Clinton team hunts for volunteers to help with recount efforts [Paid...by Hill'...to 'elect' H.C...]

NYPost.com ^ | Dec. 1, 2016 | Daniel Halper

[Colofornian]

Hillary Clinton is looking for volunteers to help with the general election recount in two states.

New pages have been set up on HillaryClinton.com for those eager to assist the re-tally effort in Michigan and Wisconsin.

“Help with the Michigan recount,” one page urges. “Let us know if you want to get involved.”

The page features a sign-up form — but offers no other details, other than: “Someone from the team will be in touch.”

“Paid for by Hillary for America, a grassroots campaign of 3 million donors committed to electing Hillary Clinton (and keeping Donald Trump out of the White House),” reads the disclosure at the bottom of the page.

[Red Badger]

Muslim countries I hope...............

[euram]

Even IF they were able to flip Michigan and Wisconsin into Clinton’s column, Trump would still have 280 EC votes. Their only hope would be to intimidate 11 electors in states where Trump won to not vote for him.

It’s unlikely they will flip either state, so they would have to get 36 electors in Trump states to go against him. That would be near impossible as well.

[V K Lee]

“It’s not the people who vote that count. It’s the people who count the votes.”
(Joseph Stalin)

[Dr. Scarpetta]

If Hillary needs help in PA, Lafayette College in Easton will volunteer. Faculty, students, & the college president are crying for her.

[Wally_Kalbacken]

Well, I am still replaying the events of election night, over and over again, it’s such a pleasure. YouTube helps with the compilations of the set of smarter-than-the-rest-of-us journalists and commentators coming to the realization that the heathen proletariat just told them where to get off.

The single detail that is most pungent in the Clinton campaign and its reaction to failure, was Hillary not appearing at the Javits Center to speak to the crowd gathered there. I realize that the retrospectives suggest she was drunk, hysterical, throwing chairs, etc. - but sending Podesta to make that weak remark about “counting all votes so that all votes count” and asking people to go home, was classless. Here is a bunch of folks, people who contributed $$ and volunteered time, and you do not have the common courtesy to appear and thank them for their efforts? That alone tells you all you need to know about Hillary Clinton. Exploitive, mendacious. Thankfully, now history.

[Mr. K]

Let’s sign up!!

[Wally_Kalbacken]

The campaign is organized as a non-profit corporation. Obama created Obama for America in 2008 for that campaign, kept it operating for 2012, and then changing the name of the organization to Organizing for America, after the 2012 election. That way all the OFA letterhead, etc. could be used. Most campaigns live on for several years after and election, due to financial reporting obligations, and housecleaning that has to be done by a skeleton crew until the entity can be dissolved. A lot of them, Clinton 2016 not included, have substantial debts to retire over time after a failed attempt. John Glenn failed in the 1984 primary, and had debts from that effort that were not retired until the early 2000’s. Some organization, perhaps consisting of one part time lawyer, had to remain operating to accept funds that were going to retire that debt.

So, it's fairly common that they do not completely fold up shop after the election is concluded.

[GreenHornet]

The single detail that is most pungent in the Clinton campaign and its reaction to failure, was Hillary not appearing at the Javits Center to speak to the crowd gathered there. I realize that the retrospectives suggest she was drunk, hysterical, throwing chairs, etc. - but sending Podesta to make that weak remark about “counting all votes so that all votes count” and asking people to go home, was classless. Here is a bunch of folks, people who contributed $$ and volunteered time, and you do not have the common courtesy to appear and thank them for their efforts? That alone tells you all you need to know about Hillary Clinton. Exploitive, mendacious. Thankfully, now history.

I absolutely agree. Not that I feel sorry for them, but those young people in the Javits Center worked their butts off for Hillary over the past year. Hillary should have had the decency to walk out onto that stage and at least thank them for all of their hard work. Then again, at that point, they were no longer of any use to her, so why bother? Instead, she sends John Podesta out to tell them to go home.

I love the fact that the phone call Hillary made to Donald Trump conceding the election was made around 3 AM!

