Update: Slate has given the following update on Colorado:
Based on the 1.66 million early votes VoteCastr has run through its model, Clinton leads Trump by 2.7 points, 46.3 percent to 43.6 percent. VoteCastr expects a total of 2.815 million total votes will be cast in the state by the end of the day, meaning the early votes we have so far represent 58.8 percent of the total expected vote. I want to be clear: VoteCastr isn’t predicting that Hillary Clinton will win Colorado, only that she currently has a higher projected share of known ballots cast than Donald Trump.
* * *
In what appears to be a questionable attempt to provide intraday voting updates, VoteCastr, which aims to break Election Day’s "traditional information embargo," has gone live on Slate and Vice News, and promises initial voting estimates designed to "reveal" which candidate is leading in most battleground states; for understandable reasons, it is focusing on the battleground states.
Moments ago, Slate, which together with Vice have not been shy about their preference for the next presidential candidate, announced that it "launched our collaboration with VoteCastr this morning with a look at the early vote out of Colorado, where Hillary Clinton is leading Donald Trump 46.3 percent to 43.6 percent based on VoteCastr's analysis of known ballots cast. We're now going to take a look at the early vote from six additional battleground states."
The Slate author adds that "VoteCastr isn’t predicting that Clinton or Trump will win any of these states. There are still plenty of votes left to be counted today. After I lay out how the early-vote numbers are looking, I’ll describe in detail how the VoteCastr methodology works, so you can evaluate these tallies for yourself. Also, keep in mind that these are not the absolute final early-vote numbers; the counts may change as the day progresses as VoteCastr processes more early-vote data. Check back on this page throughout the day for updated early-vote numbers."
Slate points out that Clinton is leading in five of the six states for which we have data, including Florida. Trump is ahead in Pennsylvania, though early votes in that state are extremely scarce. Specifically, the unproven methodology finds that Hillary Clinton has likely earned more early votes than Donald Trump in Fla., Iowa, Nev., Ohio, Wis. and Colo., according to analysis by Slate’s VoteCastr. Trump likely has edge in early voting in Pa.
To be sure, as Bloomberg adds, "real-time analysis being provided by VoteCastr is built around an unproven technique that hasn’t before been used in campaign forecasting for public consumption; estimates are based on large-scale polling done ahead of Election Day, analysis of early voting and ongoing counts of turnout at key precincts in states where it’s deploying its modeling."
In short, it may simply be a way to sway public opinion during the voting day, or at least push the market higher.
Here is what Votecastr expects as of 11:45am ET:
Colorado (59.8 percent of expected votes observed):
Clinton – 46.3 percent
Trump – 43.6 percent
Florida (52.4 percent of expected votes observed):
Clinton – 48.6 percent
Trump – 45.2 percent
Iowa (33.3 percent of expected votes observed):
Clinton – 48.5 percent
Trump – 43.5 percent
Nevada (46.2 percent of expected votes observed):
Clinton – 46.7 percent
Trump – 45.2 percent
Ohio (22.7 percent of expected votes observed):
Clinton – 47.9 percent
Trump – 43.9 percent
Wisconsin (24.7 percent of expected votes observed):
Clinton – 52.7 percent
Trump – 40.3 percent
Slate's disclaimer is as follows:
It’s crucial to remember these estimates are in the present tense. Even if we were to assume the VoteCastr models are perfect (and we shouldn’t) they can’t tell us who will win a particular state, only who is winning that state at a specific moment in time—in this case, the night before Election Day. There are too many unknowns for us to say with confidence that what we think is happening in the present will continue to happen in the future. That goes double for early voters, since they’re unlikely to be a representative sample of the electorate.
Furthermore, estimates are only as good as the models that make them, which are only as good as the polling data they use. If there’s some sort of shy-voter effect, or respondents are being in any other way dishonest with the pollsters (or themselves) about who they are going to vote for, the above estimates could easily miss the mark. Likewise, if there was a late swing in the race, the VoteCastr polling could have missed it. As with all polling, some uncertainty is unavoidable.
Still, with little other information to use during the trading day, algos have jumped on this "update", and have sent the Mexican Peso to intraday highs (and USDMXN to its lows)...
.... while the S&P is now at intraday highs.