Bizarro Election Update


At this time, five states are involved in recounts or have had recounts requested. In order of likelihood of a recount happening, those states are :

Wisconsin: A recount is underway right now. Trump won Wisconsin by a little short of 23 thousand votes, so a recount was never expected to change things much. With 23 out of 72 counties completed, Trump’s margin in Wisconsin has actually increased by 146 votes.

The recount is underway, but all evidence indicates Trump will continue to hold the victory in Wisconsin.

Michigan: A recount has been ordered and is underway, but the Attorney General for Michigan has filed suit to stop it due to taxpayer cost and Stein’s alleged lack of standing. A Michigan Court of Appeals appears to be siding with the Attorney General.

That could send the case to the Michigan State Supreme Court.

To make things ever stranger, more than half the precincts in Detroit apparently broke their scanners by forcing the machines to accept ballots in a non-approved manner, creating a conflict which – among other things – makes recount impossible because physical ballots in those precincts cannot be matched to computer results.

The recount may not continue. If it does not continue, Trump will continue to hold the victory in Michigan. If the recount is allowed to continue, the remaining countable ballots are in counties where Trump won convincingly, indicating he would still hold the victory.

Nevada: A very late filing was made by Independent candidate Roque De La Fuente for a recount just two days ago. The recount is ongoing, even though the reason for the recount and the intended objective are both unclear.

The results so far indicate Clinton will continue to hold the victory in Nevada.

Pennsylvania: Jill Stein asked for a recount in Pennsylvania but was denied by the state. She filed in state court to contest the election, then withdrew the suit and instead filed in federal court to contest Pennsylvania on grounds that the election procedures violated the 1st and 14th Constitutional amendments.

A federal judge has scheduled a hearing on the suit for Friday.

If the federal court dismisses the suit, Trump will continue to hold the victory in Pennsylvania. In the unlikely event that the judge rules in Stein’s favor, the most likely result would be that Pennsylvania’s electoral votes would be thrown out, and no one could claim them in the electoral count.

Florida: A very late recount suit was filed two days ago in Florida by three plaintiffs. A fatal flaw is that Trump’s lawyers are not required to respond until after the electoral college votes,

so that Trump can win the case by simply ignoring it.

There is no evidence that Florida’s results will be changed.
What this means is essentially that there is no real path for Hillary Clinton to become President, short of multiple courts all deciding to award states won by Trump to Clinton, on no evidence Clinton actually had more votes than Trump in any of those states.

More Left-Wing Lunacy
The Obama Economic Legacy; Stagnation
  • pennywit

    What this means is essentially that there is no real path for Hillary Clinton to become President, short of multiple courts all deciding to award states won by Trump to Clinton, on no evidence Clinton actually had more votes than Trump in any of those states.

    There is also a small (make that minuscule) possibility that electors will change their votes.

    • Retired military

      If electors change their votes than one senator and one representative can contest that elector’s vote and it will not be counted into the total. The total number of electors will then be decreased by 1. That means that 270 is no longer the threshold.
      If there is no majority winner of the remaining votes than it would go to the house and Trump will win anyway. Unless of course you think that a republican house member up for election in 2 years is going to vote against Trump.

      • Paul Hooson

        So far, it’s only a few Hillary electors and one possible Trump elector who may not vote for their candidates. But, even this is disappointing to me as these electors should all be bound to their candidates and not ethically engage in vote switching unless some really earth-shattering event would motivate them to switch votes from their candidates.

        • Walter_Cronanty

          First reasonable comment in months.

  • yetanotherjohn

    What this means is essentially that there is no real path for Hillary Clinton to become President, short of multiple courts all deciding to award states won by Trump to Clinton, on no evidence Clinton actually had more votes than Trump in any of those states.

    Now who has been appointing judges for the last 8 years who might think the ends are more important than the constitution or law?

  • Paul Hooson

    Under more normal statistical circumstances, about a 2 percentage point win by the Democratic candidate would be enough to pull along enough electoral votes to win the election. Clinton has a 2,660,898 popular vote lead, and a 1.9%, 48.05% to 46.10% percentage vote lead. However, the Trump Campaign’s message to voters in the “Rust Belt” area worked better than expected, where the Clinton Campaign did not anticipate narrow losses in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, and the losses in Ohio and Iowa were far worse than expected, and the win in Minnesota much closer than expected. The internal polls in the Trump Campaign did not anticipate wins in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, nor did the Clinton Campaign expect to lose those three states and the election there. The big upset of this election was that the Trump message to blue collar workers worked better than expected in those three states, and miscalculation by the Clinton Campaign not to spend more money on ads and put further work on “get out the vote” efforts was put in there. In most other parts of the country, the election was much more similar to 2012, and a more traditional election.

