# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In a stunning election night, the Republican nominee for president, Donald Trump, secured victory after a string of formerly Democratic states swung his way.
Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa and Michigan all turned red.

Nationally, Donald Trump won 47% of the vote to Hillary Clinton's 48% - yet this translated into 306 electoral college votes for the Republicans and 232 for the Democrats.

The map above shows where Mr Trump improved on the share of the vote achieved by Mitt Romney, the Republican presidential candidate who failed to beat President Barack Obama in 2012.

The Democrats lost support in the mid-west and around the Great Lakes, as well as in the south east, with exit polls suggesting that men voted Republican in much higher numbers than women.

The poll of 24,500 people was conducted by Edison Research for ABC News, AP, CBS News, CNN, Fox News and NBC News.

The national share of the vote dropped by more than three points for the Democrats compared with 2012, while the Republican share of the vote did not change significantly.

At the state level, this pattern meant that the key state of Florida's 29 electoral college votes were transferred from the Democrats to the Republicans. The state had previously voted for President Obama twice.

The result was on a knife edge, but Donald Trump won by one percent of the vote.

Votes given to other candidates in the state, principally the Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson, would have been enough to clinch the state for Hillary Clinton.

The strong support older voters gave the Republicans helped them to win Florida.

Pennsylvania was another striking victory for Mr Trump in the battleground states. The state had voted Democrat in the previous six presidential elections.

In addition to Pennsylvania and Florida, the president-elect also won in many other of the key states by slim margins, as the chart below shows.

Mr Trump's electoral victory was underpinned by his success in winning over white voters, with 58% of them voting for the Republican candidate. White voters made up 70% of the electorate in this year's election.

Mr Trump was especially popular among non-college-educated white men, receiving seven in 10 votes from that demographic group and six in 10 votes from non-college-educated white women.

Almost nine in 10 black voters (88%) supported Mrs Clinton, compared with 8% who opted for Mr Trump. Barack Obama secured 93% of the black vote in the 2012 election.

A smaller proportion of Hispanic votes went to Mrs Clinton than to President Obama in 2012, according to the exit poll.
Your browser does not support the iframe HTML tag. Try viewing this in a modern browser like Chrome, Safari, Firefox or Internet Explorer 9 or later.
The above map from the Associated Press shows how each state contributes to the electoral college. The size of states with low populations shrink in the centre of the country while states in the north east with larger populations grow. It helps to give a different perspective on the election results, when compared to the traditional map below.

As well as taking hold of the White House, the Republicans have also retained their majority in both the Senate and the House of Representatives.
Your browser does not support the iframe HTML tag. Try viewing this in a modern browser like Chrome, Safari, Firefox or Internet Explorer 9 or later. Your browser does not support the iframe HTML tag. Try viewing this in a modern browser like Chrome, Safari, Firefox or Internet Explorer 9 or later.
Produced by John Walton, Ed Lowther, Nassos Stylianou, Ransome Mpini, Chris Ashton, Luke Ewer, Joe Reed, Lilly Huynh and Salim Qurashi.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
US election 2016: Trump victory in maps - BBC News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Results of one of the most dramatic US election nights in recent years mapped.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It's really no coincidence that so many Republicans are cashing out now for the private sector after completing the... https://t.co/4yRryAFlmI

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
See all the wonderful things mariellebianchi has made

# data[].attributes.headline
Why did the polls get it wrong (or did they)

# data[].attributes.subject
Why did the polls get it wrong (or did they)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
why did the polls get it wrong (or did they)?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why Did The Polls Get it Wrong (Or Did They)?, The Inquiry - BBC World Service

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Hillary Clinton lost despite some polls putting her chance of victory at 99%

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Just How Wrong Were The Polls?, Why Did The Polls Get it Wrong (Or Did They)?, The Inquiry - BBC World Service

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Why the 2016 polls were (possibly) more accurate than those conducted in 2012

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It looks like the page you are looking for has moved, is no longer available, or never existed.

# data[].attributes.headline
Can social media be used to predict election ?

# data[].attributes.subject
Can social media be used to predict election ?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Many of the polls got it wrong when it came to predicting who would be the next president of the United States.

After Hillary Clinton had led throughout most of the campaign, she was also ahead in the BBC poll of polls on Tuesday with 48% of the votes to Donald Trump's 44%.

Number cruncher Nate Silver, of statistical analysis website FiveThirtyEight, wrote that morning that Mrs Clinton had a 71.4% chance of winning.

The results of course were quite different.

Whist pollsters' reputations may have taken another hit, newer methods of prediction based on data from social media appear to have had more success.

BrandsEye, a tool that looks at people's tweets, correctly predicted both the vote to leave the EU in June's referendum and a Trump victory in the US election, but how did it do this?

For both elections, Brandseye measured which side had more tweets in its favour on Twitter - predicting that the most popular of the two on the social media platform would win.

They compared the volume of pro-Trump and pro-Clinton tweets in key battleground states. As the chart above shows, between 1 October and 7 November Trump's popularity in key states on Twitter was greater than most of the traditional polls were suggesting.

It is easy to count the volume of tweets but how do you measure sentiment? The answer is using lots and lots of people.

The company took a sample of 200,000 tweets. These tweets were then checked by a crowd-sourced army logging in from their homes. Their task was simple; when presented with a tweet, decide if it was pro-Trump or pro-Clinton.

Using vast numbers of people is expensive but Jean Pierre Kloppers, the founder of BrandsEye, insists it is a better option than using an algorithm, saying: "Algorithms find it hard to see how people feel. Using humans to read the tweets makes it far more accurate."

For example, says Klopper, an algorithm would find it harder to understand the meaning of a tweet like "I'm supporting Clinton to see her wearing striped pyjamas", whereas a human can detect the irony or sarcasm.

But is social media really a good source of data for predicting how people are going to vote? After all, there are far fewer people on Twitter than in the US electorate so is it really representative? And there are many other social media sites, so only looking at that one platform may not be a true reflection of how people feel.

Tech philosopher Dr Tom Chatfield believes that it can offer valuable insights that are being missed by pollsters.

"Traditional polls are cumbersome and not that data-rich. It is interesting that for all the sophistication of traditional polling, for me the story of the night was seeing political experts have their expectations destroyed across the board.

"It appears polls didn't reflect the passionate mobilisation of emotion of some people. People are less shy on social media than they are on the phone to pollsters."
Artificial Intelligence
It was not only Brandseye that used social media posts to predict the election result.

An Artificial Intelligence system called MogIA called it for Trump as well. According to US TV channel CNBC, MogIA was developed by innovator Sanjiv Rai and has correctly predicted all US elections since 2004.

Mogia measures engagement data from sites like Google, Facebook and Twitter. For example how many people read a Trump tweet or watched a Trump Facebook Live?

However, Mr Rai told CNBC that while it can measure the volume of engagements with a particular candidate, the sentiment of those engagements is not easy for an AI system to analyse - the point made by BrandsEye about using algorithms.
False information
There is also a danger of using social media when a lot of the information on it is unverified.

And as the BBC reported, some of the campaigning for both Trump and Clinton was helped on social media by thousands of automated Twitter accounts.

According to research led by Prof Philip Howard, from the University of Oxford, these so-called bots accounted for about 1.8 million pro-Trump tweets and 613,000 pro-Clinton posts, making it hard to infer public opinion by this method.

Although real humans can try to spot bots, the sheer volume of them suggests it is unlikely they can all be discovered.

And it is worth considering that if measuring social media sentiment becomes a more established way of predicting elections, there will be a great incentive for each side to create bots to give the impression they will win.

Craig Silverman, from social news and entertainment company Buzzfeed, reports that there are groups of teenage boys in the Balkans making money through creating and sharing fake pro-Trump news stories. For each click they get on their story they get money from advertisers on their websites.

Chatfield remarks: "It is concerning for politics that social media platforms are more interested in whether people share than what they share. The world of social media is at right angles to truth. So true or untrue doesn't matter but emotional resonance does matter."

And let's not forget that Michael Moore, The Simpsons and others also got it right.
by Patrick Evans, UGC & Social News team

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Can social media predict election results?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Many of the polls got it wrong when it came to predicting who would be the next president of the United States. After Hillary Clinton had led throughout most of the campaign, she was also ahead in the BBC poll of polls on Tuesday with 48% of the votes to Donald Trump's 44%.

# data[].attributes.headline
Donald Trump and the politics of paranoia

# data[].attributes.subject
Donald Trump and the politics of paranoia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
One startling feature of the latest race to become the next president of the US - which begins in earnest with next week's Iowa caucuses - is the runaway success in the opinion polls of the outspoken billionaire, Donald Trump. But this should not be so surprising, says Michael Goldfarb, as Trump is just the latest example of a tendency in American politics that goes back a very long way.

Fear.

The simple four-letter word that works if you want to get elected. Political professionals know that playing on people's fears - going negative - is the way to win.

Paranoia.

A somewhat fancier word that is used to describe excessive, irrational fear and distrust. It, too, works from time to time - in American politics, at least.

This current presidential season is one of those times. Donald Trump has surged to the front of the pack competing for the Republican Presidential nomination by giving voice to outsized fears many in America have - of illegal immigrants, of Islamic terrorists, of free trade agreements shipping American jobs to China.

Trump promises to make America Great Again - as if the US somehow was no longer the most powerful country in the world - by simple solutions: deporting all 11 million illegal immigrants, banning Muslims from entering the US, and forcing the Chinese government to back down through tough talk.

The phrase "paranoid style in American politics" was coined by the late historian Richard Hofstadter. He defined the Paranoid Style, "an old and recurrent phenomenon in our public life which has been frequently linked with movements of suspicious discontent."

In a country that at its best radiates an infectious optimism, it is interesting how often fear has stalked the American landscape.

Richard Parker, who lectures on religion in the early days of America at Harvard's John F Kennedy School of Government, traces paranoia in American public life back to the Salem Witch Trials in the late 17th Century and even before that, to the religious politics of the Mother Country.

It's easy to forget how closely tied the first colonies were to England, particularly in Massachusetts. The Pilgrims were dissenting Protestants who sided closely with Cromwell in the English Civil War. When the Commonwealth was overthrown and the Stuarts restored to the British throne, there was renewed struggle with Catholicism - and the religious suspicions surrounding the court of James II were magnified out of all proportion on the other side of the Atlantic.

Add in the daily struggles with nature, fighting with native Americans, and millennial religious practice that thought the end times were approaching and you have, Parker points out, "a community primed to be fearful".

And so in the town of Salem, people turned on their more free-thinking neighbours, and accused them of being witches. At this time, the idea of witchcraft was not something from fiction. People really did believe, in Parker's words, "dark spirits could inhabit souls and bodies. It was the basis for primitive psychology and physiology."

He adds that it's no surprise that in 1953, playwright Arthur Miller set his classic drama, The Crucible, in Salem during the witch trials.

The early 1950s was a time of another outbreak of fear in America, this time of communists in high places everywhere including the entertainment industry. There were blacklists of suspected communists and former communists in Hollywood. The House Un-American Activities Committee summoned the famous to Washington to testify against artistic colleagues. Careers were ruined. Miller, summoned by the committee in 1957, refused to name names and had his passport revoked.

Another source of fear that recurs in American history is of the secret society in league with foreign powers. Many of America's first presidents were Freemasons and masonry was closely associated with the French Revolution. Later on the concern was cabals of foreign bankers trying to destroy the American working man's livelihood.

But religion is the playing field for most of these fears.

In the early days of the Republic, Roman Catholics were suspected of being the vanguard of a Papist plot to take over the country. The fact that in the first census, of four million citizens only 25,000 were Catholic didn't matter. In the late 1840s, a huge wave of Catholics fleeing the famine in Ireland only inflamed suspicions.

A new political party was formed, called the Know Nothing party. It grew out of a secret society, whose main creed was anti-Irish immigration. Its members were told to say, if asked about it, "I know nothing." Hence the name.

The next group to be suspect was the Jews, whose great immigration wave came at the turn of the 20th Century. The entire Jewish immigrant population, some of whom were socialists, many of whom came from Russia, became conflated with the Russian Revolution.

By the 1930s, in his weekly radio broadcast, a Catholic priest, Father Charles Coughlin, an Irish Catholic, was whipping up fear about Jews and their "communising the factories and the fields and the mines".

Following World War Two the fear shifted to the Soviet Union. Leaders of the far-right vied with each other to see who could turn up the most Communists. This led Robert Welch, the founder of the ultra-right John Birch Society, to claim that President Dwight D Eisenhower was "a tool of the communists".

