Day 4 totals
- Trump gained 356 votes
- Trump lost 246 votes
- Trump net gain on day 4: 110 votes
- Clinton gained 296 votes
- Clinton lost 225 votes
- Clinton net gain on day 4: 71 votes
All of this is costing 3.5 million dollars... to find out that Trump is ahead by about forty more votes. Right now that's about $85,000 per vote. A wise use of money.
Not exactly what Jill Stein expected I am sure...
47 comments:
Sure makes me feel better about the accuracy of the counts, especially all those millions of illegal votes that donnie has claimed or the millions of $'s meddling in the free market. Money well spent versus the trillions spent on wars with no purpose.
This is a recount not an audit
Exactly, Anonymous. Recounts verify the count, not the process. If some kind of fraud DID accidentally show up, it would still require an investigation.
This is why I feel like the whole exercise is a fraud.
Not exactly what Jill Stein expected I am sure...
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
i disagree. she's a harvard-trained doc, so she's not an imbecile. i would bet this is exactly what she expected, and her ultimate goal is the skim off the money raised to pay for the charade.
she might manage to pocket 20% of the $7M.
not a bad haul for a couple weeks of asshattery.
communist shitbox carrying ashes of communist dictator breaks down during communist funeral procession.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/12/04/fidel-castros-ashes-interred-in-private-ceremony-in-cuba.html
the metaphors for communism and socialism write themselves.
LOL.
gosh, i never realized nancy pelosi was a such a RACIST:
House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi is calling the decision to tap Ben Carson as head of Housing and Urban Development a “disconcerting and disturbingly unqualified choice.”
Federal Judge orders immediate start of Michigan recount.
Federal Judge orders immediate start of Michigan recount.
so rog, i'm not sure PRESIDENT-ELECT TRUMP needs any additional votes, but if you think this is a good idea...
i disagree. she's a harvard-trained doc, so she's not an imbecile.
Well, she's proven that she's smarter than at least one federal judge.
I guess you have to check common sense at the federal courtroom door.
Hillary is funding this recount, make no error about this.
New leaked today from a former Hillary boot licker on the Reason Hillary sent out Pinnheada , and she did not come out to concede the race, Hillary HAD NO Concession Speech.
That is so spot on like HER.
Meanwhile,,, Polosi stated for all DEMS we won the election, but lost the vote, the Liberal is a cute animal, never mind that since her historically brief and damaging stint as House Majority Leader, her Leadership and Policies have lost over 70 Seats to the Republicans.
Nancy Pelosi is calling the decision to tap Ben Carson as head of Housing and Urban Development a “disconcerting and disturbingly unqualified choice.”
He is the wrong kind of Ni##er for the low lifes like Polosi, he is educated and conservative and accomplished.
Well, she's proven that she's smarter than at least one federal judge.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
that's hardly a stretch.
stein's no fool. she laughs all the way to the bank on this deal.
Doctor of Surgery Ben Carson, grew up dirt poor, lived in the projects a son of a single mom and he over came it all.
Liberal Assrimmer's like Nancy Polosi are very dirty ugly white and stupid.
President Elect Trump , is going to forgo millions of dollars in salary during his time in office.
Will Obama forgo the Retirement Pay from the Presidency?
Will the Millionaires on the left stop bilking the US Tax Payers and not take a salary?
Hillary has provided cash, lawyers and like the song goes, guns , if needed GUNS.
This is so much fun to watch, the money flows in, some goes to the recount a complete sham, when does Hillary get to recounts in states she won? Never mind those would take a day at most she won so few.
4 million lead coming out of CA, gave back that lead in most other states.
More telling to me, the Clinton campaign has been recruiting volunteers in the three states for the recount efforts.
The Republican's FEC complaint alleging illegal collusion between the campaigns - there is by statute a monetary limit - seemed at first to be a stunt to make a political point. But maybe they do have a point.
