Posted by 
This is a rolling guide to articles and audio published by The Conversation in the immediate run-up to and aftermath of the election, with some explainers about the process. This page is updated from the top, so older references are moved down the page.
5.00am: Good morning world. The United States has made its choice. And, as of 5am Donald Trump and the Republican Party will be the happier contenders.
It’s been a turbulent four months since outgoing president Joe Biden announced he was terminating his bid for a second term and the battlelines between the two candidates, Donald Trump and Kamala Harris were drawn. Soon we will know who will lead the US for the next four years.
From here, with the help of some of the sharpest analysts of US politics, we’ll keep you updated and informed as the situation develops.
To get an idea of the scale of the task of counting votes, take a look at the below map of the US colour-coded by poll closing times. How long the count could take is anyone’s guess at this stage. Each state has its own rules.
Ahead of the polls closing Richard Hargy, an expert in US politics from Queen’s University Belfast, wrote a guide to the process, when the votes are counted and when we might start to see results.
Read more: US election: what time do the polls close and when will the results be known? An expert explains
Delays are baked into the process, such as Pennsylvania, which doesn’t allow votes cast before election day or ballots posted in to be counted until polls close, which was at 8pm (1am GMT).
So we’ll just have to be patient. In the mean time, you can also read Hargy’s explainer on the “electoral college” system, which can mean that the candidate with the most votes may not win the presidency.
Read more: US election: how does the electoral college voting system work?
Early voting and what it might mean
Scott Lucas, professor of international politics at University College Dublin, believes that in a cliffhanger election, a clue to the outcome may be in the size of turnout. More than 80 million Americans voted early – around half of the total turnout in 2020 and around one-third of the eligible electorate.
The 80 million figure takes on added significance with the recognition that it is not that distant from the 104 million who participated early in the “pandemic” election four years ago. And that 2020 ballot, with 158.4 million votes and almost 67% participation, was the largest turnout since 1900.
Who does that favour? Probably Kamala Harris and Tim Walz. Trumpists will turn out for their man come hell or high water. The large question mark has been whether potential Harris voters would sit on their hands, whether from lack of enthusiasm or dissatisfaction on issues such as Israel’s open-ended war on Gaza.
Any prediction in this election is a risk. But it might be worth setting a marker: if turnout matches or exceeds the record set in 2020, Kamala Harris could be on the way to the White House.
Tense moment for the US
During the campaign there have been two assassination attempts on former president Trump as well as arson attacks on ballot boxes and ballots damaged. In Arizona the Democratic party was forced to close one of its offices after it had been shot at three times.
Dafydd Townley, a fellow in international security at Portsmouth University, believes that there could be a reluctance to accept the result and that this could result in further disturbances. He has written about how much violence there has been during this campaign.
Read more: US election: officials are issued with panic buttons as attacks on ballot boxes continue
How race has played into the campaign
Rhianna Garrett, PhD researcher and global coordinator of the critical mixed race studies executive board at Loughborough University, says that Trump’s campaign has been “littered with attempts to weaponise” the multiracial heritage of his Democrat opponent Kamala Harris.
Much of this has been a dog-whistle attempt to stir up his own base, partly with fairly blatant appeals to latent feelings of racism, but also as a tool to position Harris as deceiving and untrustworthy by apparently blurring and shifting her own background.
In August, not long after Harris took over the Democrat ticket from Biden, Trump appeared at the National Association of Black Journalists conference when he wrongfully claimed that Harris was changing her identity, stating: “I didn’t know she was Black until a number of years ago when she happened to turn Black, and now she wants to be known as Black, So I don’t know. Is she Indian or is she Black?”.
For her part, Harris’s campaign has also used her multiracial heritage to further their political agendas. On the White House website, she is described as “the first woman, the first Black American, and the first South Asian American” to hold a vice-presidential position, which has effectively attempted to position her as a winner. Harris herself has also foregrounded “race” on her campaign website. In attempt to attack Trump’s campaign, she strategically aims to promote Black and Latino men specifically, as well as women’s rights. These are key voter groups she has aimed to mobilise through identity politics.
Trump and winning male voters
Donald Trump widened his appeal to male voters in this election, with polling indicating that he was picking up more support from Black and Latino men, as well as more young men more widely.
One reason for this may be that in 2024 young men are more conservative than any other group in the US. Another reason why gender has become a divisive issue is the overturning of Roe v Wade, the legal case that gave American women abortion rights.
Read more on the gender divide in this article from Natasha Lindstaedt, a professor of government at Essex University.
Read more: US election: why more men and fewer white women say they will vote for Trump
A free speech campaign?
Julie Posetti, professor of journalism at City St George’s, University of London, and global director of research at the International Center for Journalists, recently conducted a survey of more than 1,000 Americans on their attitudes to the press.
Breaking down the results, they were able to build a picture of what people in the US think of targeting journalists for criticism and even abuse. You can read all about the study here.