Welch was disowned by American conservatives for that assertion, yet his organisation became the foundation of a grassroots political movement that has dominated American politics for the last four decades. In her book, Suburban Warriors, Harvard history professor Lisa McGirr charts the rise of "movement conservatism" in the new suburbs of Orange County California, just south of Los Angeles.

Find out more

Listen to Michael Goldfarb's radio documentary, Trump and the Politics of Paranoia, on BBC Radio 4 at 20:00 on Monday 25 January, or catch up later on the BBC iPlayer.

Many of these conservatives had no problem with the Birch Society's extreme fear-mongering about an imminent Communist takeover of the US. It was observing the growth of this new movement that led Richard Hofstadter to write his seminal 1964 essay, The Paranoid Style. But McGirr disputes the idea that their "apocalyptic strands of thought" were a form of paranoia.

"Hofstadter makes a mistake in presenting an overly psychological, clinical portrait, which has the tendency to lead to a dismissive characterisation of their ideology," she says.

"I think it is linked to religiosity: evangelicalism and fundamentalism which have deep strands in American life," she adds, echoing Richard Parker.

"Hofstadter wanted to write them off but they cannot be written off, they are an important strand of American life which survives to this day."

Writing off Donald Trump was the default setting of most pundits and political professionals in the first months of the campaign. It isn't any more. Trump understood more than they did that a significant chunk of American society is fearful. He plays to those fears - whether they are rational or not. He doesn't speak in what he calls "politically correct" terms.

In South Carolina, recently, I met a gentleman named Robert Sandifer. In his 70s, well-educated and well-off, he had retired to a lovely island just south of Charleston, one of the nicest cities in America.

"Trump has instilled hope in people," Sandifer told me.

"Hope? Sounds to me like desperation," I told him.

Sandifer politely disagreed. "If he does what he says he's gonna do, we would be less fearful." He added, for emphasis: "We fear the federal government very much."

More from the Magazine

Donald Trump is the frontrunner in the Republican race to be the presidential nominee for next year's election. What are his policies and beliefs?
22 things Donald Trump believes (Dec 2015) Michael Goldfarb Subscribe to the BBC News Magazine's email newsletter to get articles sent to your inbox. is the author of Emancipation: How Liberating Europe's Jews from the Ghetto led to Revolution and Renaissance.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Donald Trump and the politics of paranoia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
One startling feature of the latest race to become the next president of the US - which begins in earnest with next week's Iowa caucuses - is the runaway success in the opinion polls of the outspoken billionaire, Donald Trump.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Americans are generally known for having a positive outlook on life, but with the countdown for November's presidential election now well under way, polls show voters are angry. This may explain the success of non-mainstream candidates such as Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Bernie Sanders. But what is fuelling the frustration?

A CNN/ORC poll carried out in December 2015 suggests 69% of Americans are either "very angry" or "somewhat angry" about "the way things are going" in the US.

And the same proportion - 69% - are angry because the political system "seems to only be working for the insiders with money and power, like those on Wall Street or in Washington," according to a NBC/Wall Street Journal poll from November.

Many people are not only angry, they are angrier than they were a year ago, according to an NBC/Esquire survey last month - particularly Republicans (61%) and white people (54%) but also 42% of Democrats, 43% of Latinos and 33% of African Americans.

Candidates have sensed the mood and are adopting the rhetoric. Donald Trump, who has arguably tapped into voters' frustration better than any other candidate, says he is "very, very angry" and will "gladly accept the mantle of anger" while rival Republican Ben Carson says he has encountered "many Americans who are discouraged and angry as they watch the American dream slipping away".

Democratic presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders says: "I am angry and millions of Americans are angry," while Hillary Clinton says she "understands why people get angry".

Here are five reasons why some voters feel the American dream is in tatters.

1. Economy

"The failure of the economy to deliver real progress to middle-class and working-class Americans over the past 15 years is the most fundamental source of public anger and disaffection in the US," says William Galston, an expert in governance studies at the Brookings Institution think tank.

Although the country may have recovered from the recession - economic output has rebounded and unemployment rates have fallen from 10% in 2009 to 5% in 2015 - Americans are still feeling the pinch in their wallets. Household incomes have, generally speaking, been stagnant for 15 years. In 2014, the median household income was $53,657, according to the US Census Bureau - compared with $57,357 in 2007 and $57,843 in 1999 (adjusted for inflation).

There is also a sense that many jobs are of lower quality and opportunity is dwindling, says Galston. "The search for explanations can very quickly degenerate into the identification of villains in American politics. On the left it is the billionaires, the banks, and Wall Street. On the right it is immigrants, other countries taking advantage of us and the international economy - they are two sides of the same political coin."

2. Immigration

America's demographics are changing - nearly 59 million immigrants have arrived in the US since 1965, not all of whom entered the country legally. Forty years ago, 84% of the American population was made up of non-Hispanic white people - by last year the figure was 62%, according to Pew Research. It projects this trend will continue, and by 2055 non-Hispanic white people will make up less than half the population. Pew expects them to account for only 46% of the population by 2065. By 2055, more Asians than any other ethnic group are expected to move to US.

"It's been an era of huge demographic, racial, cultural, religious and generational change," says Paul Taylor, author of The Next America. "While some celebrate these changes, others deplore them. Some older, whiter voters do not recognise the country they grew up in. There is a sense of alien tribes," he says.

The US currently has 11.3 million illegal immigrants. Migrants often become a target of anger, says Roberto Suro, an immigration expert at the University of Southern California. "There is a displacement of anxiety and they become the face of larger sources of tensions, such as terrorism, jobs and dissatisfaction. We saw that very clearly when Donald Trump switched from [complaining about] Mexicans to Muslims without skipping a beat after San Bernardino," he says, referring to the shooting in California in December that left 14 people dead.

3. Washington

When asked if they trust the government, 89% of Republicans and 72% of Democrats say "only sometimes" or "never", according to Pew Research. Six out of 10 Americans think the government has too much power, a survey by Gallup suggests, while the government has been named as the top problem in the US for two years in a row - above issues such as the economy, jobs and immigration, according to the organisation.

The gridlock on Capitol Hill and the perceived impotence of elected officials has led to resentment among 20 to 30% of voters, says polling expert Karlyn Bowman, from the American Enterprise Institute. "People see politicians fighting and things not getting done - plus the responsibilities of Congress have grown significantly since the 1970s and there is simply more to criticise. People feel more distant from their government and sour on it," she says.

William Galston thinks part of the appeal of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders is down to frustration with what some see as a failing system. "So on the right you have someone who is running as a 'strong man', a Berlusconi and Putin, who will get things done, and on the left you have someone who is rejecting incrementalism and calling for a political revolution," he says.

Ted Cruz, who won the Republican caucuses in Iowa, is also running as an anti-establishment candidate. "Tonight is a victory for every American who's watched in dismay as career politicians in Washington in both parties refuse to listen and too often fail to keep their commitments to the people," he said on Monday night.

4. America's place in the world

America is used to being seen as a superpower but the number of Americans that think the US "stands above all other countries in the world" went from 38% in 2012 to 28% in 2014, Pew Research suggests. Seventy percent of Americans also think the US is losing respect internationally, according to a 2013 poll by the centre.

"For a country that is used to being on top of the world, the last 15 years haven't been great in terms of foreign policy. There's a feeling of having been at war since 9/11 that's never really gone away, a sense America doesn't know what it wants and that things aren't going our way," says Roberto Suro. The rise of China, the failure to defeat the Taliban and the slow progress in the fight against the so-called Islamic State group has contributed to the anxiety.

Americans are also more afraid of the prospect of terrorist attacks than at any time since 9/11, according to a New York Times/CBS poll. The American reaction to the San Bernardino shooting was different to the French reaction to the Paris attacks, says Galston. "Whereas the French rallied around the government, Americans rallied against it. There is an impression that the US government is failing in its most basic obligation to keep country and people safe."

5. Divided nation

Democrats and Republicans have become more ideologically polarised than ever. The typical (median), Republican is now more conservative in his or her core social, economic and political views than 94% of Democrats, compared with 70% in 1994, according to Pew Research. The median Democrat, meanwhile, is more liberal than 92% of Republicans, up from 64%.

The study also found that the share of Americans with a highly negative view of the opposing party has doubled, and that the animosity is so deep, many would be unhappy if a close relative married someone of a different political persuasion.

This polarisation makes reaching common ground on big issues such as immigration, healthcare and gun control more complicated. The deadlock is, in turn, angering another part of the electorate. "Despite this rise in polarisation in America, a large mass in the middle are pragmatic. They aren't totally disengaged, they don't want to see Washington gridlocked, but they roll their eyes at the nature of this discourse," says Paul Taylor. This group includes a lot of young people and tends to eschew party labels. "If they voted," he says, "they could play an important part of the election."

five words which tell us what the election says about today's America.
Subscribe to the BBC News Magazine's email newsletter to get articles sent to your inbox.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Americans are generally known for having a positive outlook on life, but with the countdown for November's presidential election now well under way, polls show voters are angry. This may explain the success of non-mainstream candidates such as Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Bernie Sanders. But what is fuelling the frustration?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In the United States, newspapers take their responsibilities to the democratic process very seriously.

So seriously, in fact, that they can come across as rather pompous to a British reader. When it comes to a presidential election they seem to believe that their endorsements are of huge significance and that their words will be weighed with utmost seriousness by their readers.

Well now we know how wrong that is because just about every major newspaper either backed Hillary Clinton or at least failed to endorse Donald Trump - and that went for papers who had faithfully swung behind Republican candidates in the past.

Now both the newspapers and the rest of the mainstream media are waking up to the fact that their influence may be as nothing compared with that of Facebook.

In 1992, a British tabloid newspaper claimed that it was "the Sun wot won it" when the Conservatives pulled off a surprise election victory. In the United States, some are asking whether the social network pulled off the same trick for Mr Trump.

The argument goes like this. A total of 156 million Americans are Facebook members and, according to recent research, two-thirds of them get news on the site.

Now that news may often come from mainstream media outlets - perhaps from papers endorsing Mrs Clinton - but what you end up seeing will be determined by who your friends are and what they share.

That's where the idea of a filter bubble comes into play - those inclined to vote for Mr Trump will only see stories that reflect their view of the world and the same will apply to those of a liberal mindset.

Now you could say the same filtering has always applied - liberal people tended to read liberal newspapers, conservatives got their views reflected back in what they read.

The difference was that most editors have tried to do two things - present at least some alternative views and make sure that the facts in any story stand up to scrutiny.

Neither applies on Facebook. The News Feed algorithm serves you up whatever it thinks you and your friends want to believe and it certainly does not do any fact-checking.

Stories that accused the Clintons of murder or maintained that Barack Obama was a Muslim will have cropped up in the feeds of millions of people inclined to support Mr Trump.

This cuts both ways - a made-up quote from Mr Trump saying in 1998 that he might one day run as a Republican because "they're the dumbest group of voters in the country" is still being widely shared on social media by his opponents.

Both the Democrats and Republicans have long made ample use of Facebook - indeed it was the Obama campaign of 2008 that pioneered the use of social media in elections.

But for a Trump campaign that saw much of the mainstream media as hostile and biased, both Facebook and Twitter offered a powerful way of getting its message direct to voters unchallenged by any pesky journalists.

If Facebook or something similar had not existed, would Donald Trump still be heading for the White House?

That is hard to say but what does seem likely is that social media served to polarise views in what was already a bitter election and may have encouraged a few hesitant voters to come out for Mr Trump.

This makes Facebook's claims that it just a technology platform, rather than a hugely powerful media company with Mark Zuckerberg as editor-in-chief, look very thin indeed. But there are few signs that the company is ready to face up to this heavy responsibility or engage in some serious soul-searching.

On Wednesday, my colleague Jane Wakefield went to meet the company's chief technology officer Mike Schroepfer, who was on a visit to London. She asked him what role he thought social media had played.

Here is his extraordinarily unilluminating response: "It's hard to speculate. Our angle is that people can communicate and share what they want to talk about - that's what our endgame is."

Mind you, the editor-in-chief has shared some thoughts.

In a Facebook post adorned with a "feeling hopeful" emoji and a photo of him holding his baby daughter as he watched election coverage, Mr Zuckerberg told us that he'd been thinking about "all the work ahead of us to create the world we want for our children".

That apparently means "curing all disease, improving education, connecting everyone and promoting equal opportunity" and that will take a long time, and stretch beyond any presidency.