Liberal Wisdom, spend 20 million dollars on recounts, an ADD voters to the Winner..
"Embrace the Suck"
PELOSI: I don’t think people want a new direction."
Nope, being an ever smaller minority is ok with her, because she already cashed in.
HB aka the MUTT and his ugly stupid auntie Paul Krugman both called for the demise of the US Stock Market upon the election of the Winner , Trump.
It has to my enrichment done nothing but go up , by a lot.
Trump Effect, winning, wealth and leisure.
Work hard now, live like no one else so later you can live like no one else " Dave Ramsey.
Can I get a little help.
When you are looking for the ALT-Left News where do you go.
I usually go to Huffington Post, they are in denial and meltdown and bitter and crazy and unwilling to admit, HER lost.
But she did, so moveon.
Popular vote percentage points up
Hillary Clinton's popular vote lead now stands at 2.654 million votes, a 2 percentage point lead over Donald Trump, 48.2% to 46.2%.
HB, what is the point?
KD said...
HB, what is the point?
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
here's his point -
Ditching Electoral College would allow California to impose imperial rule on a colonial America.
Michael Barone:
If California continues to occupy one extreme of the national political spectrum, there may well be more such splits. At least unless and until the Democratic Party figures it needs more to make a case with more appeal beyond California if it wants to win 270 electoral votes.
All of which prompts renewed arguments about the Electoral College. The case for abolishing it is simple: Every American’s vote should count the same. But it won’t happen. Two-thirds of each house of Congress and 38 of the 50 state legislatures will never go along.
The case against abolition is one suggested by the Framers’ fears that voters in one large but highly atypical state could impose their will on a contrary-minded nation. That largest state in 1787 was Virginia, home of four of the first five presidents. New York and California, by remaining closely in line with national opinion up through 1996, made the issue moot.
California’s 21st century veer to the left makes it a live issue again. In a popular vote system, the voters of this geographically distant and culturally distinct state, whose contempt for heartland Christians resembles imperial London’s disdain for the “lesser breeds” it governed, could impose something like colonial rule over the rest of the nation. Sounds exactly like what the Framers strove to prevent.
The Founders’ genius has proven remarkably enduring.
h/t: glenn reynolds
a 2 percentage point lead over Donald Trump, 48.2% to 46.2%.
IOW's over 2 million votes count for nothing. Just dump CA since there are too many D's there who pay taxes that go to the red states and have no say in the election. Oh well, the R's sure have a monopoly of preventing votes from being pertinent.
There is one flaw in Mr Barone's logic. California's lopsided support of the Democratic Party is in some way due to a feedback cycle from the effect of the Electoral College. You don't spend many resources campaigning there if your loss is a forgone conclusion. With no campaign there, your platform won't be designed to be attractive to Californians, and you lose support there. The more lopsided it is, the less you pay attention to it, making it more unbalanced and so on.
Without the EC, that dynamic changes and California will be contested as much as the rest of the country. The equilibrium will change, becoming more dynamic.
It occurs to me that the real issue everyone has on both sides of this EC debate boils down to the allocation of votes. Does anyone really believe that Electors should be free to vote however they want? Other than fringe movements to overturn the choice of the American voters? Maybe a few, but I submit that the vast majority of American citizens want their electors to vote exactly as they did. So sure, abolish the electoral college and allow the State's electoral commission to submit the vote directly.
But what about the allocation of votes each State has? It's the same as in Congress, so one would think that the Presidential election would more or less reflect the Congressional makeup, or at least not diverge wildly from it. It makes a lot of sense, and should make it a lot easier for the President to work with Congress but it doesn't always happen that way. I think that the difference there is almost entirely a result of gerrymandering, by which means the stronger party in a state artificially increases their party's representation in the House.
In light of that, logic would dictate that replacing the EC with a popular vote would further the distance between the President and the Congress, further fracturing our partisan government. It would be far better to first address the issue of gerrymandering - I say, attack in on Constitutional grounds because it dilutes the votes of the victims - and after several elections when every Congressman has then been elected in a fair district, only then begin to consider the apportion of votes for the President.
