Recount in Wisconsin county demanded by Trump increases Biden's margin

Yes, that PA case of 2 votes versus 7 million votes was hilarious. The judge simply said "the remedy for this would be to count these two votes, not to throw away 7 million votes. You don't solve the issue of 2 disenfranchised voters by disenfranchising 7 million more."

 

By a couple of hundred votes in a difference of 20,000 in Wisconsin? Or 155,000 in Michigan? Or 81,000 in Pennsylvania?
No, these minor human error discrepancies are irrelevant.
You want more precision? Sure, do a recount. It was done. Biden still won. Period, full stop. Nothing to whine about.

 

Well, then do a damn recount. It was done. Biden still won and increased his lead. What the hell are you complaining about? Nobody denied a recount in the states the Trump campaign solicited one. Same thing in Georgia: a recount was done. Biden still won (although his lead decreased a little, due to another human error that was found - a clerk who operated wrongly a scanner, ACCIDENTALLY prevented some votes for BOTH candidates to be counted; Trump did have a bit more of those so the lead narrowed by a little. Again, Biden still won.

Who is opposing a recount? Nobody is. Actually everybody said Trump has the right to solicit recounts if he feels fit and if they are allowed by that particular state's law. He did, the recounts were granted, he still lost.

 

Their endgame is twofold.

One part is that Trump is so monumentally insecure that he will never admit tha the was beaten. There is plenty of evidence tha thad he lost in 2016 he was going to scream 'Fraud!' and possibly challenge in court. As it was he still claimed fraud even thosugh he won. The Presidential Commission he set up under Chris Kobach to examine al lthis fraud fell apart before it did anything and Kobach was humiliated in court when he tried to prove widespread fraud.

The other part is the part to be scared about - this is part of a much wider Republican strategy to entrench themselves in power as a minority party. There are many strings to that bow, this one is to de-legitimize the electoral process buy throwing up claim after claim of fraud and convincing the party's base that any election they lose is fraudulent. Watch the next few rounds of GOP Primaries - this conspiracy theory will become one of the purity tests. Ultimately they want local officials, judges & state politicians who will do what most Republicans in those positions would not do this time - steal an election based on groundless fraud allegations. The process of destroying the party's committment to democracy is not a quick one, but this election will speed it up.

Rerun this scenario in one, maybe two decades and maybe Republican legislatures, elected on gerrymandered boundaries & with voter suppression measures working to protect them from voters, will act differently. This is more a beginning than an end.

 

True, CF.

My only observation (which states the obvious) is that Trump is completely IGNORANT as to how Recounts work.

 

Yes, I also think that the attack on Democracy is the most concerning aspect of this whole thing.
Trump this time will lose but he is establishing a nasty precedent.

 

Gotta love it...

 

Yes, I like accurate counts. You?

Ever feel as though you have been cheated?

 

I don't think Trump is ignorant. What he is, is malicious, and a wannabe fascist dictator. He knows perfectly well that there was no widespread fraud. But he wants to keep fighting, for three reasons:
1. To soothe his hurt ego, and deny the narcissistic wound of being a LOSER.
2. To con his gullible followers again, and extract from them donations for his fund to fight off the "fraud" (which doesn't exist) with fine print saying that a huge chunk of the money will be used to pay off campaign debts and to fund his Super PAC for his next moves
3. To delegitimize the Biden presidency so that Trump can remain influential, eyeing another run in 2024 to "redress the injustice of a stolen election" (when the only attempt to steal the election, is Trump's own).

 

There is never a guaranteed accurate count when you are counting millions and millions and millions of votes.

If you do five recounts, all five will have slightly different numbers. It is statistically highly improbable that two recounts will find the exact same total, because the recounts are ALSO subject to some fringe human error.

 

Agreed.

But, it is tragic that given all of the Massive Damage that Trump has done, he has to attack the Institutions of Democracy on his way out.

I am also of the opinion that if Trump stays healthy I would fully expect him to run in 2024.

While spending the next 4 years on Twitter screaming "We Wuz Robbed".

Everybody (even Stevie Wonder) SEES that one coming.

 

Maybe. I think he currently desires that. If it will materialize, I don't know. Trump is obese, eats unhealthy big macs with fries, and is very angry and stressed out. He seems to have had some sort of mini-stroke or transient ischemic attack. Four years from now he may not have the same stamina. Also, he will be a one-trick pony and people may start to tire of "We Wuz Robbed" without any evidence, and start to drift away. GOP presidential hopefuls will be actively working for four years to undermine him. He will be distracted, busy fighting off the numerous lawsuits and prosecution (e.g. from the State of New York which is immune to federal pardons) he will have to face as soon as his presidential immunity is over.

And then, the BIGGEST impediment is that he is likely to lose again, and according to his niece, the psychologist who wrote the book about the Trump family, he wouldn't tolerate the risk of a confirmation of his status as a LOSER.

Why would he lose again? Three factors.

1. 80,000,000 Americans came out of the woodwork to beat him. These people will be outraged and out for blood again, if he runs again in 2024. Can you imagine the thought of "oh no, we don't want to go back to Trump's America; we put him down and he needs to stay down"?

