Sunday, December 11, 2016

Wisconsin Recount Update

2,826,909 ballots have been recounted, or approximately 95 percent of all presidential ballots cast (2,975,313) - that leaves 148,404 left. Dane County and the City of Milwaukee have completed their counts - but Milwaukee (in spite of completing Thursday night) has not yet "reported" their results (which may make up much of what is missing). It's being said that they are counting their absentee ballots at a central location and will present updates when that counting is completed. It's also been stated that they have not run across anything differently than anyone else during their recounts (in other words just a few votes here and a few votes there).

The numbers so far:
  • Trump/Pence +628
  • Clinton/Kaine +653
  • Castle/Bradley +17
  • Johnson/Weld +76
  • Stein/Baraka +68
  • Moorehead/Lilly +14
  • De la Fuente/Steinberg -14
With less than 150K left to add into the totals, it would appear that there was very little change to the actual results. Certainly no signs of hacking or other large scale election fraud. Once again, it was the skewed exit polling that was incorrect, not the vote counting. Although I find it consistently curious that no matter where a recount is done, that it is always the "Democratic strongholds" that are last to report and always ends up doing something unusual or different than everyone else. 

20 comments:

opie said...

With less than 150K left to add into the totals, it would appear that there was very little change to the actual results.

And you are surprised, CH? Seems to me that the count validates the election that trump was touting as fixed. I wonder if he will retract those statements. Like you, he will never do anything of the sort when proven wrong. LOL

C.H. Truth said...

Opie...

You sometimes are very dense. This has been explained to you. But like a six year old, one has to repeat it over and over.

Trump is claiming that there were illegals who voted in the election. Not that it was "fixed". That would neither be proven or unproven by a recount.

Stein (and the rest of the liberal bananas) believe that the machines were hacked (and would miscount the votes in Trump's favor) - that would be proven or unproven by a recount.

So we know that the machines were not hacked (as anyone with more than half a brain would have known). We will not know whether or not all those votes were cast by legal voters. No recount can determine that.

opie said...

C.H. Truth said...
Opie...

You sometimes are very dense

Trump is claiming that there were illegals who voted in the election

And you are acting dumber than menstral child. I post the actual trump quote once before and you chose to ignore. i'm done playing with you on this subject because you are acting like an ignorant republican with your opinion. Sorry, CH, you continue to drink the trump swamp water. LOL!!

opie said...

Again, numbnutz..... here is the EXACT quote to what he said an you can't understand. Are you acting this thick or just can't interpret what he said. give it up.

Says he "won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally."
— Donald Trump on Sunday, November 27th, 2016 in a tweet


Try again, CH and worm your way out of this. LOLOLO

C.H. Truth said...

voted illegally

Thanks for agreeing...

Someone who "voted illegally" would also be an "illegal voter". and there would be no way to determine by a recount if the votes counted were cast legally or illegally. There is no such "audit" available to make this determination.

The recounts could only uncover the votes being counted wrong (or in the case of the tin foil hats on the left) if the machines were "hacked" to show more votes for Trump than were actually present.

The results of the Wisconsin recount... do not tell us whether or not anyone (who was not illegible) voted, or if someone voted multiple times under different names, or any other form of illegal voting.

But they do tell us that the machines were not "hacked by the Russians" or any of the other crazy nonsense spewed by the left. The votes were counted properly and Trump won Wisconsin fair and square.

C.H. Truth said...

To be clear Opie...

I don't agree with the assessment that there were enough illegal voting to have changed the outcome of the popular vote. But the fact that I don't agree with the statement... does not mean that I will believe "knee jerk" that these recounts disprove it.

Logically, these recounts do nothing to disprove the assertion by Trump that there were 3 million illegal ballots cast for Hillary... nor does it do anything to prove that there were 3 million illegal ballots cast for Clinton. The recounts really have nothing to do with the statement.

The recounts only disprove the allegations made by the left of hacking and other counting manipulation.

opie said...

C.H. Truth said...
voted illegally

Thanks for agreeing...

Someone who "voted illegally" would also be an "illegal voter".

Like I thought, you said illegals, CH, and you are worming your way out of your own ineptitude. What a pile of crap which is all you serve anymore. Just admit your use of illegals was not what trump said, you did. Completely different context, but you are smart enough to know that and not smart enough to say sorry. Oh well, man up like you tell everyone else.

The recount confirms that there was not election rigged as trump claimed. I'm sure like you, trump will make something up to make up for what he said. Like you said above. with no indication of illegal votes can only be a positive that the system was and never rigged.

C.H. Truth said...

The recount confirms that there was not election rigged as trump claimed.

Sorry ace... but it does no such thing, and you have not provided a shred of evidence that it has. The only thing that the recount proves was that once again the medias vaunted "exit polling" system is a pile of crap... and that the exit polling (not the counting) was wrong.

At this point all you want to do is argue "semantics" about the differences between illegals, illegal voters, and illegal votes. Whenever you move on to arguing semantics, it's because you lost the actual argument.

The only thing that would make me "more certain" that you know you lost the debate, is if you somehow was able to throw global warming into the debate.

opie said...

