Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Just what if Hilliary won after recounts in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania and that the recount revealed some type of voter fraud? Keep in mind what started this was an observation that Trump did better in princints that used computer machines while Hilliary did better in precincts that used paper ballots or optical scanners. I don't believe in coincidences like that. But it would be funny if Hilliary became president elect after the recount.
In 2000 Bush was up in Florida by 1784 votes the day after the election. A full recount of Florida still didn't put Gore ahead. It only cut into the lead down to 362. 2000 Post-Election Timeline of Events
Even with 5000 votes recently removed from the total Trump he is still up in WI by some 22,000. It's highly unlikely a recount will move that many votes. The number is just too big.
And in Pennsylvania Trump won by almost 70,000.
Trump is the next president.
That depends on whether or not there was widespread computer voter fraud
Let's face it. Even if they do a recount, Trump is going to win all three states in an epic landslide.
The wheels are coming off of Hillary's recount campaign. Hillary never stood a chance of winning a recount. She won't even win the popular vote this time.
Get used to the idea of a President Donald J. Trump.
Unless Democrats discover tens of thousands of uncounted votes that magically swing in their favor, this is true. However, that is not likely Stein's goal.
By waiting until the last possible minute to file petitions for recounts, it is possible, although unlikely, that the recounts will not be completed by the certification date of December 13th, thus potentially nullifying the election results in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania.
There is no reason to assume a second simple recount would be any more legitimate than the first. All it is a different result with everything to gain for Hillary. If the recount is fair it is statistically unlikely to switch over to Hillary especially considering they were already meticulous about counting for the sake of Hillary in the first place.
A tweet by someone claiming this as her expertise?
Real estate agent by day (and also night), theatre director and costume designer by night (and also day). (What I'm saying is my schedule is flexible.)
I think you need to provide something a little more substantial.
If the recount is fair it is statistically unlikely to switch over to Hillary especially considering they were already meticulous about counting for the sake of Hillary in the first place.
Can you provide your substantiating evidence for these two assertions, please?
Specifically, what statistical evidence you have that a recount "is statistically unlikely to switch over to Hillary?"
And what information do you have to indicate that "they were already meticulous about counting for the sake of Hillary?"
A tweet by someone claiming this as her expertise? Real estate agent by day (and also night), theatre director and costume designer by night (and also day). (What I'm saying is my schedule is flexible.) I think you need to provide something a little more substantial.
I agree.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
