow time for negotiation. But he said it wasn’t because of the market tumult.
“No, it wasn’t for that reason,” Trump told Time in the interview from Tuesday that was published Friday. “I’m doing that until we come up with the numbers that I want to come up with. I’ve met with a lot of countries. I’ve talked on the telephone. I don’t even want them to come in.”
Yields have since moved lower, with the 10-year most recently around 4.28%, about a quarter percentage point higher than its recent low. Trump had said when he made the decision to hold off that the bond market had gotten the “yips.”
“The bond market was getting the yips, but I wasn’t. Because I know what we have,” he said. “I know what we have, but I also know we won’t have it for long if we allowed four more years of the gross incompetence. This thing was just running — it was running as a free spirit. This was — this was the most incompetent president in history.”
Though negotiations over tariffs are ongoing, Trump added that he would consider it a “total victory” even if the U.S. has levies as high as 50% still in place a year from now.
Get Your Ticket to Pro LIVE
Join us at the New York Stock Exchange! Uncertain markets? Gain an edge with CNBC Pro LIVE, an exclusive, inaugural event at the historic New York Stock Exchange.
In today’s dynamic financial landscape, access to expert insights is paramount. As a CNBC Pro subscriber, we invite you to join us for our first exclusive, in-person CNBC Pro LIVE event at the iconic NYSE on Thursday, June 12.
Join interactive Pro clinics led by our Pros Carter Worth, Dan Niles, and Dan Ives, with a special edition of Pro Talks with Tom Lee. You’ll also get the opportunity to network with CNBC experts, talent and other Pro subscribers during an exciting cocktail hour on the legendary trading floor. Tickets are limited!
The Bank of England is focused on the potential impact of U.S. tariffs on U.K. economic growth if there is a slowdown in global trade, the central bank’s governor Andrew Bailey said Thursday.
“We’re certainly quite focused on the growth shock,” Bailey told CNBC’s Sara Eisen in an interview at the IMF-World Bank Spring Meetings.
Going into its May 8 monetary policy meeting, the central bank will consider “arguments on both sides” around the impact of tariffs on growth and domestic supply constraints on inflation, Bailey said.
“There is clearly a growth issue we start with, with weak growth … but a big question mark is how much of that is caused by the weak demand, how much of it is caused by a weak supply side,” he continued.
“Because the weak supply side, of course, unfortunately, has the sort of the upside effect on inflation. So we’ve got to balance those two. But I think the trade issue is now the new part of that story.”
Inflation could be pulled in either direction by wider forces, with a redirection of trade exports into other markets being disinflationary, but a retaliation on U.S. tariffs by the U.K. government — which he stressed did not appear likely — pushing up inflation.
Bailey added that he did not see the U.K. as being close to a recession at present, but that it was clear economic uncertainty was weighing on business and consumer confidence.
IMF downgrade
The IMF earlier this week downgraded its 2025 growth forecast for the U.K. to 1.1% from 1.6%, citing the impact of U.S. President Donald Trump’s trade tariffs, higher borrowing costs and increased energy prices.
However, economic forecasting remains mired in uncertainty as countries engage in negotiations with U.S. officials over Trump’s swingeing universal tariff policy, currently on pause. The U.S. has imposed 25% tariffs on steel, aluminum and autos and a 10% levy on other British exports.
U.K. policymakers have expressed hopes of reaching a trade deal with the White House, with U.S. Vice President J. D. Vance saying there is a “good chance” of an agreement.
Bailey told CNBC on Thursday that he would be “very encouraged if the U.K. does make a deal,” but that its economy was very open and services-oriented, so it would still be impacted by a wider slowdown in growth or trade.
He also noted that inflation would increase from the current 2.6% in the coming readings due to effects from markets such as energy prices and water bills, but that the bump up would be “nothing like what we saw a few years ago.”
The Bank of England held interest rates at 4.5% at its March meeting, before Trump shocked the world with the scale of his tariff announcement.
Markets now see the BOE slashing rates to 4% by its August meeting.