When it does, the many loaded catchphrases the election inspired on social media may (hopefully) come to an end as well.
The current election cycle inspired many political buzzwords that have gotten thrown around more than others, including gems like "rigged," "baggage" and "deplorable."
Mark Grabowski, a journalism professor at Adelphi University, told CNBC that when the smoke clears, he never wants to hear the word "disqualifying" again—an insult Clinton's camp has lobbed at Trump frequently.
"I've covered presidential elections for 20 years and I don't remember ever seeing an election where 'disqualification' was bandied about so frequently as a political strategy," he told CNBC. "Unless you're foreign born, have resided in the U.S. less than 14 years, are under 35, or have already been elected president twice, you're not disqualified."
CNBC asked voters what words they never want to hear again after Tuesday, and came up with the following list.
Bill Webber, a nuclear medicine technologist, said he hopes to never again hear, or read, the word "destroy," as in "'Pundit A' destroys 'Pundit B' in one tweet!"
"It insults the intelligence of the reader," he said. "No one has faced utter ruin over a tweet, nor is anyone likely to be."
Allison Medich loathes the word "grassroots," primarily because of the frequency with which it's used and abused by people across the political spectrum.
"If I were to start a drinking game, where you would need to drink every time this word was said while watching any news channel, livers everywhere would be destroyed," the Tampa resident joked to CNBC.
Wendy L. Patrick, a deputy district attorney in San Diego, cited the phrase "believe me" as particularly overused by the GOP nominee.
"As a 20-year-plus trial attorney I can argue both sides of voting for both candidates," she said. "But in terms of overused phrases most people do not want to hear again, almost every important statement he makes is immediately followed by the phrase, 'believe me.'"
Gretel Going, co-founder of the Channel V Media public relations firm in New York City, said that she has had it with the word "disaster." The word is used frequently by Trump.
"It's lazy and empty," she said, noting that those attributes don't necessarily detract from its effectiveness. "When delivered with repetition, I'm sure it's resonating with undiscerning audiences."
Teri Christoph, a 46-year-old fundraiser from Leesburg, Virginia, says the first time she heard the term "Dumpster fire" to describe how unpopular both candidates are to the electorate it was funny.
Today, its expiration date has come and gone.
"All the Dumpsters have been burned," she said. "Time to move on."
It was also amusing when, given the choice between Clinton or Trump, 13 percent of respondents to a Public Policy Polling survey said they would vote for an extinction-level event known as the "sweet meteor of death."
Five months later, Christoph said that the term has long since overstayed its welcome, despite the fact that it has its own lively Twitter account.
"If 'Dumpster fire' could please take 'sweet meteor of death' to the great inferno beyond, that'd be great," she told CNBC.
Joel Kolley said that he objects to the term "divisive," because it's come to signify anything said by two parties holding opposing viewpoints.
"It's used in every instance of a disagreement or debate on anything," the New Hampshire native told CNBC. "It's okay to debate and have opinions."
Jed Hovey of New York City said that he has had quite enough of the word "qualified." He considers it a "Get Out of Jail Free" card that allows a candidate's boosters to avoid discussing issues.
"I get annoyed at being pulled into yet another political argument in which policy of any kind, much less basic history, never enters the conversation," he said.