It was all very Californian, but the comment writers seemed to love it. "Thank you for your awesome comments and for being socially responsible leveraging your influence for good," was a typical response.

But no word of reflection from Mr Zuckerberg on how he had "leveraged" his influence over the way Americans understood the presidential campaign and whether its impact had been positive for the democratic process.

Media barons from William Randolph Hearst to Rupert Murdoch have sought to shape politics to their will. But they have revelled in their powers.

Mr Zuckerberg seems determined to pretend he is no more or less influential than any of his 1.6 billion readers sitting in front of the TV and watching the world change.
Read more: What Trump means for tech View from shell-shocked Silicon Valley New Zealand immigration site's traffic surges Obama to welcome Trump to White House

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In the United States, newspapers take their responsibilities to the democratic process very seriously. So seriously, in fact, that they can come across as rather pompous to a British reader. When it comes to a presidential election they seem to believe that their endorsements are of huge significance and that their words will be weighed with utmost seriousness by their readers.

# data[].attributes.headline
Hilary Clinton and The US Election : what went wrong with her ?

# data[].attributes.subject
Hilary Clinton and The US Election : what went wrong with her ?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This election, surely the most extraordinary in American history, was a revolt against the political establishment.

And few people personify the political establishment more than Hillary Clinton. During this campaign, for millions of angry voters, she became the face of America's broken politics.

Donald Trump managed to persuade enough voters in enough states that he offered a fix. The billionaire cast himself successfully as the ultimate outsider against the ultimate insider. He was the protest candidate. She represented the status quo.

Full results

Five ways the world could change

Five reasons Donald Trump won

An astonishing new chapter in US history

What will President Trump do first?

The hotel developer who became president

Constantly, Hillary Clinton claimed that she was the most qualified candidate. Constantly, she recited her curriculum vitae - her experience as first lady, a US senator for New York, a secretary of state.

But in this mad-as-hell election, where there was so much rage and discontent, Donald Trump's supporters saw experience and qualifications as huge negatives. So many people I spoke to during this campaign - especially in the old steel towns of the Rust Belt - wanted a businessman in the White House rather than a career politician. Their hatred of Washington was palpable.

So, too, was their hatred of her. It was visceral. I vividly remember talking to a middle-aged woman in Tennessee, who oozed southern charm, who could not have been more polite. But when the subject of Hillary Clinton came up her whole demeanour changed.

Hillary Clinton has long had a trust problem, which is why the email scandal loomed so large. She had an authenticity problem. She was seen as the high priestess of an east coast elite that looked down, sneeringly, on working people.

The vast riches that the Clintons accumulated since leaving the White House did not help. The former first couple were seen not just as limousine liberals but Lear Jet liberals. Again, their wealth exacerbated her problems with working class voters, even though they happily voted for a property tycoon.

In a country where millions more women vote than men, it was thought that her gender would give her a major advantage. But what became clear in the primaries against her rival Bernie Sanders was how hard she found it to enthuse young women voters especially about electing the country's first female president, and shattering the most resilient glass ceiling in global politics.

Many women never warmed to her. Some remembered what were interpreted as disparaging remarks made when she was first lady about not wanting to stay at home making cookies. When Donald Trump accused her of enabling her husband's affairs, and of attacking the women who accused Bill Clinton of molesting them, many women nodded in agreement.

Doubtless, old-fashioned, unreconstructed sexism played a part too: the refusal of many male voters to countenance a female president.

In a year when so many Americans wanted change, she appeared to offer more of the same. It's always hard for a party to win three successive terms in the White House. The Democrats have not done it since the 1940s. But that problem was exacerbated by the fact that so many voters were bored with the Clintons.

Hillary Clinton is not a natural campaigner. Her speeches are often flat and somewhat robotic. Her sound-bites sound like sound-bites - prefabricated and, to some ears, insincere. The re-emergence of the email scandal was a huge distraction, and meant that she ended her campaign on a negative message.

She struggled always to neatly encapsulate her vision of America again. "Stronger together" was never as snappy as "Make America great again." Indeed, the Clinton campaign went through dozens of possible slogans, which spoke of her difficulties in crafting a message.

Her campaign also made tactical errors. It focused resources and time on states she didn't need to win, such as North Carolina and Ohio, rather than spending time shoring up the famed blue wall, those 18 states that have voted Democrat for the past six elections.

Mr Trump, with the help of white working class voters, partly demolished that wall by taking Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, a state that hasn't gone Republican since 1984.

This was not just a rejection of Hillary Clinton but also a rejection by half of the country of Barack Obama's America, but that is a piece for another day.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This election, surely the most extraordinary in American history, was a revolt against the political establishment. And few people personify the political establishment more than Hillary Clinton. During this campaign, for millions of angry voters, she became the face of America's broken politics.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Donald Trump has defied all expectations from the very start of his presidential campaign more than a year ago.

Very few people thought he would actually run, then he did. They thought he wouldn't climb in the polls, then he did. They said he wouldn't win any primaries, then he did. They said he wouldn't win the Republican nomination, then he did.

Finally, they said there was no way he could compete for, let alone win, a general election.

Now he's President-elect Trump.

Here are five ways he pulled off what was unexpected by most and incomprehensible to many.

Trump's white wave

Toss-ups were tossed aside. One after another, Ohio, Florida and North Carolina went to Mr Trump.

That left Mrs Clinton's blue firewall, and the firewall was eventually breached.

The Democrat's last stand largely rested on her strength in the Midwest. Those were states that had gone Democrat for decades, based in part on the support of black and working-class white voters.

Those working-class white people, particularly ones without college education - men and women - deserted the party in droves. Rural voters turned out in high numbers, as the Americans who felt overlooked by the establishment and left behind by the coastal elite made their voices heard.

While places like Virginia and Colorado held fast, Wisconsin fell - and with it Mrs Clinton's presidential hopes.

When all is said and done, Mrs Clinton may end up winning the popular vote on the back of strong support in places like California and New York and closer-than-expected losses in solid-red states like Utah.

The Trump wave hit in the places it had to, however. And it hit hard.

Teflon Donald

Mr Trump insulted decorated war veteran John McCain.

He picked a fight with Fox News and its popular presenter, Megyn Kelly.

He doubled down when asked how he once mocked the weight of a Hispanic beauty pageant winner.

He offered a half-hearted apology when the secret video surfaced of his boasting about making unwanted sexual advances towards women.

He gaffed his way through the three presidential debates with clearly lightly practised performances.

None of it mattered. While he took dips in the polls following some of the more outrageous incidents, his approval was like a cork - eventually bouncing back to the surface.

Perhaps the various controversies came so hard and fast that none had time to draw blood. Maybe Mr Trump's personality and appeal was so strong, the scandals just bounced off. Whatever the reason, he was bulletproof.

The outsider

He ran against the Democrats. He also ran against the powers within his own party.

He beat them all.

Mr Trump built a throne of skulls out of his Republican primary opponents. Some, like Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Chris Christie and Ben Carson, eventually bent knee. The holdouts, like Jeb Bush and Ohio Governor John Kasich, are now on the outside of their party looking in.

And for the rest of the party insiders, from House Speaker Paul Ryan on down? Mr Trump didn't need their help - and, in fact, may have won because he was willing to take a stand against them.

Mr Trump's pox-on-them-all attitude is likely to have proved his independence and outsider status at a time when much of the American public reviled Washington (although not enough to keep them from re-electing most congressional incumbents running for re-election).

It was a mood some other national politicians sensed - Democrat Bernie Sanders, for instance, as well as Mr Cruz. No one, however, captured it more than Trump, and it won him the White House.

The Comey Factor

The polls clearly did a woeful job predicting the shape and preferences of the electorate, particularly in Midwestern states. In the final days of the campaign, however, the reality is that the polls were close enough that Mr Trump had a pathway to victory.

That pathway didn't look nearly as obvious about two weeks ago, before FBI director James Comey released his letter announcing that they were reopening their investigation into Hillary Clinton's private email server.

True, the polls were tightening a bit, but Mr Trump's sharpest rise in the standings came in the weeks between that first letter and Mr Comey's second, in which he said he had put the investigation back on the shelf.

It seems likely that during that period, Mr Trump was able to successfully consolidate his base, bringing wayward conservatives back into the fold and shredding Mrs Clinton's hopes of offering a compelling closing message to US voters.

Of course, Mr Comey's actions never would have been a factor if Mrs Clinton had decided to rely on State Department email servers for her work correspondence. That one is on her shoulders.

Trusted his instincts

Mr Trump ran the most unconventional of political campaigns, but it turned out he knew better than all the experts.

He spent more on hats than on pollsters. He travelled to states like Wisconsin and Michigan that pundits said were out of reach.

He held massive rallies instead of focusing on door-knocking and get-out-the-vote operations.

He had a disjointed, sometimes chaotic national political convention that was capped by an acceptance speech that was more doom-and-gloom than any in modern US political history.

He was vastly outspent by the Clinton campaign, just as he was during the Republican primaries. He turned consensus wisdom about how to win the presidency on its head.

All of these decisions - and many more - were roundly ridiculed in "knowledgeable" circles.

In the end, however, they worked. Mr Trump and his closest confidants - his children and a few chosen advisers - will have the last laugh. And they'll do it from the White House.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Donald Trump has defied all expectations from the very start of his presidential campaign more than a year ago. Very few people thought he would actually run, then he did. They thought he wouldn't climb in the polls, then he did. They said he wouldn't win any primaries, then he did.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The imminent Trump presidency throws up a hundred column ideas a day. So I feel I'm not done here yet. But one of the questions I keep returning to is this: Will he do what he said he would do? And is that a good thing or a bad thing?

It is, it's fair to say, an unusual predicament to be in as a journalist. Normally, holding our elected officials to account means ensuring they stick to their pledges.

That's why we have manifestos. We make them write things down.

Occasionally the written word just isn't enough. In the not too far distant past, lived a man named Ed Miliband who thought it so essential to be believed that he committed his promises to rock, and like Moses - or should I perhaps say God - had them hewn in a stone so hefty it could not appear before assembled crowds without provoking a communal convulsion of laughter.

This time round we may have Mr Snapchat himself. There is a clear statement of intent ("lock her up", "build a wall") - a defined image - and then it sort of disappears before your eyes. He may be something of a builder in his business dealings, but he is less keen on the use of stone as a metaphor for promises in which to set things.

And the question for me - for us - the journalists/liberal elite/people who "don't get it" is this: Is our job now to hold to account a president who might have been peddling abrasive, divisive policies to get himself elected? Policies he himself may have no real intention of enacting?

When I have asked this question recently to Trump Supporters On Telly (TSOT), they have all, to a person, thrown one name back at me - Peter Thiel. Why? Because he gave Trump - and his surrogates - a linguistic get out clause. And they're exploiting it to the full.

Thiel, you might remember, is a Trump backer - openly gay, pragmatic - with a central role in bringing the Gawker website to its financial knees. He's now on Trump's transition team. It was his speech to the National Press Club they quote now:

"The media has always taken Trump literally. It never takes him seriously, but it always takes him literally... Voters who vote for Trump take Trump seriously but not literally."

When you stop and think about it for a second, it's genius. It means, in essence, you have to define "nuance" in what Trump says. Now there's a thought.

Ann Coulter bent my ear the night before the election: "When Trump says millions of Muslims celebrated in America on 9/11 he doesn't literally mean millions but he does mean lots."

"Is that ok?" I asked. Her point is that Trump tries to make his point with what we might kindly call truthful exaggeration. His whole life's work has been predicated on this.

A few years ago when I interviewed him for a documentary, he told me his was the biggest ballroom in New York. We looked it up. It isn't. It seemed an odd thing to base a character assassination on. So we moved on. But now I think about it, the seeds were there.

As they are in the numbering of his buildings. Trump Towers has 58 floors. Yet the top floors - his penthouse - are numbered 66-68. It's his building. He can number them in any order he wants, I suppose. He could do the whole thing in binary and it would only be faintly eccentric.

My point is this: when someone fudges the little things, no-one is quite sure how to read the big things. What if it wasn't a million Muslims celebrating. What if it was seven. Does anyone in his crowd care? Probably not. What if he wants to build a wall and do some of it using a fence? Does anyone in his crowd care? Probably not.

Yesterday we heard Obama confirm Trump told him personally he would maintain a strong commitment to Nato. That's the Nato Trump described as obsolete during the campaign. The one whose basic premise of mutual defence he has threatened to ignore.

