==
Posted on 11/29/2016 4:33:59 PM PST by BobL
Maybe it's time we wake up a bit. 1) Trump won by narrow margins in 3 states. 2) Podesta came out and said it's not over 3) Hillary and Obama soon after came out and said it is over 4) We were all happy and figured the rest of the effort to get Trump into office was just a formality 5) We stop worrying about watching the ballots and the machines 6) The Dems go dark, nothing from Hillary, Podesta, Obama questioning the election 7) Stein files for recount, we all (me included) say it's just a joke, a fund-raising scheme...and she raises lots of money. 8) Stein gives us soothing words - that she knows that Hillary lost, instead she just wants a complete tabulation, so as to legitimatize the results. 9) Hillary's people join the recount effort 10) No one on our side bothers asking why the Dems would want to 'legitimatize' Trump's victory 11) The big money requests from the state of Wisconsin comes in, we laugh...we told you so, just a fund-raising scheme 12) Stein shuts us up by paying up 13) So our main theory is blown out of the water - Stein/Hillary are serious about the recount. 14) Two more theories left: A: They want to legitimize Trump's victory B: They think they can overturn the results of the election
Does anyone think that "A" is the answer?
If not, is anyone concerned that "B" may just happen? Are Trump's lawyers watching (if so, they're awfully quiet...totally opposite of Bush's lawyers in 2000)? Are RNC lawyers watching? Do we know the chain of custody of all of the ballots/machines?
Finally, if the answers to the above are no, then are we prepared for Hillary to take office?
“nearly 70,000.”
Plus 70,000 in PA
Yep, Wisconsin really doesn’t play in. They need both Michigan and PA to win.
I think it was 400, but yes, GREAT TO SEE.
“For those that say the Democrats lost the Florida recount in 2000, I say not so fast. They were on track to win it until the SCOTUS put a stop to it. “
Not one count EVER had Gore ahead, They went back afterwards and still couldn’t find the votes
“Democrats do not lose recounts.”
Yes they do, all the time
It’s beyond ridiculous at this point.
Agreed. I do recall from that time and I am sure it was discussed here recently as well that the New York Times and other media outlets did their own recount of Florida in 2000 and Bush still won.
Please stop with this tin foil hat garbage”
This is my first posting on the subject.
It’s not ‘tin foil hat garbage’ while the recounts are taking place - but I will stop when they end.
If you don’t think the Dems are in this to win, then you don’t understand this bunch, not at all. Anyone who does understand them would NEVER let them out of their sights...which is what you’re pushing for.
“I have stated several times, Democrats do not lose recounts. they always win “
Recounts typically don’t swing enough votes to change the winner. Out of 4,687 statewide general elections between 2000 and 2015, just 27 were followed by recounts, according to data compiled by FairVote, a nonpartisan group that researches elections and promotes electoral reform.
Just three of those 27 recounts resulted in a change in the outcome, all leading to wins for Democrats: Al Franken’s win in Minnesota’s 2008 U.S. Senate race, Thomas M. Salmon’s win in Vermont’s 2006 auditor election and Christine Gregoire’s win in Washington’s 2004 gubernatorial race.
“That darn clip always gets me”
==
It’s a classic. But the worry about prospective recounts is silly - the numbers just aren’t there to change anything.
They need Wisconsin too. 306-16 (Mi)-20 (PA)=270 Trump still wins.
There is a human schadenfreude that puts this crap out to hysterics. I actually hold them in disdain. It is all total bull shit.
I too am getting suspicious. They believed the polls and didn’t think they’d need to manufacture that many votes.
They undercheated.
Now they put up their puppet Stein to challenge the three states that Clinton narrowly lost, the overturning of which would give her the presidency.
They can manufacture the votes needed and dare anyone to prove otherwise.
All that prevents this: perhaps three courts in three states. How hard is that for a Clinton?
There is no other reason for these three states to hold recounts. No one else stands to gain but Hillary Clinton and her minions.
Not saying it’s inevitable but if they find what they need, I won’t be surprised.
C: The electors have to vote on 12/19. If the recounts aren’t done, do they get to vote, if not, then Trump loses those, if he loses all of them he is no longer above 270 so the decision goes to the House of Representatives.
“Democrats do not lose recounts.”
Ohio 2004.
“Democrats do not lose recounts.” >> Ohio 2004.
Hard for them to lose a recount when they don’t bother requesting one.
The Democrat “counters” were on track to “elect” Gore. They
locked themselves in a room at the polls down in Florida.
They were counting “hanging chads” like there was no
tomorrow. - Some Freepers marched on the building where the
Democrat “counters” were “counting hanging chads”; one
Freeper stood in the door wearing his little smiley-face
stick-on badge, banging on the door, demanding that they
cease and desist. - We marched on Legislative Plaza at our
capital with Sore/Loserman signs; other Freepers marched on
the VP mansion demanding that Gore vacate the premises.
Those were the days. Democrats had to be reined in to stop
them stealing that election - with legal means.
Several media outfits collaborated to perform several recounts in Florida. They employed three different methodologies. Bush won with two of them and Gore won with one. Interestingly, they reported that the method Gore was pushing for through the courts resulted in his loss.
So not only did Gore lose in the courts, "He chose poorly!"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.