There are a whole series of problems in trying to predict the outcome of an election, such as this. Most Astrologers approached it by using the natal charts of Trump and Clinton. Setting aside the doubts over whether this is a good approach (I'll comment more on that below), there was at least one big problem with this approach. Hillary Clinton's birth time is not known. Yes if you look at the internet, you'll find a time, indeed you might well find three or four times: 2:08 a.m.; 2:18 a.m; 8:02 a.m.; 1:18 a.m. ..... One thing that looks reasonably clear is that none of these are right. There has been some rectification done and that brings in the judgement and biases of the Astrologer(s) who did them. The source for some of these times appears to be anonymous sources in the Chicago Public Records Office. Whether the information actually started off there, or whether the sources were non-existant and the claims fabricated by those disclosing them to the Astrological Community is the subject of recent debate.
However, whatever the truth of those anonymous sources, the fact remains that they were given credence, without much investigation, by a lot of professional astrologers who should have known better. At the very least, they should have explained why they felt one time was the best time to use and then stated that there was real doubt about the validity of charts based on that time.
I know some Astrologers, who chose not to make a forecast because of that doubt and they were right to do so. Instead many took those times, or even others and even tweaked them to get a chart which showed a winner. Not consciously to fake their predictions but because they felt that Clinton had to have a strong chart. They tried to make it fit the known facts of Clinton's life and Clinton's perceived persona was used to verify them. A dangerous course of action, unless Clinton was willing to provide all the required information, rather than leave it to the Astrologers to rely on media reports of varying quality.
So, point number one, is that Hillary Clinton's chart is highly suspect and predictions based on it are going to be doubtful. Some might work but we can't be sure that this particular prediction will work.
Point number 2 is that these two weren't the only candidates. Clinton lost Florida by 133,000 votes. Votes for minor candidates totaled 290,000. So should we look at the natal details of all candidates to see if one of them is going to have a localised effect which then carries through to the national result.
Point number 3 is whether Natal Astrology is valid in this context anyway. Barleywine makes a good point about considering the Mundane Astrology side. That involves using a chart for the USA, of which the best known one is the Ebenezer Sibley chart. He based the chart on the signing of the Declaration of Independence. The trouble with that chart, is that no one actually knows exactly when the Declaration was signed. Only a rough time is known. Even if it were known, the election was, like all elections since 1788, held under the Constitution of the USA and that didn't exist in 1776. Indeed the 1787 Constitution was not fully ratified till 1788 and did not come into force until 1789. Indeed the Bill of Rights Amendments went into the 1790s and of course Amendments continue to be made. So what date would we take for that. let alone what time on that date.
We would all probably have slightly different views on what to take, all with good reasons. And that's the problem, there isn't a right answer.
Could we use an Event chart? Yes we could but what event would it be. The opening of the polls on the Eastern seaboard, or the closing of the polls in the west? The electoral college is based on the 50 states (total based on the number of senators plus congressmen) but that would require 50 charts at least (plus the District of Columbia). And, as Al Gore showed, it's possible to win the popular vote but not the Electoral College (As I write this, I believe Hillary is slightly ahead in the popular vote but there were/are still some votes to count).
There are difficulties here. It's not impossible but it's not a simple procedure by any means to predict by Astrology because the method used is a matter of judgement by the Astrologer and indeed the method may work on one election but not the next).
The best course of action would have been to say; We can't predict for sure because we haven't got an authenticated chart for Hillary Clinton
Edited to add:
Chris Brennan, my tutor, actually asked Hillary Clinton her birth time and she told him 8:00 pm. However he took the view from the way she answered that she was putting up a smoke screen, rather than giving an honest answer. However, if her answer was correct, then Gemini was rising and at 8:01 pm, Cancer began to rise.
I don't see how any one chart for her can be taken as correct. The best course of action would have been to simply say that a prediction can't be made on the basis of the information available.
Even Trump's chart is near the cusp of Virgo and a slight change in his birth time provides a Virgo rising chart.