So if Trump rows back on everything he previously said, should we quietly suck it up and make no trouble? After all, if his voters are so much better than us at working out the difference between "the serious and the literal" maybe it shouldn't matter?

The biggest problem with the Snapchat policy president might come, I'd guess, from the Republican Party itself. I heard his opponents on the primary campaign trail - the ideas coming from Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio were far more radical and right than many of those Trump uttered. The Republicans hold all the power now. They can do whatever they choose for two years at least.

Funny - that may end up being Trump's biggest problem of all.
Emily Maitlis presented BBC Newsnight's coverage of the US presidential election. You can follow her on Twitter, watch more of her reports, or read more from her on her blog.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The imminent Trump presidency throws up a hundred column ideas a day. So I feel I'm not done here yet. But one of the questions I keep returning to is this: Will he do what he said he would do? And is that a good thing or a bad thing?

# data[].attributes.headline
Donald Trump and Barack Obama meet at the White House

# data[].attributes.subject
Donald Trump and Barack Obama meet at the White House

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
US President-elect Donald Trump has said it was a "great honour" to meet President Barack Obama for transition talks at the White House.

Mr Obama said he was "encouraged" by their "excellent" and "wide-ranging" conversation, lasting over an hour.

During the election campaign, Mr Trump vowed to dismantle Mr Obama's legacy and he has previously questioned his US citizenship.

Mr Obama, meanwhile, had called Mr Trump "uniquely unqualified".

Five awkward photos of Trump meeting Obama

President Trump's possible cabinet

Trump presidency: Questions answered

But following Mr Trump's shock defeat of Hillary Clinton in Tuesday's election, Mr Obama appealed for national unity and said he was "rooting" for him.

After Thursday's behind-closed-doors meeting in the White House, Mr Obama said: "My number one priority in the coming two months is to try to facilitate a transition that ensures our president-elect is successful."

He said they had discussed domestic and foreign policy and he had been "very encouraged" by Mr Trump's interest in working with President Obama's team on issues facing the US.

Mr Trump said he would "very much look forward" to dealing with President Obama in future.

"I have great respect, the meeting lasted for almost an hour and a half, and it could've, as far as I'm concerned, it could've gone on for a lot longer," the president-elect said.

"We discussed a lot of different situations - some wonderful and some difficulties."

White House spokesman Josh Earnest said the two men did not resolve their differences but "the meeting might have been at least a little less awkward than some might have expected".

"President Obama came away from the meeting with renewed confidence in the commitment of the president-elect to engage in an effective, smooth transition," he said.

Mr Trump flew from New York on his private jet and landed at Reagan National Airport, just outside the nation's capital.

The president-elect was accompanied by his wife, Melania, who had a meeting with First Lady Michelle Obama.

He, along with Vice-President-elect Mike Pence, then met Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan, saying they "can't get started fast enough, whether it's healthcare or immigration".

Mr Ryan described it as a "fantastic, productive meeting".

President Obama congratulated his successor in a phone call in the early hours of Wednesday.

The defeated Mrs Clinton also told supporters Mr Trump had to be given a "chance to lead".

What will President Trump do first?

Six ways the world could change

What went wrong for Hillary Clinton?

A Democratic Party in disarray

Should anyone worry about Trump victory?

Despite appeals for unity, thousands took to the streets of major US cities on Wednesday. Many chanted: "Not my president."

Sixty-five people were arrested in New York, while shop windows were smashed and missiles hurled at riot police during demonstrations in Oakland, California.

In Chicago, crowds blocked the entrance to Trump Tower, chanting: "No Trump, No KKK, No Fascists USA", and a mass anti-Trump rally shut down the key 101 freeway in Los Angeles.

Mr Obama and Mr Trump have a history of mutual hostility.

Mr Trump led the charge in challenging the legitimacy of Mr Obama's presidency through the "birther" movement, which falsely claimed the Hawaii-born commander-in-chief was actually born outside the US.

The businessman also called Mr Obama "the worst president in the history of the United States".

For his part, the president famously skewered Mr Trump in person at the 2011 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner, which some have suggested may have spurred the New York billionaire to seek revenge.
Analysis
Donald Trump launched himself onto the national political stage by questioning Barack Obama's US citizenship and eligibility to be president.

Mr Obama spent the last few months of the 2016 presidential election assailing Mr Trump's fitness to occupy the nation's highest office.

Now they've met for the first time ever - as president and president-elect. Talk about awkward.

Although both candidates played nice in their Oval Office get-together, there's no denying that the two men present a clear contrast in manner and style.

In the past, the American public has displayed a tendency to seek qualities in their next president that the current occupant of the Oval Office is perceived to lack. Contrast George W Bush's board-room manner with Bill Clinton's improvisational chaos or Jimmy Carter's squeaky clean reputation after Richard Nixon's Machiavellian manoeuvres.

In this case, they have opted for Mr Trump's blunt talk and bombast after Mr Obama's detached professorial coolness.

Although it wasn't on display this morning in the White House, Inauguration Day could provide a severe case of presidential personality whiplash.

With the Republicans now holding a majority in both chambers of the US Congress, Mr Trump can more easily target key Obama initiatives like such as his healthcare reforms.

Mr Trump is already setting up bilaterals ahead of his January inauguration as the nation's 45th US president.

The office of British Prime Minister Theresa May said on Thursday that the president-elect had invited her in a phone call to visit him "as soon as possible".

Ms May's office said in a statement that Mr Trump had praised the trans-Atlantic "special relationship" while discussing his "close and personal connections" with the UK.

Mr Trump has family and business ties to Scotland.

The president-elect's transition team for the 10-week period until inauguration will be led by Chris Christie, Governor of New Jersey.

Mr Trump, who has never held elected office, has said his immediate priorities will be restoring the country's infrastructure and doubling its economic growth.

How Trump won in maps

Who voted for Trump?

Trump victory: World's press asks - what now?

As president-elect, he is entitled to get the same daily intelligence briefing as President Obama, which includes information on covert US operations and other data gathered by America's 17 intelligence agencies.

Mr Trump's team is understood to be focused on quickly filling key national security posts.

It is not yet clear who will sit his cabinet or fill senior posts in his administration, such as chief of staff, but several figures in his inner circle have been mentioned.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
US President-elect Donald Trump has said it was a "great honour" to meet President Barack Obama for transition talks at the White House. Mr Obama said he was "encouraged" by their "excellent" and "wide-ranging" conversation, lasting over an hour. During the election campaign, Mr Trump vowed to dismantle Mr Obama's legacy and he has previously questioned his US citizenship.

# data[].attributes.headline
Who voted for Trump ? Not young people...

# data[].attributes.subject
Who voted for Trump ? Not young people...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It was older people and white voters who took Donald Trump to victory, exit poll data from Edison Research shows.
Over half of 18-29 year olds (55%) who took part in a national exit poll voted for Democrat candidate Hillary Clinton, while 37% of the younger age group voted for Donald Trump.

The older the voter, the more likely they were to vote for the Republican candidate. 42% of 30-44 year old respondents voted for the businessman and reality TV star, along with 53% of over 45 and over 65 year old voters. Among white respondents of all ages, 58% voted for the 70-year-old billionaire.

The wealthy real estate developer stunned much of the world on Wednesday when he defeated his rival Hillary Clinton, one of the most experienced candidates to run for the office of president. He will formally become president after a ceremony at the White House in January 2017.

So who are the voters behind his success?

It will take time for all the voter data to be officially collated by America's Census Bureau. But in the meantime, an exit poll based on a national poll of 24,537 voters by Edison Research is our best bet. The survey by Edison Research is based on responses from voters spread across 350 polling stations across the United States as well as 4,398 phone interviews of early voters.

With nearly 219 million Americans registered to vote, this exit poll relies on a very small sample and doesn't pretend to be totally accurate. But it still offers a revealing look at some of the key trends of what kind of voters supported which candidate.

Race

When it comes to race, white people of all ages, and both men and women, were more likely to vote for the Republican candidate: an estimated 70% of respondents were white, and of these, 58% voted for Donald Trump. Among non-white voters, who make up around 30% of the survey respondents, just 21% voted for Donald Trump, with 74% voting for Hillary.

Despite his pledge to build a wall between the United States and Mexico, 29% of Hispanic voters chose Donald Trump at the ballot box, a higher proportion than voted for Republican candidate Mitt Romney in 2012. Black voters made up 12% of the respondent group, and of those, just 8% chose Donald Trump, compared with 88% who voted for Hillary Clinton.

Income

Although many analysts said that Donald Trump appealed to the working classes, the exit poll shows that voters earning less than $30,000, or between $30,000 and $49,000, voted for Hillary Clinton: just 41% of this group within the respondents voted for Donald Trump.

Half of voters earning over $50,000 voted for Donald Trump, but once earnings reached over $100,000, voters were only marginally more in favour of Donald Trump than Hillary Clinton.

Education

During the presidential election campaign, polls suggested that the longer someone stayed in education, the more likely they were to be against Donald Trump. It didn't make as much of a difference to voters' opinions as was predicted, when you look at this group as a whole.

Of those who didn't continue education after school, or who left school early, 51% of respondents voted for the 70 year old billionaire. He only secured the votes of 45% of college graduates and 37% of postgraduate students, who were more likely to vote for Hillary Clinton.

But when you break it down by gender, 54% of male college graduates voted for Trump, compared to 51% of their female counterparts, who voted for Hillary Clinton.

When it comes to white voters without a college degree, a massive 67% of voters voted for the future president of the USA.
Find us on Instagram at BBCNewsbeat and follow us on Snapchat, search for bbc_newsbeat

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Who voted for Trump? Not young people, say exit polls

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It was older people and white voters who took Donald Trump to victory, exit poll data from Edison Research shows. Over half of 18-29 year olds (55%) who took part in a national exit poll voted for Democrat candidate Hillary Clinton, while 37% of the younger age group voted for Donald Trump.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
58% of white voters - 37% backed Clinton

8% of black voters - 88% voted for Clinton

29% of Hispanics - 65% supported Clinton

EPA

Donald Trump has beaten Hillary Clinton in the race to be president of the United States.

Much of the narrative ahead of the election had been that Mr Trump was supported by angry, white men. To get an insight into which groups actually voted for him, you can look at the exit poll conducted across the country by Edison Research for the National Election Pool, a consortium of ABC News, The Associated Press, CBS News, CNN, Fox News and NBC News.

It is very difficult to get a genuinely representative sample of how more than 120 million people have voted. It is a big survey - of almost 25,000 voters - and they are the best figures available, but they should be used with caution.

It throws up some odd results, such as that 10% of people who support the idea of a wall along the Mexican border nonetheless voted for Mrs Clinton, while 5% of people who thought the next president should continue the policies of Barack Obama voted for Mr Trump.

Bear in mind that the proportions are unlikely to add up to 100%, because not everybody answered all the questions and there were other candidates standing in the election, who received about 5% of the votes.

The poll suggests that 53% of men voted for Mr Trump, with 41% voting for Mrs Clinton - those proportions are almost exactly reversed for women.

Among white voters (who made up 70% of voters), Mr Trump won 58% to Mrs Clinton's 37%, while the Democratic candidate won the support of a huge majority of black voters - 88% to Mr Trump's 8% - and Hispanic voters - 65% to his 29%.

Looking specifically at white women, they favoured Mr Trump, with 53% supporting him compared with 43% for Mrs Clinton.

It has been widely reported that the 29% of Hispanic voters who supported Mr Trump was greater than the 27% who voted for the Republican candidate Mitt Romney in 2012, despite Mr Trump's comments about Mexicans and plans to build a wall on the US's southern border.

Mrs Clinton had the majority of voters on lower incomes, with 52% of those on incomes below $50,000 (£40,000) a year supporting her compared with 41% voting for her opponent. Among those earning more than $50,000, it was 49% to Mr Trump compared with 47% to Mrs Clinton.

Mrs Clinton's support among those on incomes below $30,000 was well down on President Obama's in 2012. He had 63% support from that group compared with 35% voting for Mitt Romney, while Mrs Clinton had 53% support to Mr Trump's 41%.

There was also a big swing for voters without a high school diploma, with Mr Trump leading 51% to Mrs Clinton's 45%. Four years ago, President Obama had 64% support from this group compared with Mitt Romney's 35%.

Mr Trump won the rural vote by 62% to 34% and the suburban vote by 50% to 45%, while Mrs Clinton won the urban vote by 59% to 35%.

And he had a clear majority among those aged 45 and over, while Mrs Clinton was more popular with younger voters.