Sorry ace... but it does no such thing, and you have not provided a shred of evidence

Sorry CH, I still see no acknowledgement of you screwing the pooch, only another pedantic rant of changing the subject. If you don't think the recount gives credibility to the election, something trump mouthed off about many times so be it. On the other hand you are arguing about semantics, not me, when it was you, who damn well know what illegals means, are so full of shit, it is coming out your ears. The only thing lost is another piece of your lackluster credibility who is not man enough to admit you were wrong. You wouldn't be chasing this around with a load of weasel words and your lack of veracity. You are the one arguing semantics because you hate the thought again of me kicking your white republicon' ass. Thanx for the entertainment and tenacity even with the 2by4 shoved you know were!!! Big Chuckle from Opie.

KD, said...

CHT, take your foot off of Fatties Throat.

opie said...

KD, did trump use the word illegals in his rant about losing the popular vote total by millions ??????

wphamilton said...

Doesn't it occur that when Trump alleges millions of illegal votes for Clinon, he's talking about states where Clinton had millions of more votes? Where there are millions of illegals, and where they were most able to vote?

Clearly Wisconsin is not one of those places so a recount in Wisconsin would obviously shed no light on Trump's claims. Nor would a recount at all for that matter, but that's another story.

C.H. Truth said...

If you don't think the recount gives credibility to the election, something trump mouthed off about many times so be it.

I think it does give specifically give credibility to "this" election. At least in terms of the conspiracies being floated by the left regarding Russian hacking, and other voting machine manipulation. The machines were not hacked or altered, the counting was accurate.

It does nothing to prove whether or not people voted who shouldn't have been allowed to vote.

opie said...

I think it does give specifically give credibility to "this" election.

Which trump called rigged numerous times. As to your opinion of voters voting illegally....it sure show there were no problems with the rolls and found nothing illegally was done at a very high level of scrutiny. You would expect with millions and millions of illegals casting votes, some would have been discovered in spite of your naive opinion. As to WP's hypothesis, it is an interesting cut, but limits the fraud to NY and CA, while I think his statement was aimed at the whole country and not specific states as you think. And I find it humorous, the spammer of kansas, male version, failed to respond. How funny is that??????

wphamilton said...

It's funny, I've never heard of that a recount "gives credibility to an election" before Stein/Clinton introduced that idea in this one.

A recount gives credibility to the count, nothing else. This illogical meme is so obvious a political talking point that I'm vicariously embarrassed for the people who keep repeating it. Were they suckered into giving Jill Stein money and cannot now admit that they were conned? Or is it just another dumb thing that people repeat because they saw it on the campaign website?

opie said...

A recount gives credibility to the count, nothing else.

Which certainly gives credibility to the election as a whole, except for floriduh which was never resolved.

IMHO, the two go hand in hand and if you can't argue the recount did not reveal any fixes or anomalies, that can only make trumps argument the election was fixed before it happened as total bull, which we all knew. Let's see him raise that specter again. LOL Not often I agree with our esteemed host especially when it comes to illegals voting.

wphamilton said...

CH said -
I think it does give specifically give credibility to "this" election. At least in terms of the conspiracies being floated by the left regarding Russian hacking, and other voting machine manipulation.


CH, a cursory check on the voting machine software and re-running the data export does not prove that the machine wasn't hacked.

I once had my own Linux server compromised by the GRU, it tripped my IDS but otherwise the OS was altered to report all original sizes, dates and checksums. Even comparing system files to clean copies showed no difference, although they were certainly altered. I'd have had to unmount the drives, boot up on locked system and do some forensics to see it. I only had the ip logged because I unplugged the line before he was done LOL.

That was more than a few years ago, on a useless to them development server, so there is no doubt in my mind that any hack on an election machine will be undetectable without a serious look by a professional.

KD, Opium said...

opie said...
KD, did trump use the word illegals in his rant about losing the popular vote total by millions ??????"

Answer : Nope

“In addition to winning the electoral college in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally.”
— President-elect Donald Trump, in a tweet, Nov. 27

C.H. Truth said...

But WP... your server was connected to the internet, no doubt. These are stand alone machines that are not connected online, and they are generally just stored in locked storage rooms.

Moreover if they had been hacked (for instance each machine would automatically over count a Trump vote or have a starting vote total already built in) then a hand recount of the ballots (which was what was done in a lion's share of Wisconsin) would have shown that there was a difference between how the machines counted the votes and how the hand count went.

My understanding is that these were not the touch screen machines that are fulling automated, but rather they were optical scanning machines counting physical votes.

But I otherwise agree... no way does a hand recount of the vote determine if there was other forms of malfeasance (such as manufactured ballots or illegal voting).

wphamilton said...

Hacking of optical scanners is ridiculous, a non-starter even if you could hack enough of them to make a difference. Which you couldn't.

The only realistic target is the touch screen systems that have no paper audit, or the machines which tabulate the results from them. I agree, it would require physical access to them.

The first touch screen voting booths I used in Georgia, I could have hacked them with magnets OR with a prepared solution in light oil, in under a second and you probably wouldn't have seen it even watching me. Probably not possible now, and doing it to enough of them would be certain to be exposed, but there seriously should be no voting machines that do not print paper backups of individual votes. The only reason not to is the reluctance to spend the money. This whole question is that simple: don't be so cheap, and there won't be a problem.