At best, we will wake tomorrow to find that things are merely bad, not utterly catastrophic.
While the world peeps through its fingers, not everyone in the United States shares the sense of horror - though those who do have most to lose.
No one, not even Donald Trump, could seriously have imagined when it first started rolling that his bandwagon might roll all the way to the White House. Yet here we are on election day with that possibility still horribly alive.
How the Democrats must wish they had chosen Bernie Sanders, rather than Hillary Clinton, as their candidate. Trump couldn't have played the anti-establishment card then, because his born riches and TV familiarity make him more of an establishment figure than Sanders. Clinton, former First Lady, friend of Wall Street, Washington insider for four decades, is about as anti-Establishment as the Queen.
Of those standing, the Green Party's Jill Stein would make much the best president. But you - and the great American public - could be forgiven for not knowing she was in the running.
In the US it's never really more than a two-horse race. And such is the fascination of the media with Trump that it's been all about him this time - for him or against him - as if it were all nothing more than just another reality TV extravaganza.
Trouble is, it matters rather more than who wins the Strictly vote, or who gets fired from The Apprentice.
On his very first day in the Oval Office President Trump could preside over a bonfire of everything Barack Obama has achieved in the last eight years.
Because Obama has been opposed by a Republican Senate, he has had to rule largely through executive orders - and the trouble with those is that the next president can simply overturn them.
Trump has promised - or threatened - to crack down on immigration and to order the building of a 50ft wall to keep out Mexicans "in his first hour in office". He may find it hard to finish the wall. He may find it harder to make the US a Muslim-free zone, but as one of his aides says: "He can ban anybody from Egypt, from Syria, from Libya, from Saudi Arabia."
He would certainly make it easier to buy and tote lethal weapons in a land where the verb "to carry" already bears the unspoken added word "guns".
He might well ramp up rivalry with China into full-blown enmity. And though Vladimir Putin is his best buddy right now, we all know what can happen when good buddies of that kind fall out.
Perhaps most worryingly of all, Trump will be able to renounce the Paris agreement on greenhouse gas emissions. Which would be disastrous for global efforts - already far too puny - to stem climate change.
I say "perhaps" because here is a man who has said he doesn't understand why nuclear weapons shouldn't be used. And who will have plenty of them at his disposal. Enough to terminate life on Earth even if no one fires back.
Another star of reality TV, Joey Essex, said the other day: "I don't know who I want to win. I don't really care. For me it doesn't matter because it's not going to affect my country."
Wrong, Joey. If Trump wins today, the world will be a very different place next year. Different, and scarier. Not just America, but everywhere - including Essex.
Trump's racism, his misogyny, his boasting of sexual assaults - real or not - his alleged financial irregularities, his bare-faced lies make Clinton's alleged naughtiness with an email server look insignificant. Where his sins are many and sordid, hers are incomprehensible to most people, which is probably why he has been able to big them up so successfully.
But all these are petty matters when you think who might soon have his finger poised over the button marked "Armageddon".
Meanwhile, back in the Brexit ranch...
I could fill the paper these words are written for with thoughts occasioned by last week's High Court ruling and the hysterical reaction that followed it. But you're probably sick of the whole thing by now, so I'll restrict myself to a couple of points.
So far from betraying the people - as some papers claimed - the judges placed responsibility where it belongs, in the hands of the people's elected representatives. Those in Westminster, not Brussels. Not an attack on our democracy, but a necessary defence of it.
It will be interesting now to see how much courage and integrity those representatives show. A majority of them were opposed to Brexit before the referendum. And it's generally regarded as a sign of weakness for politicians to change their minds - especially by those pillars of the press who now want them to do just that.
I don't seriously expect the craven bunch collectively known as Parliament to block Britain's departure from Europe. But they should at the very least have some credible say in where we go next.