There were stories before the election of Republicans planning to vote for Mrs Clinton because they did not like their own candidate, but the exit poll actually suggested that 7% of people who identified themselves as Republicans had voted for Mrs Clinton, while 9% of those who identified as Democrats had voted for Mr Trump.

Of people who gave their opinion of the candidate they voted for, 41% strongly favoured them, 32% had reservations and 25% said they disliked the opponents.

Also among the slightly odd findings of the poll, 18% of respondents who felt that Mr Trump was not qualified to be president nonetheless voted for him, as did 20% of those who felt he did not have the necessary temperament.

And 2% of respondents who said they would feel scared if Mr Trump won, still voted for him, compared with 1% who voted for Mrs Clinton, despite saying they would be scared if she won.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Reality Check: Who voted for Donald Trump?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
58% of white voters - 37% backed Clinton 8% of black voters - 88% voted for Clinton 29% of Hispanics - 65% supported Clinton EPA Donald Trump has beaten Hillary Clinton in the race to be president of the United States.

# data[].attributes.headline
Trump's promises before and after the election

# data[].attributes.subject
Trump's promises before and after the election

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It's been four years since Donald Trump made a string of promises during his long 2016 campaign to be the 45th president of the United States. Four years later, his supporters often cite "promises made, promises kept" as a reason why they're backing him again.
Many of them made headlines - from banning all Muslims entering the US, to building a border wall paid for by Mexico.

But others went a little under the radar, like his pledge to eliminate the national debt.

So how has he done in keeping his promises?

Tax cuts

Before election: Trump promised to lower the corporate tax rate and bring in huge tax cuts for working Americans.

After: The Republican tax plan passed in December 2017, and it largely ticks the box for the president although its merits are hotly disputed. He has had to compromise on his pledge to bring corporation tax down from 35% to 15% (it will be 21% instead).

And the tax cuts for individuals will expire, although Republicans say future governments will simply renew them. But wealthy Americans are expected to benefit more than poorer ones.

Not everyone saw their taxes lowered. For some higher earners in urbanised, mostly Democratic states, taxes went up due to a cap on state and local property and income tax deductions.

Paris climate deal

Before: As a candidate, Mr Trump derided climate change as a hoax concocted by China, and the regulations of Paris as stifling to American growth.

After: After three months of hemming and hawing behind the closed doors of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, the president came down decisively on the side near the exits. Quitting the Paris deal, signed by nearly 200 countries, is unequivocally a promise kept. The exit officially takes effect 4 November, the day after the US election.

Reshaping the judiciary

Before: "I am looking for judges and have actually picked 20 of them. They'll respect the Second Amendment and what it stands for and what it represents."

After: He vowed to appoint a conservative justice and he has appointed two - Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.

Mr Gorsuch's appointment required a procedural change to Senate rules, but it was Mr Kavanaugh's appointment that was particularly controversial.

Mr Kavanaugh faced sexual assault allegations - which he denied - and was eventually voted through by 50-48 - the tightest nomination vote since 1881.

What's more, his third nominee, Amy Coney Barrett, is on course to be confirmed. If approved by the Republican-controlled Senate, she could ensure a conservative majority on the Supreme Court for decades to come.

In addition to making his mark on the top court, Mr Trump has appointed nearly 200 conservative judges to lower federal courts.

Repeal and replace Obamacare

Before: One of Mr Trump's trademark rally pledges was to repeal and replace Obamacare - his predecessor's attempt to extend healthcare to the estimated 15% of the country who are not covered.

It is widely hated by Republicans, who say the law imposes too many costs on business, with many describing it as a "job killer" and decrying the reforms - officially the Affordable Care Act - as an unwarranted intrusion into the affairs of private businesses and individuals.

After: Republicans have been unable to pass a repeal or reform bill.

That said, the Trump administration has managed to dismantle parts of the law - enrolment periods have been shortened, some subsidies have been axed, and the fine for people who did not purchase health insurance has been eliminated as part of the 2017 tax plan.

And in December 2018, a federal judge in Texas ruled that repealing this penalty, an "essential" part of the law, meant the entirety of Obamacare is therefore unconstitutional.

The law, however, remains in place as an appeal heads to the US Supreme Court, with a ruling expected sometime in 2021.

Before: His vow to build a wall along the US-Mexican border was one of the most controversial of Mr Trump's campaign promises. Mr Trump also insisted that Mexico would pay for it.

After: Mexico poured scorn on the claim that it would pay for such a barrier, and even Mr Trump appears to have dropped that idea.

Democrats are vociferously opposed to a wall, whereas some Republicans have baulked at a bill that could reach $21.5bn (£17bn), according to a Department of Homeland Security internal report.

In December 2018 the US government went into shutdown after Democrats resisted Mr Trump's demands for $5bn to fund the wall. He has since redirected defence and some other funds to build or replace sections of the wall, a decision that has faced legal challenges.

As of late May, 194 miles of wall system had been built, mostly to shore up dilapidated or outdated designs of the barrier already in place - just three miles construction was part of an entirely new system.

Bombing IS

Before: During a speech in Iowa in November 2015, Mr Trump warned that he would, using an expletive, bomb the so-called Islamic State group into obliteration.

After: The president dropped the biggest non-nuclear bomb in the US arsenal on an IS-stronghold in Afghanistan. He also takes credit for driving IS out of parts of Iraq and Syria, saying the group has been "largely defeated", although that process was under way under Obama. Last year, IS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi killed himself during a raid by US commandos.

Moving Israel embassy

Before: Mr Trump pledged during his campaign to move the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, a divided city which both Israelis and Palestinians claim.

After: In 2017, he said he formally recognised Jerusalem as Israel's capital, and approved moving the US embassy. It opened in May 2018 to coincide with Israel's 70th anniversary. The construction of a permanent US embassy building in Jerusalem was approved in 2019.

Military spending

Before: "I'm going to build a military that's going to be much stronger than it is right now. It's going to be so strong, nobody's going to mess with us," Donald Trump said on the campaign trail in October 2015.

He promised to reverse defence cuts brought in by President Barack Obama in 2013. "We want to deter, avoid and prevent conflict through our unquestioned military dominance," he said.

After: Defence spending has indeed risen steadily throughout the Trump presidency - although overall levels remain below the first years of the Obama administration.

Military spending increased dramatically from 2002 as the US entered protracted wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It peaked in 2010 as a percentage of GDP - the value of all goods and services - after which the US began stepping back from its engagement in the Middle East and Central Asia.

Cutting regulations

Before: Just a month before his election win in November 2016, Mr Trump said he could cut as many as 70% of US federal regulations if elected.

"It's just stopping businesses from growing," he told an audience in New Hampshire.

The promise drew him support from large and small businesses, who helped him to victory that year.

After: The president has slashed through regulations on everything from labour to the environment.

Just days after taking office he signed the Presidential Executive Order on Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs, which mandated that when government departments asked for a federal regulation, they had to specify two others they would drop.

Throughout his term he has continued to slash back red tape. In January 2020 he scrapped protections for US wetlands and streams, and in July he announced changes to the National Environmental Protection Act in a bid to speed up infrastructure projects.

"We are reclaiming America's proud heritage as a nation that gets things done," he said.

Bringing troops home

Before: Mr Trump has long called for the US to leave the Middle East. On the 2016 campaign trail, he said the region was a "total and complete mess" and wished the government had spent the trillions of dollars in the US instead.

His talk of an end to US military deployments overseas predates his presidential run. In 2013, he tweeted: "Our troops are being killed by the Afghanis we train and we waste billions there. Nonsense! Rebuild the USA." That same year, he said the US should "stay the hell out" of the Syrian war.

After: In September 2017, the Trump administration announced the deployment of 3,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. Mr Trump said his approach would be based on conditions on the ground. In Syria, the US had led a coalition against IS along with Syrian Kurdish and Arab fighters, with around 2,000 troops on the ground.

By December 2018, Mr Trump ordered the withdrawal of all US troops from Syria, though about half the troops, approximately 500, still remain.

Mr Trump recently said he has plans to further cut troops in Afghanistan - after reducing them to 8,600 from 13,000 over the spring and summer - before the 3 November election. In February, US and Nato allies agreed to withdraw all troops from the country within 14 months if Taliban militants uphold a new peace agreement.

The president's efforts to pull down troops has at times been met with criticism from his own officials. Following Mr Trump's announcement of a Syria withdrawal in part prompted the resignation of US Defence Secretary James Mattis.

Trade deals

Before: Mr Trump called Nafta "a disaster" and warned that the TPP "is going to be worse, so we will stop it". He also pledged to correct the trade deficit with China.

After: Mr Trump followed through in his first few days on his pledge to withdraw from the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP). He later said he would consider re-joining the TPP if he got a better deal.

On 30 November, after protracted negotiations, the US, Canada and Mexico signed the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement, which was designed to replace Nafta and recently came into force. However, the US has reimposed aluminium tariffs on Canada, and Ottawa reciprocated with retaliatory tariffs.

The US and South Korea also signed a revised trade pact in September 2018.

The US and China, meanwhile, became embroiled in an escalating trade battle - with both sides imposing tariffs on billions of dollars' worth of goods.

Despite ongoing tensions, in August the US and China held talks over their so-called "phase-one" trade deal - signed early this year - that is aimed at easing the trade war.

Ban on Muslims

Before: Mr Trump initially promised to ban all Muslims entering the US - a "total and complete" shutdown should remain until the US authorities "can figure out what's going on".

But he switched to "extreme vetting" after he became the party's presidential candidate.

After: As president, he introduced two travel bans which became ensnarled in the courts - but the third had more luck. The US Supreme Court ruled President Trump's ban on six mainly Muslim countries can go into full effect, pending legal challenges.

The current ban restricts travellers from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, Venezuela and North Korea.

And in January, the US has announced it was expanding its curbs on immigration to include six more countries. Citizens from Nigeria, Eritrea, Sudan, Tanzania, Kyrgyzstan and Myanmar will now be blocked from obtaining certain types of visas.

Cuba thaw no more

Before: Mr Trump said in September 2016 that he would reverse the deal President Barack Obama had struck to reopen diplomatic relations and improve trade.

After: As president, he told an audience in Miami that he was "cancelling the Obama administration's one-sided deal."

In 2017, Mr Trump reimposed some trade and travel restrictions lifted by his predecessor. He kept the embassy open in Havana, although without naming an ambassador to the country.

Last year, the administration announced a ban on travel to Cuba for American group tours as well as cruise ships journeying to the island

Until then, US tourism to Cuba was not permitted, but certain forms of organised group travel, known as "people-to-people" travel, had been allowed.

This month the US administration announced further restrictions, saying it would suspend all private charter flights between the United States and Cuba, to increase economic pressure on Havana. The suspension comes into force on 13 October.

China as currency manipulator

Before: Mr Trump repeatedly pledged to label Beijing a "currency manipulator" on his first day in office, during an election campaign when he also accused the Asian powerhouse of "raping" the US. China has been accused of suppressing the yuan to make its exports more competitive with US goods.

After: In August 2019, the administration officially named China as a "currency manipulator". The US Treasury department defines currency manipulation as when countries deliberately influence the exchange rate between their currency and the US dollar to gain "unfair competitive advantage in international trade".

But in January, the US reversed its decision when China had agreed to refrain from devaluing its currency to make its own goods cheaper for foreign buyers.

National debt

Before: "I know the Wall Street people probably better than anybody knows them," Donald Trump told the Washington Post in 2016, and promised to clear the country's then-$19tn national debt "over a period of eight years".

After: Halfway through that eight-year promise, the US national debt has ballooned by more than a third, hitting $27tn in October 2020. Mr Trump increased the national debt ceiling in 2017, before suspending it until after the 2020 election in July 2019.

It is predicted the debt will rise even further once the full economic impact of the coronavirus pandemic becomes apparent.

Deporting all illegal immigrants

Before: Mr Trump repeatedly told his supporters that every single undocumented immigrant - of which there are estimated to be more than 11.3 million - "have to go".

After: As polling day approached, his stance began to soften slightly, then after the election he scaled it back to some two to three million deportations of people who "are criminal and have criminal records, gang members, drug dealers".

In fiscal year 2019 deportations were at 267,000, a slight rise on the year before, though not as high as the 2012 peak of 410,000 under the Obama administration.

Mr Trump's plans for immigration reform faced defeat this summer when the Supreme Court ruled against his administration's bid to rescind Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (Daca), which protects about 650,000 young people who entered the US without documents as children.

