The Democrats’ real strategy in launching recounts

American Thinker ^ | November 27, 2016 | Richard Baehr

[NYer]

The recount in Wisconsin, and coming ones in Michigan and Pennsylvania will not change the outcomes in any of the states.  No recount ever changes thousands of votes.  I do not think that is the purpose.

The recounts, if done by hand, which can be demanded, may take longer than the last day for completing official counts in a state and directing Electoral College voters.  If all 3 states miss the deadline, Trump is at 260, Hillary at 232.  No one hits 270.  

Then this goes to Congress, where the House voting 1 vote per state elects Trump, and Senate selects Pence. This would be first time this happened since 1824; in that case, John Quincy Adams won in the House, though he had fewer electoral college votes than Andrew Jackson.  

If this goes to the US House and Senate, and the result is the same as from the Electoral College without the recounts, why do it?  The answer is to make Trump seem even more illegitimate, that he did not win the popular vote  (he lost by over 2.1 million), he did not win the Electoral College (did not reach 270), and was elected by being inserted into the presidency by members of his own party in Congress.

The recount in Wisconsin, and the coming ones in Michigan and Pennsylvania will not change outcomes in any of the states.  No recount ever changes thousands of votes.  I do not think that's the purpose.

The recounts, if done by hand, which can be demanded, may take longer than the last day for completing the official counts in a state and directing Electoral College voters.  If all 3 states miss the deadline, Trump is at 260, Hillary at 232.  No one hits 270.  

[savedbygrace]

In the House, 30 States have Republican majorities.

[Cecily]

Whatever is going on, I hope it is making Trump angry enough to investigate all of the crimes of the Hildabeast and her cronies once he is in office. Expose everything to prove her illegitimacy and criminality once and for all.

Dear Mr. Trump, I did not vote for you to “unite” and “heal” the country. I voted for you in the hopes that Washington, D.C. business as usual would not continue, and you would put an administration in place that will do what is best for America and Americans, not Hillary, her gang of criminals, and the corrupt and/or moronic Americans who support that ilk.

[Iron Munro]

If the strategy of denying Trump 270 or more electoral votes works and the election of the president goes to the House there is no telling what the outcome would be.

You know darn well that the democrats are already working on the the RINOs, Never Trumpers and Hillary lovers among the republicans in the House to vote Hillary in.

[saintgermaine]

Is it over by means of a peaceful revolution in form of an election or are the democrats vying for a real one most likely instigated by dumb & crooked Hillary and creepy George Soros? This country just may get what most people voted against, forced upon them by some crooks. Will this stupidity and corruption ever end?

[Arm_Bears]

The Left will never accept Trump’s election.

Period.

Stiffen your spines—It’s going to be a bumpy eight years.

As for me, I’m buying more ammo this afternoon.

[grey_whiskers]

I *lived* in Minnesota when this was going on. There were 32 ballots found in the trunk of a car: but all the liberal blogs and SJWs in charge of things online have buried the story.

Sean Hannity brought it up on the air, in conversation with then-Gov RINO Tim Pawlenty (T-Paw) and he played the "Minnesota nice" card without specifically refuting it. Typical ball-less RINO loser.

[Uncle Sam 911]

Democrats would destroy the constitution to save their own power. Dead Fidel Castro would be so proud.

[hopespringseternal]

By the end of 2017, Soros should be lying next to bin Laden and Hillary should be in prison.

[UCANSEE2]

Has anyone asked, "What should the Republican party be doing or saying about the Clinton/Stein demand for recounts?"

According to law, the RNC is not allowed to say or do anything about a call by the Democrats for a recount.

I shall try to find the exact 'law', but it has been discussed on various threads here on FR for at least a week.

[UCANSEE2]

Oh, here it is.

GOP Legally Barred From Fighting Vote Fraud (11/20/2012)

[The_Republic_Of_Maine]

If no candidate gets 270 votes, and congress wants to take on the election for itself, it will, and there is noting anybody could do about it.

There are about 37 million heavily armed Trumps supporters who might disagree with Congress.

[sourcery]

Per the Constitution, Congress is the final decider. It has the sole Constitutional authority to count the votes of the Electors, and to decide who won,

[Sgt_Schultze]

...why can’t dead Democrat candidates run for office?

Already been done. See the Missouri 2000 governor election, Carnahan v Ashcroft. The dead guy won.

[stockpirate]

If the democrats can force this to the house then this part applies.

In every case, after the choice of the President, the person having the greatest number of votes of the electors shall be the Vice President.”

Thats right boys and girls VP Hillary.

[outofsalt]

This is step one in trying to undo the electoral college. The democrats will take decades to push the popular vote through to fruition and this is their opening salvo.

[HangThemHigh]

The 5th stage of grief could be something other than acceptance (and more permanent). Just saying.

[CGVet58]

This disgusting effort to undermine the Constitution and the election is par for the course for the left, the clintons, democrats. That they are using Stein is practically a slap in the face - given that there is no way she could win, it's debatable whether she even has standing on this.

Jim and all, would appreciate thoughts on following:

To demand a recount at such a late hour - the Soros-led traitors bank on the counts not being completed. If this happens, does this mean that the State's votes do not count for the election?

Secondly, cannot Trump likewise demand a recount from the states that Clinton won ?

What's good for the goose is good for the gander - if these scum think they can erode Trump's victory by selectively going after states that Trump won (...shades of Al Gore/2000, who initially requested a recount in counties won by him...), then I see no obstacle to why Trump could not likewise question the legitimacy of results in California, Oregon, Washington, et.al. Something tells me those leftist cesspools wouldn't be finished by deadline, either.

Also, Jim, I see your point about it not being able to go to the House (in the scenario we discuss here...). Art II states that it goes to the House in case both candidates having equal votes (... among other, less likely, scenarios...)

In Liberty, E Pluribus Unum

The JG

[Morpheus2009]

Trying to disqualify my state of Pennsylvania does not sit well with me. It reeks badly of sore losers and wannabe totalitarians. I certainly wouldn’t vote Democrat, either ever or for a long time over what they have been pushing with this election.

[laconic]

Trump is not ahead by 60,000+ in Pennsylvania - he is ahead by 70,528 according to the current Secretary of State posting. Also, if Dr. Miss Stein is so concerned with the integrity of the ballot, why is she not seeking a recount of New Hampshire votes, where Clinton “won” by 2600 votes as opposed to Trump’s wins in Michigan (10,700); Wisconsin (22,000+) and Pennsylvania (70,528)?? I guess “principle” depends on whose ox is being gored, right Miss Stein?

[CGVet58]

"...What's the right strategy for the Republican party in dealing with these recount demands..."

How about Trump demanding similar recounts in CA, OR, WA, NY, questioning the legitimacy of the votes in those states?

If this were to happen, thus giving the soros/clinton commie crowd a good, strong healthy measure of their own Alinsky-tactics - coupled with an excellent dose of good ole' American STFU, of course - I'd get the popcorn, grab the remote, and just watch leftist heads explode for the next 4 years!

The JG