Holy Nightmare - Hillary Might Be Our Next President. A 3-state Recount is Possible.

a reply to: ketsuko

I have tunnel vision and only listen to the other side after their defeat. Not sure when I started supporting Trump but it was very early and never flinched from my support until after he won. The way he destroyed Jeb and other contenders was inspirational.

a reply to: hounddoghowlie

Your numbers (she has 232, trump 290 ) do not account for Trumps total not including

Michigan's 16 (which it should...) so it would be more like...

if she got them that would be 278, trump 260 ...IF they all went to her...

Just saying.

a reply to: carewemust

No, it means that the West Coast and New York are so far gone to the liberals there is no point for a conservative candidate to waste money and time campaigning there, those states are a lost cause

originally posted by: theantediluvian

originally posted by: Meldionne1
She has already concede. ....it's done .

Yeah that's not an actual thing. Though I doubt at this point she would ask for a recount unless these folks come up with something super compelling.

The electors in those states could be compelled to flip their votes.

I take nothing at face value where this election is concerned. I can't shake the feeling that Hillary is 'The Chosen One.'


ETA: I noticed this Politico article yesterday about six Democratic electors: Link

But the Democratic electors are convinced that even in defeat, their efforts would erode confidence in the Electoral College and fuel efforts to eliminate it, ending the body’s 228-year run as the only official constitutional process for electing the president. With that goal in mind, the group is also contemplating encouraging Democratic electors to oppose Hillary Clinton and partner with Republicans in support of a consensus pick like Mitt Romney or John Kasich.

Seems Democrats chose at least some electors that don't even support the electoral college and want to see it abolished. IMO, I think that's pretty sh*tty of the party

The real irony would be if the election results were flipped and the Media and the Liberals told everyone they should just shut up and accept the results.

After *they* rioted for a week, introduced plans to secede, and introduced bills to abolish the Electoral College.

a reply to: jjkenobi

They'd support the rights of the protest-. . . . hahahahahahahahaha

Sorry, couldn't even say it.

originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: carewemust

No, it means that the West Coast and New York are so far gone to the liberals there is no point for a conservative candidate to waste money and time campaigning there, those states are a lost cause

How is New York and the West Coast faring under major Liberal control? They seem to be doing as well as the RED states.

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: carewemust

No, it means that the West Coast and New York are so far gone to the liberals there is no point for a conservative candidate to waste money and time campaigning there, those states are a lost cause

How is New York and the West Coast faring under major Liberal control? They seem to be doing as well as the RED states.

Thanks. Ignorance about CA is on par
With "everyone in the south is a redneck hillbilly".

CA is actually pretty close to 50/50.

Major cities tend to lean liberal. Not just Los Angeles and NYC.

a reply to: Azzie74

aw do you feel special now that your the second one to point that out?
so i made a mistake in not remembering that michigan hasn't finalized their vote,and my big ol fat finger bumbled around the key board,it happens to the best of people. point was still clear, that there are 46 electoral votes from those states and she would win.
fact is if that was to happen, she would have to have all three. there's no other way she could win. as the OP said they targeted those three states for a reason.

me i say that was what was suppose to happen in the first place but the people she paid to hack them ____up and it didn't turn out right. she has a habit it seems of hiring IT people that continually______up. iirc there was a article posted in one of the mega election threads that reported there were some "precincts in WI.that black boxes were found on some of the machines
just saying and for those that need to know, that was sarcasm. the past couple of days people can't seem to figure that out.

here are your three thumbs down back. i got more than enough.

a reply to: hounddoghowlie

Actually, most states have not made their final counts official, as of the last time I checked.
Michigan is not "called" yet, because it is still too close to call.
The vote counts in almost every state have been changing daily.
I keep a spreadsheet, and have been updating almost daily from the official state sites, not the media.

a reply to: carewemust

They have been gradually turning up the nightmare volume for quite some time---You won't notice a thing.

a reply to: carewemust

OK...First off...I voted Clinton.

2nd...IF they have strong evidence of the election results being hacked, THEN they need to present that evidence to DOJ and NSA...NOT the Clinton campaign. That would be a non-partisan security issue.

The Russians did access Voter Rolls and did try to manipulate public perception via the Wikileaks releases....BUT I have not heard of any evidence they successfully hacked into voter tabulations.

The article cites a statistical anomaly..Statistical anomalies happen all on their own. It might be suspicious...and it might warrant a close look...but a statistical anomaly seems insufficient to start a wide ranging recount this late in the game..

AND I suspect the Clinton campaign agrees this doesn't warrant a recount.

Demonstrate outright hacking and then get the DOJ and NSA on top of it.

But nudging the Clinton campaign to launch a recount in 3 states? Not a good idea and not going to happen without hard evidence.

a reply to: BlueAjah

This is the most reliable tracker I have found.

cookpolitical.com...

docs.google.com...=19

Non partisan and updated quickly

The Michigan Vote count right now has Trump winning by ...

.002

That is one fifth of one percent of the vote..

a margin of 9,528 votes out of 4,794,326 votes cast by Michiganders.

originally posted by: Indigo5
The Michigan Vote count right now has Trump winning by ...

.002

That should be .2%.

Right now it's..,

Trump: 47.6%
Clinton: 47.4%

Here is a pretty good article by the Washington Post that details why this is a non-issue and logistically almost impossible.

a reply to: norhoc

Ironically there's some logic that says abolishing the electoral college actually stands to benefit Republican's the most since they would now have a slice of the East/West coast votes. As it stands there's practically no blue states in the middle so it doesn't change much for them.

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
a reply to: carewemust

all total between the is 46
Michigan 16
Pennsylvania 20
Wisconsin 10
she has 232, trump 290
if she got them that would be 276, tromp 244
ohh nooz please god don't let that happen.

No, Trump has 290 without Michigan.
270 without Pennsylvania.
In other words Hillary would need to challenge and win all 3 states.

It's actually a fantasy being pushed by a few Progressives, the same people that told us the election could not be rigged.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Indigo5
The Michigan Vote count right now has Trump winning by ...

.002

That should be .2%.

Right now it's..,

Trump: 47.6%
Clinton: 47.4%

In MI trump leads by 9,528 votes out of 4,794,326 cast. 9,528 divided by 4,794,326 is 0.001987349..or rounded up to .002...which is .2 of one percent.

I provided clear links to the same..

POST REMOVED BY STAFF