Rebuilding infrastructure

Before: The country's infrastructure "will become, by the way, second to none, and we will put millions of our people back to work as we rebuild it", he said in his victory speech in November.

After: Has repeated his vow to spend big on the country's roads, rail and airports, but as yet, there is little sign of action. By March 2018 Congress had allocated $21bn for infrastructure spending - far short of the $1.5tn Mr Trump has called for. The money will be spent on a wide range of upgrades and investments, according to a congressional graphic.

In April 2019, Mr Trump and Democratic leaders agreed to spend $2tn on infrastructure, an agreement that later fell apart. This June there were reports the Trump administration had a $1tn plan in the works, but no announcement has been made.

Ditching Nato

Before: Mr Trump repeatedly questioned the military alliance's purpose, calling it "obsolete". One issue that irked him was whether members were pulling their weight and "paying their bills". In one New York Times interview in July 2016, he even hinted that the US would not come to the aid of a member invaded by Russia.

After: But as he hosted Nato's secretary general at the White House in April 2018, the US president said the threat of terrorism had underlined the alliance's importance. "I said it [Nato] was obsolete," Mr Trump said. "It's no longer obsolete."

In July 2018, Mr Trump reiterated his support at the Nato summit, but suggested the US might still leave if allies did not acquiesce to his budget demands.

Mr Trump has continued to argue that Canada and European members of Nato are not spending enough to support the alliance, and recently said the US will move nearly 12,000 troops out of Germany.

Torture

Before: Mr Trump said he would approve waterboarding "immediately" and "make it also much worse", adding "torture works".

After: But after his inauguration, the president said he would defer to the countervailing belief, espoused by former Defence Secretary James Mattis and then-CIA director Mike Pompeo, who is now secretary of state.

Mr Pompeo said during his CIA confirmation hearing that he would "absolutely not" reinstate such methods.

Prosecuting Hillary Clinton

Before: "Lock her up" was one of the main rallying cries of Mr Trump's supporters.

They wanted to see Democratic rival Hillary Clinton in prison over the use of her private email server while secretary of state.

And Mr Trump was more than willing to back their calls for, at the very least, a fresh investigation. During the debates, he told Mrs Clinton: "If I win, I am going to instruct my attorney general to get a special prosecutor to look into your situation."

After: The president-elect's tone changed almost as soon as he had won, describing the woman he had said was "such a nasty woman" as someone the country owed "a debt of gratitude". Later, he said he "hadn't given [the prosecution] a lot of thought" and had other priorities.

In November 2016 Mr Trump's spokeswoman said he would not pursue a further investigation - to help Mrs Clinton "heal".

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
US election 2020: Has Trump delivered on his promises?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Donald Trump made voters a number of promises before they elected him. But has he kept his word?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Trump wins

Republican Donald Trump is elected US president, defeating Democrat Hillary Clinton. His victory came after key wins in the battleground states of Florida, Ohio, North Carolina and Pennsylvania.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Republican Donald Trump is elected US president, defeating Democrat Hillary Clinton. His victory came after key wins in the battleground states of Florida, Ohio, North Carolina and Pennsylvania.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
President Donald Trump has wasted little time in shaking up how things are done in Washington - for better or worse - in his first few months in office.

Six months into his first term, questions about what the Republican might do with his power are finally being answered.

From travel bans and border immigration plans to climate change and public safety, here is where he stands on key issues.

TAXES

Mr Trump has promised the biggest tax cuts since the Ronald Reagan era. He has pledged reductions across-the-board, promising working and middle-income Americans "massive" cuts. His plan includes reducing the number of tax brackets from seven to three, cutting corporate taxes, eliminating the estate tax and increasing the standard deduction for individual filers.

According to one analysis, the top 1% of earners would see their income increase by double-digits, while the bottom quarter gets a boost of up to 1.9%. But the Center for a Responsible Budget has also warned his plan would balloon the national debt.

Attempts to tackle tax reform have been delayed due to the stalled healthcare bill.

JOB CREATION

Mr Trump says he will create 25 million jobs over 10 years, saying too many jobs, especially in manufacturing, are being lost to other countries. He plans to reduce the US corporate tax rate to 15% from the current rate of 35%, and suggests that investing in infrastructure, cutting the trade deficit, lowering taxes and removing regulations will boost job creation.

On his first full workday in office, he told business leaders that he seeks to cut business regulations by 75%, and create a "border tax" for companies that leave the country and sell their products back to the US.

IMMIGRATION

This is his signature issue. Despite critics who call it unaffordable and unrealistic, the Republican has stood by his call to build an impenetrable wall along the 2,000-plus-mile US-Mexico border.

In his first days in office, Mr Trump signed a pair of executive orders designed to fulfil that campaign promise.

One order declares that the US will create "a contiguous, physical wall or other similarly secure, contiguous, and impassable physical barrier".

The second order pledges to hire 10,000 more immigration officers, and to revoke federal grant money from so-called "sanctuary cities" which refuse to deport undocumented immigrants.

It remains to be seen how Mr Trump will pay for the wall, although he has repeatedly insisted that the US would recoup the costs from the Mexican government, despite their leaders saying otherwise.

The border wall is likely to face a funding setback, after Republican lawmakers suggested money for the project would not be included in an upcoming spending bill.

Mr Trump had proposed $1.5bn (£1.2bn) for his wall through Congress as part of a spending bill, which funds federal agencies to the end of the current fiscal year.

The bill must be approved by 28 April to avoid a partial government shutdown.

But Senator Roy Blunt, a member of Republican leadership, said that Mr Trump's supplemental funding could be dealt with "at a later time".
Six obstacles to Trump's border wall How do Republicans think Trump's wall would work?
REFUGEES

Mr Trump has been warning that the US policy of admitting refugees from certain regions - the Middle East or, more generally, Muslim nations - presents a serious threat to US national security.

He has called for the US to suspend resettling refugees until "extreme vetting" procedures can be implemented, including ideological tests to screen out extremists.

Two attempts by Mr Trump to introduce bans on all refugees and travellers from some Muslim-majority countries were blocked by the courts.

But in June, the Supreme Court allowed a limited version of his second ban to come into force, banning refugees temporarily unless they have a "credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity" in the country.

Visitors from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen will also be unable to get visas unless they can demonstrate US ties.
Trump travel ban: What happens next?
FOREIGN POLICY

Mr Trump has made a dramatic shift in foreign policy, breaking from the "America First" agenda he promised during the presidential campaign.

He bombed a Syrian air base in response to a suspected chemical weapons attack on a rebel-held town.

The US military then dropped a 21,600lb (9,800kg) bomb on a tunnel complex used by Islamic State militants in Afghanistan.

Mr Trump has taken a hard-line stance towards combating IS and has even at times asserted the US should commit tens of thousands of ground troops to the fight.

He professed support for Nato after previously calling the alliance "obsolete" and said it should do more to combat terrorism in the Middle East, maintaining that US allies should spend more on their own protection.

Tensions have also escalated on the Korean peninsula, where American military has ordered a navy strike group amid heated rhetoric from both the US and North Korea

Pyongyang marked the 105th birthday of the nation's founding president, Kim Il-sung, with a huge military parade before conducting a failed rocket test.

On the eve of the G20 summit in Germany, he warned of "severe consequences" following the country's long-range missile test.

Relations with China have soured over the belligerence of North Korea, and a US arms deal with Taiwan.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration has said it was launching a review of whether lifting sanctions against Iran was in the US's national security interests, but acknowledged Tehran was compliant with the historic 2015 nuclear deal.

During his presidential campaign, Mr Trump called the agreement "the worst deal ever negotiated".
What does all this bombing tell us about Trump?
TRADE DEALS

Once upon a time, Republicans were the party of unfettered free trade. Donald Trump has changed all that. While he says he is not opposed to trade in principle, any trade deals have to protect US industry.

Mr Trump signed an executive order to withdraw the US from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which was never approved by Congress and therefore had yet to go into effect in America.

The president has said that he will re-open negotiations on already signed pacts, such as the North America Free Trade Agreement (Nafta), and withdraw if US demands are not met. He has accused US trading partners like Mexico, China and Canada of unfair trade practices, currency manipulation and intellectual property theft, threatening to unilaterally impose tariffs and other punitive measures if they do not implement reforms.

He also signed the so-called "Buy American, Hire American" executive order, which directs federal agencies to enforce government rules on excluding foreign contractors from bids for government projects.

CLIMATE CHANGE

Mr Trump caused global dismay when he pulled out of the Paris agreement, which he said would impoverish the US.

He said it would cost the US $3tn (£2.3tn) in lost GDP and 6.5 million jobs - while rival economies like China and India were treated more favourably.

US officials refused to say whether the president still maintained that climate change was a hoax.

He says he supports clean water and air, but wants to slash funding to the Environmental Protection Agency.

Signing an executive order reversing Obama-era restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions from coal and natural gas power plants, he pledged to reduce America's reliance on imported fuel and "end the war on coal".

ABORTION

The Republican said last March that abortions should be illegal and he supported "some form of punishment" for women who had them. His campaign quickly backed down from that statement, however, and asserted that the candidate believed the legality of the procedure should be left up to individual states, with any criminal penalties being reserved for abortion providers.

He has said he supports an abortion ban exception for "rape, incest and the life of the mother". He has called for defunding Planned Parenthood. As recently as 2000, Mr Trump supported abortion rights but has said that, like Ronald Reagan, he changed his views on the matter.

As one of his first actions as president, he signed an order banning federal money going to international groups which perform or provide information on abortions.

In April, he signed a bill removing an Obama-era rule that barred states from withholding federal funding for family planning services that provide abortions.

Under the new rule, state governments can decide how they want to distribute Title X funding, a Nixon-era family-planning programme, allowing some conservative states to undercut Planned Parenthood and other abortion groups.

HEALTH

Obamacare is one of the outgoing president's signature policies - and Mr Trump made repealing it one of his major campaign promises.

But Republican efforts to agree an alternative appear to have stalled.

The House plan, the American Health Care Act, has been passed by the lower chamber.

But the Senate chose to rewrite their bill from scratch, and have been unable to create one with widespread support.

Senator Mitch McConnell unveiled a plan after weeks of secret discussions among a small group of senators, but it has been criticised by politicians of all hues, plus health industry bodies and hospital groups.

Some Republicans feel Medicaid cuts in the bill are too harsh, while others are unhappy that changes do not go far enough in demolishing Obamacare.

Mr Trump had promised that his replacement plan will be less expensive, providing "insurance for everybody".
Obamacare v Republican plan compared
LAW AND ORDER

Violence and lawlessness is out of control in the US, according to Mr Trump. He says law enforcement agencies are unable to fight crime because of runaway "political correctness" and says they should be allowed to get tough on offenders. He says police profiling is necessary to prevent terrorist attacks on US soil.

He supports "stop and frisk", claiming the policy was highly successful in New York, even though many experts disagree. The practice was ruled unconstitutional and a form of "indirect racial profiling" by a federal judge in the city.

CHILDCARE

Rejecting Republican orthodoxy, Mr Trump has called for six weeks of paid maternity leave, which would amount to what the mother would receive in unemployment benefit. But this would not apply to fathers. There are no details though on how this policy would be paid for.

GUN LAWS

He has blamed some shootings on lax gun laws, saying armed people could have intervened and saved lives. He frequently accused his former rival Hillary Clinton of wanting to eliminate gun rights during the campaign and promises his supporters that the Second Amendment would be safe. On the other hand, he has expressed support for preventing individuals on the federal no-fly list from purchasing firearms.

SUPREME COURT

The president has fulfilled his campaign promise to his conservative base by nominating federal appeals court judge Neil Gorsuch for the open seat on the high court, which had been vacant since the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.

The court has the final legal word on many of the most sensitive US issues, from abortion to gender to gun control.

Judge Gorsuch is a so-called originalist, meaning he believes the US Constitution should be followed as the Founding Fathers intended.

He was sworn in earlier this month after Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell triggered a legislative manoeuvre known as the "nuclear option" when Republicans lacked the 60 votes required to end debate on Mr Gorsuch.

Judge Gorsuch restores the 5-4 conservative majority on the nine-seat high court.
Six Supreme Court cases Justice Neil Gorsuch could rule on
LOBBYISTS

Mr Trump has signed an executive order issuing a five-year ban preventing officials from lobbying the agency they worked in for five years after they leave, but allowing them to lobby other parts of the government.

The order also allows lobbyists to join an administration as long as they do not work on anything they have lobbied on for two years.