    However, as far as any recounts go, they will not change the electoral vote outcome, but will only prove whether the electronic votes and paper record of these votes are similar enough to prove integrity of the electronic voting system. For this reason, any recounts should be allowed, where there should be no efforts to prevent these efforts to prove the integrity of the electronic voting.

    The outcome of the election will not change as a result of these recounts, however any efforts to stop these recounts raise undue suspicions among some about those attempting to halt these recounts. Let the recounts continue for anyone who can afford the costs to pay for them, because those opposing them won’t lose the election or gain anything of any value opposing these recounts.

    • DJD60_TX

      No Paul, by definition recounts do not “prove the integrity of the … voting system”, anymore than a police officer is entitled to pull you over just to see if you have broken any laws. The text of recount statutes makes clear, moreover, that recounts are intended to decide elections where there is evidence of fraud or reasonable expectation that error could affect the outcome.

      The recount demands are simply emotional tantrums, with taxpayers left to pay the bill for the most part. That’s one reason the Appeals court slapped down the Michigan recount; the projected cost is almost six times what Stein is willing to pay, meaning a recount would waste millions of tax dollars for no reasonable purpose.

      • Paul Hooson

        I fully expect the paper vote count to always be close to the first released results as only the paper vote scanners sometimes count a 1,000 inserted ballots as 999 or 1,001. It’s the electronic votes at issue in these recounts, whether this number also closely reflects the paper vote record. If those requesting the recounts are paying all the associated costs of these recounts, then I have no problem with that. But, the figures are enough outside the statistical margins of error for any taxpayer to be paying any recount costs here.

        • jim_m

          The bogus claim by Stein is that there is a suspicion that electronic records of voting might have been hacked despite the fact that none of the machines are connected to the internet and no possibility for their being hacked by a foreign power exists.

          It is a lie that this is about ballot integrity. It is only about 2 things: 1) Raising money for Stein, (who as a communist in her ideology wants to tear down the US) and 2) delegitimizing the election of Trump.

        • DJD60_TX

          Sorry Paul, but that’s garbage. Polling is not a pure science, as evidenced by the fact that poll results change, often rapidly. Court actions only should happen when you have EVIDENCE of a need for that action. And there is none – ZERO – to support the claim.

          What’s more, in Pennsylvania the very same question was addressed by Pennsylvania’s Commonwealth Court just last year. Go look up J-74-2014 Banfield v Cortes which addressed the very same claims in detail. Note that the court found the certification process valid for securing ballot integrity.

          This is a rehash of an issue long settled in the courts.

    • Retired military

      They aren’t trying to change the outcome of the election. They are trying to keep those EC votes from being counted so Trump wont get 270. He will still be President but they want to try to discredit his victory.
      In other words they are like someone losing at checkers or chess and they upset the board rather than lose with dignity.

      • jim_m

        Exactly. The most recent of these, Florida, is deliberately calculated to take this beyond the Dec 13th date for certification of the vote and even beyond the Dec 19th Electoral College vote.

        The sole purpose of this is to legitimize the election of Trump.

        • Brucehenry

          I’m no proponent of these recounts. At first they seemed to be a possible straw to desperately grasp at, but the more I learn about them the more silly and unhelpful they seem to me.

          However, it’s kind of delicious to hear the wailing about the attempt to “delegitimize” the election of Trump. What the hell do you think the Birther crap was if not an attempt to deligitimize the election of a President? And who — think back, now — was the most vocal and visible proponent of Birtherism?

          • jim_m

            Hillary was. 0bama’s publisher was #2.

          • Sky__Captain

            You really need to check the history of Bitherism.

            That was the HildaBeast trying to delegitimize 0bama during the 2008 primaries.
            You’re welcome.

          • Retired military

            Well Hillary started it.

          • Brett Buck

            Hillary Clinton.