[SamAdams76]

I'm no electoral scholar but a quick review of past elections (going back before we had 50 states) shows that the simple majority of available electoral votes was the presidential winner. I couldn't find a single example of a state being excluded from the electoral count although the election of 1876 was very interesting, with four states not decided until practically inauguration day. Despite getting nearly 4 million less in the popular vote, Hayes (R) won with 185 electoral votes with Tilden (D) getting 184. The story of that election makes for very interesting reading.

My take is that the Dec 19 Electoral College election will proceed even if theoretically WI, MI or PA are not ready - with their votes being counted later. But I think this is academic at this point and all three states will be part of the Dec 19 vote (and they will all go to Trump).

Also want to point out that since 1948, we've had six elections in which the winner got less than the 306 EVs that Trump stands to get.

1948 - Truman (303)
1960 - JFK (303)
1968 - Nixon (301)
1976 - Carter (297)
2000 - GWB (271)
2004 - GWB (286)

Should be pointed out that in 1948, only 266 votes were needed as AK and HA weren't states yet.

Anyway, except for 2000, I don't remember any fuss in those close elections about recounts and whether or not the winner should be considered legitimate.

The 1960 election, no doubt at all that Richard Nixon should have won that. That one was stolen by JFK.

[seastay]

I don’t think just getting the three States tossed is the end goal, its just the beginning. Obviously their goal is to manufacture the idea of fraud. Just the phony claim by a professor without any shred of evidence has given the credibility to recount three states . Now imagine if they can manufacture “evidence” of voter fraud, evidence they planted for the specific purpose of creating doubt that other states were stolen , on a massive scale ? They can gen this all up with some fake forensic marker to “prove” illegal votes were cast, and can claim in the time frame they have to work with , it will be impossible to identify just how many fraudulent votes there are. They can claim by random sample projected on the states as a whole fraud is. huge and unprecedented. But of course these examples they will trot out will not be at all random , but planted during the recount or , possibly even before the election, so they know exactly where to look. this is just a theory, but nobody seems to be able to explain why they would be so stupid to spend millions if dollars with only the possibilities of flipping all three not going to happen , or invalidating the three states , taking them off the table for both candidates when Trump will still have the majority and cant loose. However, if they plant doubt that every state has massive fraud, it will lead to a crisis , unrest, perhaps even other un for-seen remedies by their favorite hand picked judges ? Remember, they were granted recount just on a accusation , so imagine if they manufacture fake evidence of a nation wide fraud and it becomes in their minds more than accusation but fake random evidence.. its all about manufacturing fake news to them, we should be well aware of tgat by now.

[Georgia Girl 2]

This recount effort is just a final sore loserman knashing and wailing as the progressives are totally swept out of power.

[butlerweave]

Please wear Puffy shirts so you can hide many ballots up your sleeves

[LS]

Don’t buy it. They “may” have that plan-—that would be a rather remarkable plan to have hatched in a week.

You’re giving libs way too much credit for ingenuity and smarts.

[ScottfromNJ]

I believe you’re correct, but I would also add as per Article II of the constitution, the state legislatures have the power to certify the original results and appoint their electors anyway.

[LS]

I don’t know. Even people like Stephen Ambrose, sympathetic to Nixon, think that Nixon lost a close one.

[sharkhawk]

Depends on the meaning of appointed. Congress has authorized 538 electors. If a state doesn’t send electors to the electoral college, do they still count? If a “faithless” elector leaves his choice blank, would that still be counted for the majority purposes. It’s not a simple question, and has never been litigated. Court case either way. I would guess the congress would have final say.

[LS]

Well, the Constitution does NOT “authorize” any number of electors, only 2 per state plus the appropriate number related to population. The number changes with each new state.

[Publius]

Take a look at the 1864 precedent.

[The Westerner]

LS, I wasn’t worrying about it because I thought this was not going anywhere. Only thing worrying me is that the Electoral College NOT be delayed by the Clinton/Soros team.

[LS]

I think that would be dismissed out of hand because of a war.