11–20 of 39 posts
What is this data referenced in the article? FTA: With your help, are raising money to demand recounts in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania-- three states where the data suggests significant discrepancies in vote totals," the page reads.
https://medium.com/@jhalderm/want-to-know-if-the-election-wa...
I think if there's reason to believe that votes were miscounted or there was fraud, there should be a recount. But I can't help but notice that the media seemed to hammer Trump about the possibility of not accepting the results of the election. I strongly suspect if he were the one demanding a recount it would be treated very differently. It's disappointing that our society so obviously switches its standards based o…
Looks like it is going to happen. The fundraising is getting close to its goal and it is over 1.9m, (it was 1.7 just 30 mins ago). https://jillstein.nationbuilder.com/recount
I think if there's reason to believe that votes were miscounted or there was fraud, there should be a recount. But I can't help but notice that the media seemed to hammer Trump about the possibility of not accepting the results of the election. I strongly suspect if he were the one demanding a recount it would be treated very differently. It's disappointing that our society so obviously switches its standards based o…
Recount is different from rejection of results. It was unclear whether he was anticipating a legal fight or simply planning on ignoring the counts. My guess is that he wanted to lose so that he could focus on making noise and have no responsibility.
I think the whole issue was created to make him look bad. "Hey, if you lose, will you accept the results?" After Gore/Bush, I don't know if anybody would immediately say "Yes" without thinking about the possibility of questionable things happening. Would you accept the results of an election with fraud? Until the election happens, you can't have 100% confidence that you won't think there was some fraud.
A lot of us here have questions about voting machines, people voting who shouldn't, etc. These are natural concerns that should be Hillary's concerns (as they are now) and not just Trump's.
The question was not "Assuming there is iron clad proof of no voter fraud, will you accept the results if you lose?" The answer would almost certainly have been "Yes" in that case. I think all of us on this site are smart enough to assign non-zero probability to the chance that this question was asked WITHOUT the "no voter fraud" disclaimer specifically to elicit the reaction that it got.
I think if there's reason to believe that votes were miscounted or there was fraud, there should be a recount. But I can't help but notice that the media seemed to hammer Trump about the possibility of not accepting the results of the election. I strongly suspect if he were the one demanding a recount it would be treated very differently. It's disappointing that our society so obviously switches its standards based o…
Recount is different from rejection of results. It was unclear whether he was anticipating a legal fight or simply planning on ignoring the counts. My guess is that he wanted to lose so that he could focus on making noise and have no responsibility.
Recount is also different then acceptance.
This recount is purely academic. You would have to alter tens of thousands of votes across several states to change this election's outcome. No harm in being academic I suppose. Hope the millions are worth it.
I think if there's reason to believe that votes were miscounted or there was fraud, there should be a recount. But I can't help but notice that the media seemed to hammer Trump about the possibility of not accepting the results of the election. I strongly suspect if he were the one demanding a recount it would be treated very differently. It's disappointing that our society so obviously switches its standards based o…
Recount is different from rejection of results. It was unclear whether he was anticipating a legal fight or simply planning on ignoring the counts. My guess is that he wanted to lose so that he could focus on making noise and have no responsibility.
However, this will absolutely enrage his base as they see it as an attempt by the elite to steal the election. Trump seems to be moderating on some of his previous stances, but will likely reverse and be even more extreme after he wins a recount. Also, look for pressure on the Senate to completely suspend the filibuster and push through a very right wing Justice.
Based on how President Obama and Hilary Clinton are handling this so far, I expect them to intervene to squash any recount and try to make the transition as smooth as possible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Recount is different from rejection of results. It was unclear whether he was anticipating a legal fight or simply planning on ignoring the counts. My guess is that he wanted to lose so that he could focus on making noise and have no responsibility.
> Recount is different from rejection Recount is also different then acceptance. This recount is purely academic. You would have to alter tens of thousands of votes across several states to change this election's outcome. No harm in being academic I suppose. Hope the millions are worth it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Recount is different from rejection of results. It was unclear whether he was anticipating a legal fight or simply planning on ignoring the counts. My guess is that he wanted to lose so that he could focus on making noise and have no responsibility.
Why would anyone put so much time and money into an activity they hope to lose? I think the whole issue was created to make him look bad. "Hey, if you lose, will you accept the results?" After Gore/Bush, I don't know if anybody would immediately say "Yes" without thinking about the possibility of questionable things happening. Would you accept the results of an election with fraud? Until the election happens, you can…
...He created the issue.
He spent weeks/months claiming the system was rigged, the election would be rigged, that the only way he could possibly lose was if he was cheated because he was going to win by such a landslide. He kept calling for people to loiter around polling sites with guns to prevent funny business...
That wasn't post-2000 reticence about the preliminary call.
" A candidate can’t actually file for a vote recount under Pennsylvania law. Instead, they would have to challenge a county board regarding its vote computations, and a state appeals judge would have to rule that a statewide recount is necessary. That means the Clinton campaign would either have to request a recount by petition in every voting district or present a prima facie case showing voter fraud. (Prima facie is a lower threshold than beyond a reasonable doubt. A judge would just have to rule that fraud probably occurred in order to call for a recount.) "
While a state judge just possibly might rule for Clinton for a recount, I seriously doubt a judge would do that Jill Stein as she has no realistic chance of winning the state.