2. Trump did VERY poorly with young voters; even worse than in 2016. Well, 4 years from now, every year, a chunk of old conservative voters will die out, and a chunk of youngsters will turn 18 and become voters. The demographics don't favor Trump.

<COMMENTS EDITED>

For a few months and even years, the Trump faithful will continue to go to rallies and all, but little by little they will start drifting away, at least some of them. His 74 million turnout was huge and unexpected but I doubt that he can do better than that. And remember, this number needs to always be compared to the fact that Biden got 80 million.

 

One argument that I find very funny and ridiculous, is the one that dumb dumb Don Trump Jr used, that because his father had all the enthusiastic big crowds in rallies, he can't have lost fairly because Biden didn't command the same crowds.

Well, it turns out that the Biden voters weren't flocking to events because they were busy mailing in their votes against Trump, LOL. And obviously, they were the ones concerned about the pandemic, so, they weren't showing up for superspreader events.

 

There's a Herman Cain reference in there somewhere.

 

He is, and because the US system means that the GOP will likely control the Senate comfprtably more than 50% of the time the party knows it can stack the system.

Fill the lower courts with young GOP appointed judges, some of dubious qualification (some of Trump's lesser know choices have been diabolical) and near as refuse to allow Dem Presidents to make SCOTUS appointments.

With that in place you have courts that are less likely to oppose the sort of blatant gerrymandering & voter suppression that the GOP is involved in. That makes it easier to win state houses, which in turn makes it easier to do al lthe things that will keep the GOP in power with a minority of votes.

Now you have a situation there the disincentive to do all of these things decreases because the great balance of democracy - the possibility that the other side will do it to you - has decreased. Dems will get opportunities to do all these things, but fewer opportunities in fewer places. What this ultimately means is that the GOP doesn't have to work as hard appealing to the centre ground because it can maintain much of its power off the back of right wing voters, while the Dems constantly have to spread further across the spectrum.

All of this is VERY BAD for American democracy. Democratic systems work best when there is some form of balance. When one party is able to entrench itself in power to the point where it can stay in power with less than 50% of the vote consistently that is very dangerous. For an example, look at the quasi dictatorships that took root in the former Confederate states between the end of Reconstruction and the 1960s, the outcomes they produced and how hard it was to force them to reform.

 

I think it is probable the SCOTUS eventually decides PA overstepped their authority allowing 3 extra days to receive valid postmarked ballots... I think they'd be wrong, but I'm expecting a lot of that until the SCOTUS can be unpacked....

This will allow Loser Trump to actually tell his sheep WE WON our case in front of the SCOTUS... from the confines of Mar-a-Lago...

From what I've seen, I don't see any other cases getting to the SCOTUS level.

 

Irrelevant. Recounting illegal votes.

 

So funny...

Uh, HE didn't pay for it...his supporters did LOLOLOLOLOLOLOOL

 

The PA judge just wrote that the lawsuit will probably win on it’s merits.

 

The sad thing was that Trump <COMMENTS EDITED> didn't first ask for recounts - their first reaction was wanting to throw out any votes that did not benefit Trump.
That's the mindset <COMMENTS EDITED>. That's really sad.

 

And I wrote it probably won't....

 

Let me explain this again: SCOTUS only hears cases where there's a viable alternative to be decided. Let's take Obergefell as the most recent major case. It not only took several States legalizing gay marriage to force the issue, but the various district courts with different rulings. This is what the Court typically looks for, regardless of whom was nominated by whom.

When you have 99.25-to-0.3%, there's not a conflict. There's not even the pretense of a conflict, never mind a major one rising to the level of the Supreme Court when you didn't even win or attempt at the federal court level.

There is ZERO, not a single chance that the SCOTUS hears this case(it's not even a 'case', as it is a bunch of 'cases' in several States that have been again, universally rejected.) This isn't about politics or rubber stamping, this is about something that is mathematically improbable and since the SCOTUS cares about legal consistency, the court will not change how it hears cases because Trump wants to be 'heard' by the Supreme Court.

If you want to look back at 2000, not only was that a single state(Florida) but the margin of error was such that the court sided on the conservative side of caution to go with the latest tabloid of voting(which gave Bush florida). There is zero chance that the court hears this case.

I just find it funny that people who attacked Trump for 'damaging/attacking the institutions', are the same people whom when it's convenient to them, attack the institutions by insulating there's a conspiracy theory.

 

So ignore the hundreds of witnesses and whistleblowers to election fraud?

 

Whether one likes it or not, a bunch of people claiming fraud, without proving it bares an impossible burden. Because this is the very basic definition of a court case: It's not up to the individual States to prove that there wasn't fraud, it's up to the accuser to prove that there was. All the defendant has to do, is inject doubt.(and since there isn't any way to prove a negative...) that's one of the major reasons none of these cases are going through.

 

Seems to me your projecting a bit. You say people are crying, yet you ignore that constant ridicule and name calling towards people wanting an accurate quote.

All I asked for was accurate counts, and off you go in a tirade...

Everybodys tough behind a computer.