Wisconsin Recount Gets the Green Light

  • Thread starter Thread starter RosyAnne
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hoosier_Daddy said:
Around a forth of the country voted either one. So we can stop with the “majority” idea.
Click to expand...
Scratching my head on this one. Reread the post of mine which you quoted.

I said nothing about a majority. I said and I quote, “2.5 million more Americans voted for Hillary Clinton to be their next POTUS than did for Donald Trump.” 🤷
 
queenofheartscv said:
Maybe next time Jill Stein won’t be able to deceive people into voting for her, as we see now she’s not about serving the country or thhe environment at all. Nobody knows who she she is trying to serve here.
Click to expand...
Jill Stein is making a TON of money from this recount effort.

Maybe next time she can run on a ticket with Joe Biden. He will only be 78.
 
Sy_Noe said:
Scratching my head on this one. Reread the post of mine which you quoted.

I said nothing about a majority. I said and I quote, “2.5 million more Americans voted for Hillary Clinton to be their next POTUS than did for Donald Trump.” 🤷
Click to expand...
Pointless.

Hillary Clinton KNEW that electoral votes counted but her inept campaign went after popular votes.

Trump’s campaign manager went after the electoral votes, which are the ONLY votes that matter.

It was easier to go after the popular votes because the inner cities are controlled already by the Democrats. And Hillary didn’t have enough stamina to campaign in all of those rust belt states.

Maybe next time, Nancy Pelosi will run for president. Her and Joe Biden.
 
Half of Detroit votes may be uncountable
Michigan’s largest county voted overwhelmingly for Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, but officials couldn’t reconcile vote totals for 610 of 1,680 precincts during a countywide canvass of vote results late last month.
Click to expand...
Most of those are in heavily Democratic Detroit, where the number of ballots in precinct poll books did not match those of voting machine printout reports in 59 percent of precincts, 392 of 662.
Click to expand...
According to state law, precincts whose poll books don’t match with ballots can’t be recounted. If that happens, original election results stand.
Click to expand...
detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2016/12/05/recount-unrecountable/95007392/
 
dmelosi said:
A quick search showed were the money was going.
heavy.com/news/2016/11/election-recount-2016-jill-stein-green-party-deadline-missed-law-fundraising-donations-website-costs-attorney-lawyer-fees-funds-refund-where-is-the-money-going-clinton-trump-wisconsin-michigan-pennsyl/
Click to expand...
Interesting, thanks.

The only one that sets off alarm bells for me is:

Stein Says ‘Surplus’ Funds Will Support Election Reform

I don’t know what that means and the article spelled out some possible complexities with that. Can’t she just return any unused portion?

I didn’t give any money for this and don’t support Stein or the Green Party at all. I don’t mind watching it from the sidelines though. I don’t expect anything to change (neither does Hillary for that matter).
 
Monte_RCMS said:
Pointless.

Hillary Clinton KNEW that electoral votes counted but her inept campaign went after popular votes.

Trump’s campaign manager went after the electoral votes, which are the ONLY votes that matter.

It was easier to go after the popular votes because the inner cities are controlled already by the Democrats. And Hillary didn’t have enough stamina to campaign in all of those rust belt states.

Maybe next time, Nancy Pelosi will run for president. Her and Joe Biden.
Click to expand...
You can keep telling yourself it’s pointless while 54% of the American people who cast ballots did not vote for the President-elect. And any argument that Trump would have won the popular vote had he campaigned differently doesn’t hold water. CA and NY voters and others who voted against him were able to follow the campaign without Trump campaigning in their states. Bill Clinton received less than 50% as well. But of course the difference is he won more votes than his opponent. And btw the next time, the Democrats have a long list of potential nominees. I posted a list last month of over a dozen and it did not even include Pelosi or Biden.
 