          • Brucehenry

            Well you and Jim and RM and the idiot who calls himself “Sky Captain” may choose to believe, or pretend to believe, debunked zombie lies all you like. Maybe you should show up at a pizzeria with an AR-15 to investigate Hillary’s child sex ring while you’re at it.

            But really we all know that you know the truth. You just insist on your own narrative, your own reality. You’re lost.

          • jim_m

            Nobody has debunked the fact that Hillary’s 2008 campaign pushed the birther story. More lies from Bruce.

          • Brucehenry

            As repeatedly mentioned by me here and many many others elsewhere, the Birther idea DID seem to spring from a Hillary low-level staffer in 2008. The campaign never ran with it or pushed it in any way. Apparently Blumenthal did look into it, found it was nonsense, and dropped it, and the low level staffer who came up with the idea “left the campaign.”

            But Alex Jones and his ilk snapped it up and ran with it. Trump went around making noise about it for years. You can find Republican members of Congress today who still espouse it.

            This is all easily Googled, and has been explained to you multiple times. You know it is so, and yet you, inveterate liar and radical wingnut that you are, insist on repeating the deliberate lie that Hillary’s campaign “pushed the birther story.”

            Please just go all-out and shoot up a pizza joint rescuing child sex slaves from John Podesta because you read it on one of your hair-on-fire websites. OWN your nuttiness. OWN your alternate reality.

            Like Mike Flynn, our new National Security Advisor, God help us, and his genius son.

          • jim_m

            Blumenthal didn’t drop it because he saw there was nothing to it. He dropped it because he failed to get traction with it.

          • Brucehenry

            Sez you and your fake-news-devouring compadres.

          • jim_m

            Fake news? Like the TANG memos that the left swooned over? Like the “plastic turkey” that Bush held at the Thanksgiving dinner for the troops that the MSM and you went nuts over, but it was real and you still claim that it was plastic despite being shown to be liars? Like the bullshit fake news that 0bama has had zero scandals? Like 0bama claiming that he heard of Hillary’s server from the news? Like Benghazi being from a video?

            You are the blogs biggest consumer of fake news.

          • Scalia

            The birther issue most certainly originated with the Left. Hillary’s campaign also picked it up with Mark Penn’s strategy memo which advised Hillary to stress her American roots and values. They also ran the hit picture of Obama in Somali garb. As with the birther issue they gave themselves deniability when called on it. They simply said that the fact Obama objected to a picture of him looking like a “Muslim” showed that the problem was with him. It was enough to float the birther story and tap dance around it if the fire got too hot.

            Anybody who thinks they Hillary was ignorant of Blumenthal’s acts is a Kool-Aid drinker.

          • Brucehenry

            Your link doesn’t work.

          • Scalia

            Try it now.

          • Brucehenry

            A fine article (even though it attributes the identical quote to two — or is it three? — different people) but it doesn’t demonstrate Jim’s contention that “the Clinton campaign pushed” the crackpot theory. It says that it was started by former Hillary supporters AFTER her campaign had ended. It says nothing at all about Blumenthal so I guess you have other evidence for your “Kool-Aid drinker” assertion.

            I see no evidence in your link about the Somali-garb photo or who ran it. Do you have any evidence that this is so, or is it just something you heard? Not that it’s beyond the realm of possibility. I also remember Hillary saying that Obama was born in the US “as far as I know” which many Obama supporters took offense at.

            But hey, wait a minute! If the birther conspiracy started with the PUMAs, who began circulating it AFTER the primary contest was over, as your link states, and that you say is “certainly” the case, then why was Hillary asked about it at all? And if the campaign was over, as your link states and you say is “certainly” so, why did Hillary need “deniability”?

          • Scalia

            I’m not talking to you; I was replying to Jim. Jim doesn’t speak for me, and I don’t speak for him. You noted that my link didn’t work, so I merely informed you that it was fixed. Carry on your conversation with Jim if you like. I don’t care to talk with you about anything unless it’s unavoidable.

            If you really wanted to know about the Obama Somali garb controversy, you would have looked it up. It’s very easy to find, and the Obama campaign excoriated the Clinton campaign for it.

            Talk to somebody else. I don’t want to talk with you anymore.

          • Brucehenry

            I understand and this will be my final comment to you. Feel free not to respond to it.