Without the EC, that dynamic changes and California will be contested as much as the rest of the country.
This is where your logic falls apart. California would not be contested as much is as the rest of the country, it will be contested far much more.
In fact the political calculation for both parties will change for favor the narrow interest of the urban core voter over the rest of America.
The election for president will be in fact an election for president of New York City, Washington, Los Angeles and San Francisco.
The Democrats fail because the did not have a broad based message to embrace all of America.
You want to institutionalized that failure.
I feel pretty strongly that it's mistaken that votes in California will be contested far more. A vote is a vote, whether in LA or in the middle of some hay field. You'll pay more attention to more populated areas, but if you want to win you will realize that there is no monolithic California vote. You'll find platforms which will appeal to people in Texas, Florida, New York AND California. And the other guy doing the same thing, you're going to split those votes so you better campaign for the rest of the country as well.
It won't be the ideological division that you're accustomed to, but no question about it, California will not rule over elections in this scenario.
There won't be any ideological division at all. Both parties will pander to the urban core voter and will ignore voters in the rest of the country.
In effect, you will have the Democrat and the Democrat-lite party.
Rural as well as suburban interest will go by the wayside in favor of what's good for the urban voter and the urban voter only.
I'm in western NY and qe, along with most of the state, have no say in who we get for gov. Most of the state is red, but whoever NYC wants, that is who we get. President is unique. Everyone must have some legitimate input.
Presidential election would more or less reflect the Congressional makeup, or at least not diverge wildly from it. It makes a lot of sense
Do you really think that is true??? Considering the wisconsin results where obama handily won in 2012 and the state legislature remained firmly entrenched in R hands due to gerrymandering. Look at the 16 congress seats, 10 R's with obama winning the state by almost 7%. Unless every state allocates districts fairly, there will never be an honest election as you wish.
Everyone must have some legitimate input.
Like CA does in the POTUS election????
Opie -
California has Electoral College Votes consistent with their population like every other state. The fact that one candidate wins by twenty five points makes no difference.
Just like in any competition... a win is a win. A twenty five point win in the NFL counts the same as a one point win.
CA has more electoral votes than any other state in the nation. So yes, like CA.
The number of Electors a State has is the same as the number of Senators and Representatives. So voters of a State have the same representation, or very similar, in electing the President as they do in the makeup of Congress. Therefore you would not logically expect much political divergence between the President and Congress in general, regarding the National interest.
Gerrymandering of districts is one thing that disrupts that representative equivalence. Yet the President is elected according to the more pure form, allocation across all of the voters of the State without the distortions from Gerrymandering. This causes a problem because Representatives of these distorted districts are naturally more polarized, as they have only to please their own base in "safe" districts to retain their positions. Where in contrast, the President must position his policies in a more balanced manner. Cross-purposes.
In that consideration, isn't the distortion of your vote represented by Congressional elections greater than that of the Electoral College? Fix the broken one first, how is that not logical?
President is elected according to the more pure form, allocation across all of the voters of the State without the distortions from Gerrymandering.
Which is semi true when you see that trump lost the popular vote by 2% and still won!!! IOW, the EC is really the ultimate gerrymander with states like CA being underrepresented more than any other state. But, what do I know?? Fair is something this system does not know. Sure seems to me that some voters are more equal than others. When you look at the congressional races.....again, HRC won by more than 2 million votes while picking up a whole 6 seats.
There is no Gerrymandering of State borders. There isn't even an analogy for it.
Gerrymandering is artificially constructing the borders of a district to achieve an overwhelming advantage for one party and to prevent an advantage for the other party. State borders cannot be changed at the whim of state politicians.
CA has a Huge megaphone in any EC outcome. 55
So does NY with its EC 29
Their voices where in fact heard, their votes counted, they just don't get to have the final say.