His directive also fulfilled a promise to stop his officials from lobbying for foreign governments.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
President Donald Trump has wasted little time in shaking up how things are done in Washington - for better or worse - in his first few months in office. Six months into his first term, questions about what the Republican might do with his power are finally being answered.

# data[].attributes.body
US Election Dictionary

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
US election 2016 dictionary - CBBC Newsround

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There are a lot of complicated names and words being used in the news about the US elections - so what do they all mean?

# data[].attributes.body
New President

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How is power divided in the United States government? - Belinda Stutzman

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The most powerful nation on earth is electing a new leader, with the impact felt across the globe. So how does the election work and how did we end up with Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton as the main candidates?

When the US picks its president, it is not only choosing a head of state but a head of government and a commander-in-chief of the largest military on the planet.

It's a big responsibility. So how does the process work?

The parties hold a series of primary elections in every state and overseas territory, starting in February, which determine who becomes the official presidential candidate.

The winner of each collects a number of "delegates" - party members with the power to vote for that candidate at the party conventions held in July, where candidates are formally confirmed.

The more state contests a candidate wins, the more delegates will be pledged to support them at the convention.

Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Donald Trump were the clear winners in 2016 and were officially nominated at their party's conventions in July.

They are two of the most unpopular candidates in modern American history.

At the conventions, the parties also officially unveiled their vice-presidential picks - Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia for Mrs Clinton, and Indiana Governor Mike Pence for the Republicans.

What about the US Congress?

The Senate election results will also have a big impact. Republicans currently hold the majority in the 100-seat chamber. But 34 seats are up for grabs on 8 November. Democrats need a net gain of four seats to win control of the chamber if Hillary Clinton wins the presidency, as the US vice-president is automatically a member of the Senate, and five seats if Donald Trump is victorious.

In the House of Representatives, all 435 seats will be contested. Republicans have controlled it since the 2010 mid-terms, and currently hold 247 seats, compared to the Democrats' 188. This means the Democrats would need to win 30 to regain control. A swing of this size is widely considered unlikely, though they may narrow the Republican majority.

There has been a slew of controversies generated by Donald Trump, from the moment the New York businessman launched his campaign with the description of Mexican immigrants as "rapists and criminals". His candidacy has rarely gone a few weeks without sparking some uproar. He's waged wars of words with a judge, a Miss Universe, a Fox News anchor and the Muslim family of a fallen soldier. He's had to defend his refusal not to release his tax returns and the suggestion he has paid no federal income tax for 18 years, plus field questions surrounding his charitable foundation.

And Hillary Clinton has had her share of anxious moments too. The damage wrought by her private email arrangement to her reputation is thought to be significant, despite the FBI effectively closing the investigation in July and clearing Mrs Clinton of wrongdoing. Questions have been raised about the foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation. Mr Trump has also put the spotlight on the part she played in pushing back at the women who claimed to have affairs with her husband Bill. And Wikileaks has been revealing hacked emails that have laid bare some embarrassing conversations between members of her campaign team.

The biggest bombshell to jolt the Trump campaign came on 7 October with the publication of a video from 2005. Mr Trump is heard referring to women in sexually offensive terms when he was caught on a live microphone during the filming of a soap. The furore forced him to issue an apology and try to convince voters that the words in the video "do not reflect who I am". But it wasn't enough to stop dozens of Republicans from deserting him, sparking civil war within the party. Now more half a dozen women have accused him of sexual assault, and he has hit back forcefully, accusing them of being liars and not attractive enough to warrant his attention.

Then, just 11 days before election day, the FBI announced it had found more emails "pertinent" to the Clinton email investigation, but could not yet say how significant they were. They were found on a laptop belonging to the estranged husband of one of Clinton's closest advisers, Huma Abedin, as police investigated whether he sent explicit text messages to a 15-year-old girl. On 6 November, the FBI Director James Comey said it had found no evidence of criminality in the emails.

What do the polls say?

And what about policies?

The campaign has been consumed by controversy and the vote on Tuesday feels more like a referendum on the two candidates's personalities.

But there are substantive differences on issues too.

Most votes are being cast on Tuesday, 8 November, although more than 40 million people took part in early or absentee voting.

The candidate with the most votes in each state becomes the candidate which that state supports for president.

It's all down to a system called the electoral college, a group of people who choose the winner - 538 of them, in fact. Just half of them - 270 - are needed to make a president.

But not all states are equal - California, for example, has more than 10 times the population of Connecticut, so they don't get an equal say.

Each state has certain number of these "electors" based on their population in the most recent census (it so happens that it's the same number of districts in a state, plus two senators).

When citizens vote for their preferred candidate, they're actually voting for the electors, some of which are pledged to one candidate, some for another.

But here's where it gets interesting. In almost every state (except Nebraska and Maine), the winner takes all - so the person who wins the most electors in New York, for example, will get all 29 of New York's electoral votes.

In the race to get to the magic number - 270 - it's the swing states that often matter most.

What are swing states?

So, we've got two candidates, both in a race to get to 270 electors by winning whole states at a time.

Both parties think they can bank on certain states, big and small. Republicans will count on Texas, and not waste their money campaigning to a great extent there. Similarly, California is likely to sit in the Democrats' column.

The others are known as "swing states" - where it could go either way. Florida in particular, with its 29 votes, famously decided the 2000 election in favour of George W Bush, who lost the popular vote nationally but, after a Supreme Court case, won the electoral college.

Other swing states include: Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, North Carolina, Nevada.

In the days and weeks after the election - if the vote is decisive - the victor will assemble a cabinet and begin crafting a more thorough policy agenda.

Meanwhile, the departing "lame duck" president works to shape his legacy and begins packing up his belongings.

Under the US constitution, the president is inaugurated on 20 January of the year following the election.

More on the US election

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The most powerful nation on earth is electing a new leader, with the impact felt across the globe. So how does the election work and how did we end up with Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton as the main candidates?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Congress for Kids - Interactive, Fun-filled Experiences About the Federal Government

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Using appealing, full-color illustrations, and engaging activities, Congress for Kids will extend your learning in the basics about the American federal government, elections, and citizenship.

# data[].attributes.body
Results

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
US elections 2016 results: track who won, county by county

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Follow along throughout the night as America finds out who won the presidential race between Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Donald Trump

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Long before he was a contender for the US presidency, Donald Trump was America's most famous and colourful billionaire.

Once considered a long shot, Trump is now president of the United States.

Scepticism over Trump's candidacy stemmed not only from his controversial platform on immigration and outrageous campaign style, but from his celebrity past.

But the 70-year-old businessman had the last laugh when he defied all predictions to beat much more seasoned politicians in the Republican primary race.

And he has now gone a step further by winning the presidential election, after one of the most divisive and controversial contests in living memory against Democratic rival Hillary Clinton.

Early life

Mr Trump is the fourth child of New York real estate tycoon Fred Trump. Despite the family's wealth, he was expected to work the lowest-tier jobs within his father's company and was sent off to a military academy at age 13 when he started misbehaving in school.

He attended the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania and became the favourite to succeed his father after his older brother, Fred, chose to become a pilot. Fred Trump died at 43 due to alcoholism, an incident that his brother says led him to avoid alcohol and cigarettes his entire life.

Mr Trump says he got into real estate with a "small" $1m loan from his father before joining the company. He helped manage his father's extensive portfolio of residential housing projects in the New York City boroughs, and took control of the company - which he renamed the Trump Organization - in 1971.

His father died in 1999. "My father was my inspiration," Mr Trump said at the time.

The mogul

Mr Trump shifted his family's business from residential units in Brooklyn and Queens to glitzy Manhattan projects, transforming the rundown Commodore Hotel into the Grand Hyatt and erecting the most famous Trump property, the 68-storey Trump Tower on Fifth Avenue. Other properties bearing the famous name followed - Trump Place, Trump World Tower, Trump International Hotel and Tower, and so on. There are Trump Towers in Mumbai, Istanbul and the Philippines.

Mr Trump also developed hotels and casinos, an arm of the business that has led to four bankruptcy filings (for the businesses, not personal bankruptcy).

Mr Trump also built an empire in the entertainment business. From 1996 until 2015, he was an owner in the Miss Universe, Miss USA, and Miss Teen USA beauty pageants. In 2003, he debuted an NBC reality television show called The Apprentice, in which contestants competed for a shot at a management job within Mr Trump's organisation. He hosted the show for 14 seasons, and claimed in a financial disclosure form that he was paid a total of $213m by the network during the show's run.

He has written several books, and owns a line of merchandise that sells everything from neckties to bottled water. According to Forbes, his net worth is $3.7bn, though Mr Trump has repeatedly insisted he is worth $10bn.

The husband and father

Trump has been married three times, though his most famous wife was his first - Ivana Zelnickova, a Czech athlete and model. The couple had three children - Donald Jr, Ivanka and Eric - before they filed for divorce in 1990. The ensuing court battle made for numerous stories in the tabloid press. Those stories included allegations that Trump was abusive towards Ivana, though she later downplayed the incidents.

He married actress Marla Maples in 1993. They had a daughter named Tiffany together before divorcing in 1999. He married his current wife Melania Knauss, a model, in 2005, and the couple have one son, Barron William Trump.

His children from his first marriage now help run Trump Organization, though he is still chief executive.

The candidate

Mr Trump expressed interest in running for president as early as 1987, and even entered the 2000 race as a Reform Party candidate.

After 2008, he became one of the most outspoken members of the "birther" movement, which questioned whether Barack Obama was born in the US. Those claims have been thoroughly debunked; Mr Obama was born in Hawaii. Mr Trump finally admitted there was no truth in the claims during the presidential race, although, characteristically, there was no apology.

It was not until June 2015 that Mr Trump formally announced his entrance into the race for the White House.

"We need somebody that literally will take this country and make it great again. We can do that," he said in his announcement speech, promising that as a candidate with no need to fundraise he answered to no special interests and was the perfect outsider candidate.

Under the banner Make America Great Again, Trump has run a controversial campaign built on promises to strengthen the American economy, build a wall on the border of Mexico and the US, and to temporarily ban immigration by Muslims "until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on".

Despite massive protests at his campaign events and the best efforts of his Republican rivals Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, Trump became the presumptive Republican party nominee for president after the Indiana primary.

The election winner

Mr Trump's campaign for the presidency was rocked by controversies, including the emergence of a recording from 2005 of him making lewd remarks about women, and claims, including from members of his own party, that he was not fit for office.

But he consistently told his army of supporters that he would defy the opinion polls, which mostly had him trailing Hillary Clinton, and that his presidency would strike a blow against the political establishment and "drain the swamp" in Washington.

He took inspiration from the successful campaign to get Britain out of the European Union, saying he would pull off "Brexit times 10".

It was something few pundits believed would happen as polling day approached, despite his campaign receiving a late boost from fresh controversy over an FBI investigation into his opponent's emails.

As his stunning victory was still sinking in across the US, his supporters got the chance to see him in the Oval Office when he and President Obama met for transition talks two days after election day.

He is the first US president never to have held elected office or served in the military, meaning that he had already made history before he was sworn in as America's 45th president on 20 January 2017.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The hotel developer who became president

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Long before he was a contender for the US presidency, Donald Trump was America's most famous and colourful billionaire. Once considered a long shot, Trump is now president of the United States. Scepticism over Trump's candidacy stemmed not only from his controversial platform on immigration and outrageous campaign style, but from his celebrity past.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Voir la vidéo

Les Américains élisent leur nouveau président, mardi 8 novembre. Un scrutin qui marque presque la fin du mandat de Barack Obama, mais aussi celle d'une communication "cool" au plus haut sommet de l'Etat. Humour, danse chanson... En huit ans à la Maison Blanche, le président américain a eu recours à plusieurs stratégies pour montrer qu'il était proche de ses électeurs.

Blagues et vidéos humoristiques

Barack Obama a ainsi participé à plusieurs émissions télévisées, n'hésitant pas à répondre à des tweets "méchants" qui lui étaient adressés sur le plateau du talk-show de Jimmy Kimmel. Il a également marqué par ses blagues, lancées en conférence de presse ou pendant le dîner annuel des correspondants, et par son habitude de chanter durant des événements publics.