Sy_Noe said:
You can keep telling yourself it’s pointless while 54% of the American people who cast ballots did not vote for the President-elect. And any argument that Trump would have won the popular vote had he campaigned differently doesn’t hold water. CA and NY voters and others who voted against him were able to follow the campaign without Trump campaigning in their states. Bill Clinton received less than 50% as well. But of course the difference is he won more votes than his opponent. And btw the next time, the Democrats have a long list of potential nominees. I posted a list last month of over a dozen and it did not even include Pelosi or Biden.
Click to expand...
I am facinated watching this ideology grapple with the situation.

It’s illuminating.
 
Sy_Noe said:
You can keep telling yourself it’s pointless while 54% of the American people who cast ballots did not vote for the President-elect. And any argument that Trump would have won the popular vote had he campaigned differently doesn’t hold water. CA and NY voters and others who voted against him were able to follow the campaign without Trump campaigning in their states. Bill Clinton received less than 50% as well. But of course the difference is he won more votes than his opponent. And btw the next time, the Democrats have a long list of potential nominees. I posted a list last month of over a dozen and it did not even include Pelosi or Biden.
Click to expand...
Not true. Not true at all. And anyone saying to themselves over and over again that the popular vote truly reflects the will of the American people in this election (where the winner is determined by electoral college), is really disingenuous and irrational.

Edit: didn’t mean to personalize this to anyone, meant as a general statement.
 
RosyAnne said:
Not true. Not true at all. And saying to yourself over and over again that the popular vote truly reflects the will of the American people in this election (where the winner is determined by electoral college), is really disingenuous and irrational.
Click to expand...
I don’t recall saying the “winner” was not determined by the EC. But you don’t think the majority of Americans who voted against Donald Trump were still able to follow the campaign without him visiting their states? The media covered him and his rallies quite well. He was given a lot of attention. One did not actually have to reside where he was in order to follow him and the campaign.
 
RosyAnne said:
Not true. Not true at all. And saying to yourself over and over again that the popular vote truly reflects the will of the American people in this election (where the winner is determined by electoral college), is really disingenuous and irrational.
Click to expand...
I personally can name about two dozen people I know in WA state that just didn’t vote for president at all since they knew King, Snohomish, and Pierce counties would decide the state electoral vote and that all would go to Clinton (same thing for senate). So instead, they skipped and voted down the ballot. I suspect there are A LOT of people in NY, CA, MA, and other heavily blue states that did the same, or voted 3rd party. And I’m sure that’s the case in heavily red states as well, with several Clinton supporters standing silently by.

But I do think the number of people in blue states that refused to vote or voted 3rd party knowing Clinton would win greatly outnumber the number of people in red states that refused to vote or voted 3rd party knowing Trump would win. It is in this margin that I think the popular vote margin disappears. But I can’t prove that.

Further, when talking about popular vote, these numbers are percentages of either voting age (53%) or voting eligible (can’t find the number). I haven’t seen a thing about registered voter turnout. But regardless, it is does not follow that earning 50+% of the popular vote indicates any sort of mandate for the remaining 47% that did not vote. The popular vote is not only meaningless with respect to the legal outcome, but also in terms of mandate. For my part, I think the elections for the house seats speak more about what the country as a whole wants, than what the popular vote says.
 
Sy_Noe said:
I don’t recall saying the “winner” was not determined by the EC. But you don’t think the majority of Americans who voted against Donald Trump were still able to follow the campaign without him visiting their states? The media covered him and his rallies quite well. He was given a lot of attention. One did not actually have to reside where he was in order to follow him and the campaign.
Click to expand...
But certainly his message was tailored to where he was campaigning. It doesn’t make a lot of sense to go to Hawaii and give stump speech about water rights to the Colorado river. Or go to NYC and give speeches about keeping manufacturing jobs in America.
 
