ouivv wrote:
http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/another-call-for-a-recount
Here's another excerpt:
"A candidate needs two hundred and seventy Electoral College votes to win the Presidency. Trump has three hundred and six, and Clinton has two hundred and thirty-two. This includes sixteen for Trump from Michigan, where his victory, by ten thousand votes, was certified this afternoon. Wisconsin has ten electoral votes, and he is ahead by about thirty thousand; Pennsylvania has twenty, and the lead is seventy thousand. A recount would have to reverse the results in all three states to get Clinton to two hundred and seventy. And, as fivethirtyeight.com noted, this has never happened in cases where the margins are as large as those in Wisconsin or Pennsylvania; even Michigan would be at the edge of past experience. "
californiainthemiddle wrote:
ryan foreman wrote:Generally I'm not a fan of the Green Party platform where everything is a right.
But if you believe just the mainstream scientific view of global warming, Stein is absolutely rationale in treating global warming like its a WW2 event. Hillary is the one who is completely off the rails by playing up global warming on one hand, but not really doing much about it. Its like an Alien space ship suddenly showing up in Earth's orbit, and Hillary saying that first we need to focus on growing the economy. You are insane if you don't look facts in the face.
If I was an ant and someone stepped on me, poof.
Global warming will not adversely affect this ant in my life time. No matter how long or how short.
Climate has always changed. You youngsters are on your own. I personally hate the cold, and if I could get the temp up a few more, I'd leave my car running 24 / 7
Just run the car in a closed garage and get it over with already.
We don't need you consuming any more oxygen ... low IQ needs to be culled now.
calinmiddle please be trolling. everything you said is so wrong and reprehensible
Jill Stein still has learned that PA is the ONLY state that does not allow a reasonable statewide recount.
A recount requires 3 voters per voting district providing signed and notarized affidavits. Which must be submitted by hand to the PA voting rulers.
PA is a district by district recount. Not statewide. Most districts can still have a recount. For a few the date has passed.
So, one Stein goal has been accomplished. Outing of a bogus recounting process. The ridiculous process --only in PA-- is now on the chopping block.
Jill Stein outs PA wrote:
Jill Stein still has learned that PA is the ONLY state that does not allow a reasonable statewide recount.
A recount requires 3 voters per voting district providing signed and notarized affidavits. Which must be submitted by hand to the PA voting rulers.
PA is a district by district recount. Not statewide. Most districts can still have a recount. For a few the date has passed.
So, one Stein goal has been accomplished. Outing of a bogus recounting process. The ridiculous process --only in PA-- is now on the chopping block.
Perhaps, but, according to "The New Yorker" article above, Clinton is down by about 70,000 votes in PA: that's not especially close.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with the recount. The intent is to determine where voting issues might exist. That PA makes it nearly impossible to conduct a recount is a problem that needs to be fixed. Election results should a statewide process for statewide elections. Apply local election recount rules to state races (including the presidency) is the problem for PA. The process encourages voter fraud. Who is going to check with such onerous rules?
Notice? wrote:
californiainthemiddle wrote:If I was an ant and someone stepped on me, poof.
Global warming will not adversely affect this ant in my life time. No matter how long or how short.
Climate has always changed. You youngsters are on your own. I personally hate the cold, and if I could get the temp up a few more, I'd leave my car running 24 / 7
Just run the car in a closed garage and get it over with already.
We don't need you consuming any more oxygen ... low IQ needs to be culled now.
If the price of gasoline goes down we can all STOP RUNNING and idle our cars 24/7 and get FAT and LAZY. You can all live the american dream of having blood clots heart disease. Cardiovascular disease. Lets all breath in car exaust fumes and get a great breath of fresh fume aìr. Lets all slowly kill ourselves now. We only live once right?
Jill Stein outs PA wrote:
Which has absolutely nothing to do with the recount. The intent is to determine where voting issues might exist. That PA makes it nearly impossible to conduct a recount is a problem that needs to be fixed. Election results should a statewide process for statewide elections. Apply local election recount rules to state races (including the presidency) is the problem for PA. The process encourages voter fraud. Who is going to check with such onerous rules?
Yet Stein is opposed to tightening voter ID laws which discourage voter fraud.
And since it is not close, why cannot this be done as an academic exercise?
iyrwq wrote:
Yet Stein is opposed to tightening voter ID laws which discourage voter fraud.
And since it is not close, why cannot this be done as an academic exercise?
You need to understand the difference between "tighter" voter ID laws and "preventing" eligible voters from voting. A common misconception is that a driver's license is all that is needed to vote. Not true. A driver's license for ineligible voters carries a special ID marking that identifies a person as ineligible to vote. Felons, illegals, people who live in hotels, and others cannot vote. A second form of ID is not required.