Barack Obama a surtout cultivé son image de président accessible en faisant preuve d'autodérision. Dernier exemple en date : il s'est interrogé sur son avenir après la fin de son mandat, dans une vidéo humoristique publiée sur le compte YouTube de la Maison Blanche (en anglais). Son principal objectif ? "Etre lui-même."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
VIDEO. Barack Obama, le "cool" comme arme de communication

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Les Américains élisent leur nouveau président, mardi 8 novembre. Un scrutin qui marque presque la fin du mandat de Barack Obama, mais aussi celle d'une communication "cool" au plus haut sommet de l'Etat. Humour, danse chanson... En huit ans à la Maison Blanche, le président américain a eu recours à plusieurs stratégies pour montrer qu'il était proche de ses électeurs.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
World Service - Listen Live - BBC Sounds

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
États-Unis. Que pense la presse américaine de Hillary Clinton ?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
En cette journée d'élection présidentielle aux États-Unis, nous avons voulu réunir, en une vidéo, les opinions de la presse américaine sur la favorite des sondages, Hillary Clinton. Moins clivante que son adversaire républicain, Donald Trump, la candidate démocrate reste néanmoins impopulaire.

# data[].attributes.headline
Playlist américaine pour suivre les élections en musique !

# data[].attributes.subject
Playlist américaine pour suivre les élections en musique !

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
La nuit américaine se poursuit avec une programmation musicale dédiée 100% américaine.

Une playlist 100% américaine, à écouter sans modération © Getty / portishead1

Et tout au long de la nuit des décrochages en direct des Etats Unis avec les correspondants de France Inter afin de connaître les résultats du vote en temps réel.

Toute l'équipe des programmateurs de France Inter (Muriel Perez, Jean-Michel Montu, Djubaka, Jean-Baptiste Audibert et Thierry Dupin), sous la houlette de Jocelyn Perrotin ont concocté une playlist 100% US pour accompagner la nuit de l'élection américaine.

Une playlist très éclectique, mélangeant les genres et les voix.

Le blues de Nina Simone et Billie Holiday, la pop de Moby et Lana Del Rey, les mythiques Bruce Springsteen, The Pixies ou The Beach Boys, le grunge de Nirvana, le punk Iggy Pop, les fougueux Jay-Z ou Kanye West... 60 titres, quatre heures de musique qui racontent l'Amérique.

Découvrez dès maintenant les 60 titres de la playlist :

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
La nuit américaine se poursuit avec une programmation musicale dédiée 100% américaine. Et tout au long de la nuit des décrochages en direct des Etats Unis avec les correspondants de France Inter afin de connaître les résultats du vote en temps réel.

# data[].attributes.headline
Barack Obama electrifies crowd with anecdote on how he got his election slogan 'Fired up, ready to go'

# data[].attributes.subject
Barack Obama electrifies crowd with anecdote on how he got his election slogan 'Fired up, ready to go'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Exactly eight years ago Barack Obama faced his first presidential election and the mantra "Fired up, ready to go!" perfectly summed up the mood and tenor of the time. Casting his mind back to then, America's orator-in-chief recalled the anecdote which led to the fabled phrase.

Urging New Hampshire voters to get "fired up" and vote for Hillary Clinton in the critical state, Mr Obama made his final solo plea for voters on Election Day Eve on Monday and it was one of his most heartfelt yet.

Mr Obama recalled the time he was campaigning in Greenwood on the campaign trail in 2008. He talked of how he was tired and "groggy" and "soaked" with rain.

But was one woman stood out and caught his eye. "There's this middle-aged woman and she's dressed like she just came from church," he tells the audience. "She's got a big church hat and I think a gold tooth. Turns out she holds a position in the local NAACP office and is also a private detective".

The woman he is referring to is Edith Childs - a politician who served on the Greenwood, South Carolina, county council. A key figure in the community, Childs has done much to establish after school programs for the community's youth, offer holiday meals for the unemployed and provide school supplies for underprivileged young people.

"Apparently she is known wherever she goes by saying this chant and everybody knows her so they know that when she says 'fired up' they say 'fired up' and when she says ready to go, everybody has got to say 'ready to go'."

"But the interesting thing is after a while I am starting to get kind of 'fired up', I'm starting to feel like I'm 'ready to go'," he says of the chant which in turn prompted a movement.

"One voice can change a room," Mr Obama concludes his speech by saying. "And if it can change a room, it can change a city and if it can change a city, it can change a state and if it can change a state, it can change a nation, and if it can change a nation it can change the world."

"So I just have one question for you New Hampshire - Are you fired up? Ready to go? Fired up? Ready to go?" he shouts, sparking a lively call and response with the audience.

"Lets go finish what we started. Lets elect Hillary Clinton."

Obama kicks the boot into Trump in New Hampshire. His eloquence makes you wish for a third Obama term!
- Genevieve Carbery (@GenevieveCarber) 7 November 2016

Onlookers expressed their admiration for Mr Obama, paying homage to his way with words.

Reuse content

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Obama's incredible final speech is making everyone ask why he can't have a third term

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Exactly eight years ago Barack Obama faced his first presidential election and the mantra "Fired up, ready to go!" perfectly summed up the mood and tenor of the time. Casting his mind back to then, America's orator-in-chief recalled the anecdote which led to the fabled phrase.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
PHOTO DONKEY HOTEY / FLICKR / CC

Comme tous les quatre ans, l'élection présidentielle américaine se jouera dans une poignée d'États. Petit guide des enjeux.

L'élection, comment ça marche ?

Mardi 8 novembre, les Américains voteront dans chaque État pour les grands électeurs qui éliront à leur tour, le 19 décembre, le prochain président.

Chaque État dispose d'autant de grands électeurs que de sénateurs et de représentants au Congrès de Washington. La Californie, l'État le plus peuplé, élit ainsi 55 grands électeurs, contre 3 pour les États les moins peuplés. Il faut 270 grands électeurs pour devenir président.

En règle générale, dans chaque État, le candidat arrivé en tête reçoit toutes les voix des grands électeurs.

Le vote anticipé

La plupart des électeurs américains ont la possibilité de voter avant le jour de l'élection. Plus de 40 millions d'électeurs l'ont déjà fait, soit environ 20 % du corps électoral.

La mobilisation importante de l'électorat latino pourrait être un bon signe pour les démocrates. À l'inverse, l'électorat noir semble moins mobilisé qu'il y a quatre ans, lors de la réélection de Barack Obama.

LesÉtats-clés

Beaucoup d'États étant acquis aux démocrates ou aux républicains, l'élection se joue systématiquement dans un petit nombre d'États susceptibles de basculer d'un côté ou de l'autre : les swing states. The Washington Post a ainsi dressé une liste de quinze États "qui décideront de l'élection".

Certains apparaissent à chaque fois ou presque dans la liste des swing states.En particulier la Floride, le plus peuplé d'entre eux, qui compte à elle seule 29 grands électeurs. Les sondages y sont serrés - trop serrés pour prédire l'issue du vote, selon le quotidien. Les démocrates espèrent bénéficier de la mobilisation de l'électorat latino, une mobilisation inédite si l'on se fie aux votes anticipés. Une victoire de Hillary Clinton en Floride lui garantirait pratiquement la présidence.

L'Ohio, avec 18 grands électeurs, est un autre des États les plus disputés à chaque élection. Situé dans la Rust Belt, l'ancienne ceinture industrielle du Nord-Est, cet État dont la population est blanche à 80 % penche plutôt en faveur de Trump, alors que Barack Obama l'a remporté en 2008 et 2012. La situation est la même dans l'Iowa.

À l'inverse, la Pennsylvanie (20 grands électeurs), le Colorado, le Nevada, la Virginie, autres swing states, penchent pour Hillary Clinton. Il en va de même de la Caroline du Nord, d'habitude favorable aux républicains. Hillary Clinton pourrait même rafler des États n'ayant plus voté pour un démocrate depuis les années 1990 : l'Arizona et la Géorgie. Dans les deux cas, cependant, les sondages sont plutôt en faveur de Donald Trump.

De son côté, le candidat républicain aimerait faire tomber dans son escarcelle des bastions démocrates, notamment dans la Rust Belt : Michigan, Wisconsin, Nouveau-Mexique et New Hampshire. Hillary Clinton est néanmoins en tête dans chacun de ces États, sauf dans le New Hampshire, où les sondages sont très serrés.

Reste un cas de figure très particulier : l'Utah, habituellement républicain, pourrait cette fois voter pour un indépendant. Il s'agit d'un ancien agent de la CIA, mormon, natif de l'État : Evan McMullin, qui est au coude-à-coude avec Donald Trump.

Avantage Clinton

D'après la carte du Washington Post, Hillary Clinton a clairement l'avantage. En additionnant les États qui paraissent assurés pour elle (les bastions démocrates du Nord-Est et de la côte Ouest, plus l'Illinois) et ceux qui penchent en sa faveur dans les sondages, elle atteint 290 grands électeurs. Et cela sans compter les États les plus indécis.

De son côté, le New York Times a établi une autre carte montrant "le chemin le plus facile" pour Hillary Clinton vers la présidence. Même si Trump remporte l'Arizona, l'Utah, le New Hampshire, l'Iowa, la Floride, l'Ohio et la Caroline du Nord, il lui faudra quand même gagner au moins un État "bleu", penchant clairement en faveur de la candidate démocrate. Ces États représentent 275 grands électeurs. Plus qu'il n'en faut à Clinton pour gagner l'élection.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
États-Unis. Les États où se jouera l'élection

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Comme tous les quatre ans, l'élection présidentielle américaine se jouera dans une poignée d'États. Petit guide des enjeux. Mardi 8 novembre, les Américains voteront dans chaque État pour les grands électeurs qui éliront à leur tour, le 19 décembre, le prochain président.

# data[].attributes.body
Plusieurs vidéos très bien faites. Explications simples et claires. Tout ce que vous voulez savoir sur ces élections. A parcourir absolument !

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Eclairage

Le 20 janvier, ce sera le jour J. L'" Inauguration Day " ! Après deux mandats, Barack Obama laissera sa place au 45 e président, ou présidente, des Etats-Unis. Depuis la fin des primaires, le duel se joue entre les deux favoris démocrate et républicain, Hillary Clinton et Donald Trump.

Le 8 novembre, les citoyens américains voteront pour leurs grands électeurs qui seront à leur tour chargés d'élire le futur président des Etats-Unis. Mais avant de remuer drapeaux et pancartes, prenons quelques minutes pour comprendre comment va se dérouler le scrutin présidentiel. Car ce n'est pas si simple !

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Comprendre les élections américaines en 4 minutes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Le 20 janvier, ce sera le jour J. L'" Inauguration Day " ! Après deux mandats, Barack Obama laissera sa place au 45 e président, ou présidente, des Etats-Unis. Depuis la fin des primaires, le duel se joue entre les deux favoris démocrate et républicain, Hillary Clinton et Donald Trump.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
English Lessons with Adam - Learn English with Adam [engVid]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Trying to understand the American presidential elections? There's more to it than just Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. Confused about electoral colleges, super delegates, polls, incumbents, and candidates? Let me explain it for you! In this video, I'll teach you the vocabulary, definitions, and expressions you need to know to follow the US elections.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Have you ever wondered how American astronauts vote when they're in space? Or who the first woman was to run for president?

Wonder no longer - here are 10 things you might not have known about the US election 2016.

Some of them might surprise you!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
US election 2016: 10 things you might not have known - CBBC Newsround

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Have you ever wondered how American astronauts vote when they're in space? Or who the first woman was to run for president? Wonder no longer - here are 10 things you might not have known about the US election 2016. Some of them might surprise you!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Voters in the US go to the polls on 8 November to decide who will replace President Barack Obama.

The US uses the electoral college system to elect its president, in which each state is given a number of votes based on its population. A total of 538 are up for grabs.

Most states nearly always vote the same way, leaving a handful of battleground states where the election will be won and lost. Play the game to find out more about these key states and see who you think will win the election.
Click the image below to start
Your browser does not meet the requirements of this interactive story.

Credits

Design by Joy Roxas and Lilly Huynh. Development by Alvin Ourrad and Luke Ewer. Production by Mike Hills.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Voters in the US go to the polls on 8 November to decide who will replace President Barack Obama. The US uses the electoral college system to elect its president, in which each state is given a number of votes based on its population. A total of 538 are up for grabs.

# data[].attributes.headline
Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump's campaign ads

# data[].attributes.subject
Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump's campaign ads

# data[].attributes.headline
Where do the candidates stand on the issues ?

# data[].attributes.subject
Where do the candidates stand on the issues ?

# data[].attributes.headline
Electing a US President in plain English ? + quizz

# data[].attributes.subject
Electing a US President in plain English ? + quizz

# data[].attributes.headline
How to become President of the United States

# data[].attributes.subject
How to become President of the United States