Suudy said:
I personally can name about two dozen people I know in WA state that just didn’t vote for president at all since they knew King, Snohomish, and Pierce counties would decide the state electoral vote and that all would go to Clinton (same thing for senate). So instead, they skipped and voted down the ballot. I suspect there are A LOT of people in NY, CA, MA, and other heavily blue states that did the same, or voted 3rd party. And I’m sure that’s the case in heavily red states as well, with several Clinton supporters standing silently by.

But I do think the number of people in blue states that refused to vote or voted 3rd party knowing Clinton would win greatly outnumber the number of people in red states that refused to vote or voted 3rd party knowing Trump would win. It is in this margin that I think the popular vote margin disappears. But I can’t prove that.

Further, when talking about popular vote, these numbers are percentages of either voting age (53%) or voting eligible (can’t find the number). I haven’t seen a thing about registered voter turnout. But regardless, it is does not follow that earning 50+% of the popular vote indicates any sort of mandate for the remaining 47% that did not vote. The popular vote is not only meaningless with respect to the legal outcome, but also in terms of mandate. For my part, I think the elections for the house seats speak more about what the country as a whole wants, than what the popular vote says.
Click to expand...
You do realize right that gerrymandering affects House seats. Someone posted not too long ago, I’m unsure if on this thread or another, that if districts were drawn by computer, he or she wonders if the House would have as many R seats. Who knows? 🤷
 
Sy_Noe said:
You do realize right that gerrymandering affects House seats. Someone posted not too long ago, I’m unsure if on this thread or another, that if districts were drawn by computer, he or she wonders if the House would have as many R seats. Who knows? 🤷
Click to expand...
I never said it was accurate. I said it says more than the popular vote. And I think that still holds true.
 
Suudy said:
I personally can name about two dozen people I know in WA state that just didn’t vote for president at all since they knew King, Snohomish, and Pierce counties would decide the state electoral vote and that all would go to Clinton (same thing for senate). So instead, they skipped and voted down the ballot. I suspect there are A LOT of people in NY, CA, MA, and other heavily blue states that did the same, or voted 3rd party. And I’m sure that’s the case in heavily red states as well, with several Clinton supporters standing silently by.

But I do think the number of people in blue states that refused to vote or voted 3rd party knowing Clinton would win greatly outnumber the number of people in red states that refused to vote or voted 3rd party knowing Trump would win. It is in this margin that I think the popular vote margin disappears. But I can’t prove that.

Further, when talking about popular vote, these numbers are percentages of either voting age (53%) or voting eligible (can’t find the number). I haven’t seen a thing about registered voter turnout. But regardless, it is does not follow that earning 50+% of the popular vote indicates any sort of mandate for the remaining 47% that did not vote. The popular vote is not only meaningless with respect to the legal outcome, but also in terms of mandate. For my part, I think the elections for the house seats speak more about what the country as a whole wants, than what the popular vote says.
Click to expand...
I drive through Washington about a week before the election. On the east side of the state I saw probably 500 trump signs and not a single Hillary one. Not a single one. But as soon as I crossed snoqualmie pass, 500 Hillary signs and not a single trump one. Washington and Oregon have a real problem with the rural areas not being represented well even in their own state. I’d be fine with drawing a line down the cascades and the left side can be washegon and the right can be oreton. Then all people could elect governments that represent them. Of course that makes an extra red state so of course I like the idea…
 
Hoosier_Daddy said:
I drive through Washington about a week before the election. On the east side of the state I saw probably 500 trump signs and not a single Hillary one. Not a single one. But as soon as I crossed snoqualmie pass, 500 Hillary signs and not a single trump one. Washington and Oregon have a real problem with the rural areas not being represented well even in their own state. I’d be fine with drawing a line down the cascades and the left side can be washegon and the right can be oreton. Then all people could elect governments that represent them. Of course that makes an extra red state so of course I like the idea…
Click to expand...
And you need to suck in northern Idaho as well.

But this has been discussed for decades. My father and uncle brought it up when I was a kid. But the strangehold that the Seattle and Portland areas have on the states will never allow that to happen.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top