            Your link, which you say “certainly” demonstrates that the birther myth “started on the left” by members of the PUMA camp AFTER the primary campaign, ignores the undeniable fact that Hillary was being asked about the birther rumors DURING the campaign. Perhaps the Daily Beast didn’t “certainly” demonstrate anything. That’s all I’m saying.

            Again, feel free not to respond. I replied to the substance of your comment, and do not mean to offend you personally.

          • Scalia

            My comment TO JIM was meant to show that even a moderate/liberal on a liberal website acknowledges the origin of the birther movement. Actually, I think a more accurate analysis is found on a website that rejects birtherism.

            You are free to post anything you like (except when a topic is closed or when you try to hijack a thread), including under any column I write. I simply do not wish to have discussions with you for aforestated reasons.

          • Brucehenry

            LOL you don’t wanna have any discussion with me, you just want to reply to Jim’s comment, which was a reply to me about a subject I brought up. Fair enough ha ha.

            And Breitbart? Really? “Accurate analysis?” OK.

            Okay, this is seriously my final comment to you, no really. At least on this thread. And if I reply to any further comments from you that doesn’t mean I expect a response, given your aversion to having any discussion with me, LOL. At least any direct discussion anyway.

          • jim_m

            Lazy? More like just dishonest. It’s come up here before.

          • Brucehenry

            Well it least it’s not passive-aggressive and oblique or trying to have things both ways. But I’m free to post anything I like, lol.

          • Brucehenry

            By the way, even if you guys were right about how the birther idea started, and I’m not saying you are, it WAS dropped by the Hillary campaign after a matter of, at most, a few weeks.

            Compare that to Trump, who was still saying it in 2012 and still making noises about it until 2016. Trump was the most visible, the most persistent, and the loudest birther voice, followed closely by right wing hero Joe Arpaio and famed Kerry-slayers Joseph Farah and Jerome Corsi, and oh let’s not forget WND’s Alex Jones.

            So when Trump’s apologists bleat about how unpatriotic it is to attempt to “delegitimize” a president, I kinda chuckle.

          • Like the 0bama Economy has been in recovery for years…

          • jim_m

            More fake news that Bruce falls for every day:

            Hillary was named after Sir Edmund Hillary
            Hillary applied to enter the Marine Corps
            Hillary was rejected by NASA
            Hillary was shot at by snipers
            Hillary was dead broke when she left the White House
            0bama was born because of the march in Selma
            You can keep your doctor
            and your health plan
            Russia is not a geopolitical threat
            ISIS is the JV team
            0bama did not know that ISIS had military capabilities
            People opposed 0bama because he was black, not because he is a rigid left wing ideologue
            People opposed Hillary because she has a vagina, not because she is a corrupt left wing ideologue
            Homelessness is a problem only when a Republican is President
            Democrats are not racists
            Radical Islam is not a problem
            Islamophobia causes terrorism
            The US is the source of all evil in the world today
            0bama didn’t apologize for US policy when he was elected
            Global warming is real

            We can go on and on Bruce. Fake news is practiced primarily by the left.. Everything from Rathergate to NBC rigging pickup trucks to blow up to the NYT covering for genocide by he Soviets.

          • Retired military

            “Hillary was dead broke when she left the White House”

            You left out “and had mortgages and stuff”

          • Retired military

            A Hillary staffer nor trump either make up a bio which stated that Obama was a senator who was born in Kenya.

          • jim_m

            Fuck you Bruce and your bullshit fake news. Hey, don’t forget “Hand’s up, don’t shoot!” That fake news story was pushed by every news outlet you consider to be a purveyor of holy truth. It’s the lie that spawned the racist Black Lives Matter movement that is now murdering police across our nation . A movement and outcome you obviously support.

          • Brucehenry

            “…the racist Black Lives Matter movement that is now murdering police across our nation.”

            Another example of the through-the-looking-glass alternate reality you live in and (pretend to) believe.

          • jim_m

            Let everyone notice that you do not deny supporting BLM and their advocacy of murdering police.

          • Retired military

            Please show me the debunking of the fact that Hillary and her cronies were going to push the birther meme.

          • Hank_M

            “who …was the most vocal and visible proponent of Birtherism?”

            The media. It even came up during this election.