But, what do I know?"
Nothing, proven that time and again, this time you hate Trump and the outcome, so you put on your bright new baby diaper pin and do nothing but wet yourself.
Trump has added 51,1000 jobs to the US Economy and he has yet to be sworn in.
Of Course... Opie wants to redefine state lines so that the voting "district" of California isn't over-represented by liberals.
Either that, or he thinks they should get a larger amount of electoral college votes than their population warrants, because they happen to vote overwhelmingly Democrat.
Either that... or Opie is very confused by what gerrymandering is, or how the electoral college works.
The solution (of course) is for all those wasted 3.4 million liberal voters from California to move to Iowa, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Florida, and Arizona... then they could tip all of those states to Blue.
But they would have to move.
OFF TOPIC
but worth a listen. Run Time is only 2:43 minutes
Head Coach Jeff Walz of the U of L Women's Basketball NCAA D1 team tells it like it is when we raise kids in this "everyone gets a trophy no matter what" mentality age and era, and it needs to stop!
C.H. Truth said...
The solution (of course) is for all those wasted 3.4 million liberal voters from California to move to Iowa
Or put it another way, 3.4 million americans don't count.
Gee CH, I bet you think that is a clever solution. Maybe CA should secede and take the 7th largest economy of the world and make them independent. Sure would hurt all those states who get more dollars than they pay......I thought you had more brains than that, but again, you proved me wrong.
. Opie wants to redefine state lines so that the voting "district" of California isn't over-represented by liberals.
Or CH just likes to ignore the fact trump lost the general by 2 % which turns out to be very close to those final polls. But who needs that, other than you R's who think you have a mandate and liberals are not equal to your prowess and BS!!! LOL
Isn't it ironic that CH ignores the rights of 2.6 million voters in a losing cause, and has defended to the hilt the right of a baker to discriminate against a couple they don't like. Seems rather small on CH's part to ignore so many voters and write them off as whiney liberals. Imagine if it was reversed, I'm sure our host would be able to rationalized 17 different ways proving HRC deserved nothing. LOL
Opie...
Amazing to me that in 2016 many liberals forget how elections actually work.
Are you suggesting that 2.6 million voters were not counted in various states?
Are you suggesting that some states didn't get to cast Electoral College Votes?
Or do somehow believe that states where one candidate wins by a larger margin should somehow garner more electoral college votes than states that have a closer election?
I would offer that your logic is flawed, but I am not seeing much logic here.
If the electoral college votes were awarded by the population of the states, then we would have an actual democratic election. Now it's based on the number of members of congress. But an amendment will never pass until the Republicans suffer the same thing that has happened in the last 16 years.
Are you suggesting that 2.6 million voters were not counted in various states?
Are you suggesting that some states didn't get to cast Electoral College Votes?
You are perfect example of a dichotomy CH. No where did I ever elude to those points, only in CH world can things be twisted beyond the realm of reality. Only in your world does an atheist defend the religion of a baker who subscribes to bigotry of a gay couple by refusing to provide his wares. Nice obfuscation CH, and again totally off base, the norm for you. LOL
Now it's based on the number of members of congress
But the number or members of congress is based on the population of the state, thus the number of electoral college votes is "also" based on the population of the state.
So in Minnesota we have between 5.5 and 6 million citizens. California has around 32 million. So California is approximately five and a half times bigger than Minnesota.
Minnesota has 10 ECV
California has 55 ECV
See how that works?
Okay Opie...
Then explain yourself.
Which 2.5 million voters in which states voted for Clinton and had their votes not counted? The 7.3 million voters in California who voted for Clinton got to see their 55 ECV awarded to her. Likewise the 4.1 million Clinton voters in New York got to see their 29 ECV awarded to her. Same for the voters in every blue state in the country. If they were in the majority who voted for Clinton, then their state ECV went to Clinton.
So which voters were not counted, Opie?
Post a Comment