Being close does not matter. This recount is about determining where voting issues lie. PA is a state with a major problem. The state does not have a review method in place for statewide elections. A statewide candidate must jump through 2000+ multiple hoops to get 2000+ districts to do a recount, or check for voting irregularities. PA is the only state with such onerous statewide election requirements.
Jill Stein and Bernie Sanders have Eastern European Jewish ancestry and both hate the Apartheid State of israel. That's funny!!!!!!!!!!!!
In Michigan, the Detroit Free Press reported, Stein has requested a recount of the nearly 4.8 million ballots cast for president in the state, contending, in part, the number of ballots with no vote for president were a "red flag" to her.
See, she just wants to make sure that all her votes are counted.
On the fraud front.
a study released by two Old Dominion University political scientists in 2014 found that self-reported non-citizens voted at a rate of 11.3 percent.
"If we apply that number to the current presidential election ... you'd have 3.2 million aliens voted in the presidential election, and that far exceeds the current popular vote margin
ouivv wrote:
http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/another-call-for-a-recount
So intellectually dishonest to the end and beyond about this election. They imply that Stein may have cost Hillary the election, but fail to mention that Johnson got 3x as many votes.
It's time for the lefties to grow up and accept that its over.
Seems that Dane County (WI) is exclusively having temp workers ($20/hr) solicited via Democratic party.
When found out, it was called a "communications problem" by the county clerk. Election manual says anyway you first have to recruit poll workers from the actual day.
New anti-Trump scheme wrote:
Seems that Dane County (WI) is exclusively having temp workers ($20/hr) solicited via Democratic party.
When found out, it was called a "communications problem" by the county clerk. Election manual says anyway you first have to recruit poll workers from the actual day.
So you are saying this is just like every other Dem "recounting" method that's been seen in last few decades?
IT Guy wrote:
ryan foreman wrote:Generally I'm not a fan of the Green Party platform where everything is a right.
But if you believe just the mainstream scientific view of global warming, Stein is absolutely rationale in treating global warming like its a WW2 event. Hillary is the one who is completely off the rails by playing up global warming on one hand, but not really doing much about it. Its like an Alien space ship suddenly showing up in Earth's orbit, and Hillary saying that first we need to focus on growing the economy. You are insane if you don't look facts in the face.
If Stein was rational, she'd have seen that by putting herself in the election, she'd pull votes away from Clinton, who at least had some passing interest in climate change. Of course now that Trump won, Stein suddenly realizes what an idiot she is...
If Stein's votes had gone to Clinton, she would have won Wisconsin and Michigan, and it would be too close to call in Pennsylvania.
Nice job, Jill.
Naahhh... Clinton did it all on her own. Not borrowing Bernie's talking points was a terrible mistake. The guy you can blame for splitting votes is that libertarian wacko Johnson.
you deserve to die, you selfish d*ckhead
californiainthemiddle wrote:
ryan foreman wrote:Generally I'm not a fan of the Green Party platform where everything is a right.
But if you believe just the mainstream scientific view of global warming, Stein is absolutely rationale in treating global warming like its a WW2 event. Hillary is the one who is completely off the rails by playing up global warming on one hand, but not really doing much about it. Its like an Alien space ship suddenly showing up in Earth's orbit, and Hillary saying that first we need to focus on growing the economy. You are insane if you don't look facts in the face.
If I was an ant and someone stepped on me, poof.
Global warming will not adversely affect this ant in my life time. No matter how long or how short.
Climate has always changed. You youngsters are on your own. I personally hate the cold, and if I could get the temp up a few more, I'd leave my car running 24 / 7
She is no wacko. She does not want Trump in office (Gary Johnson, by the way, cost Clinton more votes than she did, I am sure) and the deficit is so small that it could well be that a recount will change the outcome. She can't say this, however, because it would suggest that she was suing for another party who won't do it--namely, Clinton.
The fact that the margins are now a total of 80,000 votes between Pennsylvania (46,000), Wisconsin, and Michigan means that democracy is best served by a recount, especially when the will of the people of the U.S. was quite clear--2.2 million more votes for Clinton.
Will it change the result? I doubt it. It is in the range of possibility, however.
Clinton's now down by only 46,000 votes in PA but still 0.8 percent, above the 0.5 percent automatic recount threshold.
jjjjjjj wrote:
Clinton's now down by only 46,000 votes in PA but still 0.8 percent, above the 0.5 percent automatic recount threshold.
And the recount hasn't even started yet.
Same result pre-recount in WI. Trump lose 5000 of his vote "lead."
Clinton had her counts adjusted by a few hundred votes. Not Trump's thousands.
Why are the miscounts found so far so much in favor of Trump?