            More seriously, according to politifact, this all started during the campaign of 2008. Trump jumped in in Jan/Feb 2011 and lo and behold, Obama finally releases the long form in April 2011, a couple of months later.

            Seems like Trump got results, once again.

            The Birther crap could have been ended in 2008 if Barry had wanted to do so.

          • Brucehenry

            You spend too much time on wingnut web. Try a little MSM sometime, Hank.


        • Brucehenry

          Also, Jim, maybe you can contact Drummond and teach him how to post links.

          • jim_m


          • A.D.

          • DJD60_TX

            … and you wonder why you have no friends, Bruce?

          • Brucehenry

            Not really. I have a few friends. They are the forgiving type.

          • Retired military

            Yep. I consider myself at least an internet acquaintance. I dont agree with much of what Bruce believes in but I find that I can have a civil conversation with him. IMO others should maybe try it. Just saying.

          • Brucehenry

            Thanks RM.

          • Scalia

            I tried.

          • There you go counting your dogs as your friends…

          • Brucehenry

            My dog loves me, but he will bite you.

          • Perhaps. Once.

    • Rdm42

      Then they could ask for the ballots to be retained and audited after the election. if they don’t care about their effect on this election. Like they did with the Bush/Gore florida ballots?

    • jim_m

      New Hampshire was only 0.36% different with Hillary ahead by only 2736 votes. If ever there were a case where voter fraud might have swayed the outcome it is in NH. But the fact that they are not calling for a recount there reveals that this is about delegitimizing Trump.

      Defend not recounting NH Paul.

      • Rdm42

        Her stated ‘excuse’ was that the deadline had passed in New Hampshire … of curse it had also passed in Pennsylvania, yet …

        • jim_m

          Precisely. They were never interested in recounting something that might lead to a Hillary loss.

        • Jwb10001

          Her unstated excuse is that she’s doing it for the money and the money is coming from the left so not going to bother with NH or Nevada or any of those pesky states. No one will give her money to assure the public the election was fair and true in THOSE states. Typical first rate hypocrisy.

      • Paul Hooson

        In every state the outcome appears to be outside the margin of error. The only question is whether the conspiracy theory claim that the electronic votes were somehow manipulated by hackers to not reflect the paper record. But, like all conspiracy theories, this is probably without legs as well. If Jill Stein has the funds to pay all recount costs is one thing, but if this is merely a scheme to block the electoral college from voting on schedule, then that is not acceptable because none of these recounts will change the election outcome, only prove if the paper record and the electronic one are close enough within error margins.

        • jim_m

          There is no evidence whatsoever that any votes were affected by hacking. NONE.

          Even that communist b*tch Jill Stein admits that. Furthermore, the reality is that not only is there no evidence but there is no way that hackers COULD have any affect because the voting machines are not connected to the internet.

          So tell us, Mr Dumbass, why it is that we should entertain a recount to check for irregularities that everyone admits are not there and cannot be there?

          This is to delegitimize the result and no other reason. No efforts were made to question results that went for the left wing candidate.

          It is obvious to anyone that has higher level cognitive faculties. Even Bruce says that he is not for the recount, and his cognitive abilities are highly suspect.

  • Vagabond661

    Trump has a mandate. The recount is to try to de-ligitimize the mandate. Everything the Looney Left is doing is to try to say Trump has no mandate.

  • LiberalNightmare

    In Federalist 68, Alexander Hamilton tells us why the Founding Fathers created the Electoral College: to prevent an unqualified demagogue who is under foreign influence from taking over the nation’s highest office.

    In November of 2016, it worked.

    • Scalia

      Interesting to observe that Midwest Democrats are perhaps unwittingly voicing support for the Electoral College when they complain that coastal Democrats are leaving them out.

  • jim_m

    Federal Court has killed the Michigan recount. Separately another federal court killed the forensic analysis of the voting machines in Philly.

    Stein raised $7M for these recounts is getting only one and trump is going to come out looking better afterwards. Plus, instead of raising $7M for her own use she is spending it on legal costs and the outrageous costs of the recounts, which she claims should be paid by the public she is trying to scam. Not the outcome she wanted. She should get an adjoining cell with Hillary.

  • jim_m

    And now the Jill Stein BS is bearing what the left will find to be very bitter fruit: Michigan just approved a strict voter ID law. Congrats go out to Bruce.