It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Holy Nightmare - Hillary Might Be Our Next President. A 3-state Recount is Possible.

page: 7
27
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 05:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Michigan


Republican Trump, Donald J. 2,277,914 47.60%
Democratic Clinton, Hillary 2,264,807 47.33%
Libertarian Johnson, Gary 172,726 3.61%
US Taxpayers Castle, Darrell L. 16,125 0.34%
Green Stein, Jill 51,420 1.07%
Natural Law Soltysik, Emidio Mimi 2,231 0.05%
Total Votes: 4,785,223


Trump is ahead in Michigan by 0.27% as of 11/23/16



Seriously, you are keeping a spreadsheet of your own on election results? I have to ask why? (if you are also doing it by county by state, I'd really hope you were getting paid for it)




posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 05:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: wdkirk

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Threaten enough people, threaten the electoral college voters, and you might get your queen.

Burn any good books lately?



Torched a copy of Fahrenheit 451 the other day.....



The irony, it burns.




posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 05:39 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

From the source the left is using to push this false narrative -

Attention, Democrats: There’s still no good evidence that the election was rigged


The core of the story was this:

The academics presented findings showing that in Wisconsin, Clinton received 7 percent fewer votes in counties that relied on electronic-voting machines compared with counties that used optical scanners and paper ballots. Based on this statistical analysis, Clinton may have been denied as many as 30,000 votes; she lost Wisconsin by 27,000.

And that combination of "academics," "30,000" and "27,000" was all it took for the story to rocket through social media.

For the past two weeks, Clinton supporters (and Donald Trump opponents) have been grappling with the surprising results of this year's presidential election. The closeness of the race in two states, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, is why Trump will be inaugurated in January; the combined 90,000-vote margin in those two places, out of 126 million cast nationally, tipped the electoral college.


What was left out by the left -


Reached by email, Halderman pointed us to a statement he'd written at Medium. It's a lengthy examination of how vote-tallying systems have been rigged or manipulated in the past, but the most important line (for our purposes) is this one:

Were this year’s deviations from pre-election polls the results of a cyberattack? Probably not. I believe the most likely explanation is that the polls were systematically wrong, rather than that the election was hacked.

Halderman's concern is less about 2016 than it is broadly about the risk to our electoral systems. As it was in August, when he was featured in a Politico article warning of the same risks. (Halderman also notes that Sherman got the numbers wrong.)


and


That's the thing about Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. The polls in Wisconsin in particular were far from the mark, meaning that ne'er-do-wells looking to affect the results would be less likely to target the state. Why rig the vote in a place where Clinton is up by six points?

As Vox's Andrew Prokop writes, the results across the Midwest were surprising -- but consistent. As it turns out, it would have been weirder for Wisconsin to have gone for Clinton by six points while losing Iowa by 10, tying in Michigan, losing Ohio by eight and winning Minnesota by only a little more than a point. All of those states use different balloting systems, administered locally, making the likelihood of a widespread hack even smaller.


The author of the very report being used by the left said no foul play was present in this election. The numbers were just wrong by the people using their Ouija boards to predict the winner.

Clinton lost - plain and simple.
edit on 23-11-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-11-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 05:55 PM
link   
Come now. National security? Yeah, similar to Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, Ukraine, Syria, etc., etc., being remotely related to national security. Wow.



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 05:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: UKTruth

In MI Trump leads by .2 of 1 percent...
In PA Trump leads by 1.2%
in WI Trump leads by .8 of 1%

She would need all three to turn her way to declare a win.

I think a recount is not justified, but it should be noted that Trump is on track right now to be elected with the largest percentage popular vote loss in the 240+ year history of our country. Right now he ranks 3rd from bottom for popular vote margin amongst every President we have ever had and the remaining count does not look in his favor. 7Mil. and much in CA.

Not saying recount...but he definitely has the teeniest "mandate" in a couple hundred years.



How many times do you need to be told that the popular vote is irrelevant?


Please don't take personal offense, but you keep confusing me with someone who gives a sh&$ what some guy in England who cheered fake news has to say about OUR election or outcome.

As a foreigner ...YOUR opinion is "irrelevant" to MY countries election.



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 05:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: UKTruth

In MI Trump leads by .2 of 1 percent...
In PA Trump leads by 1.2%
in WI Trump leads by .8 of 1%

She would need all three to turn her way to declare a win.

I think a recount is not justified, but it should be noted that Trump is on track right now to be elected with the largest percentage popular vote loss in the 240+ year history of our country. Right now he ranks 3rd from bottom for popular vote margin amongst every President we have ever had and the remaining count does not look in his favor. 7Mil. and much in CA.

Not saying recount...but he definitely has the teeniest "mandate" in a couple hundred years.



How many times do you need to be told that the popular vote is irrelevant?


Please don't take personal offense, but you keep confusing me with someone who gives a sh&$ what some guy in England who cheered fake news has to say about OUR election or outcome.

As a foreigner ...YOUR opinion is "irrelevant" to MY countries election.


Just pointing out the reality of your system. It's not an opinion. It's a fact.
No need to be so sensitive... and I never cheered CNN, NYT , Snopes et al.
I am absolutely delighted that Trump won, though. Good for the UK



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 06:00 PM
link   
At the risk of being accused of being religious, wouldn't a more fitting title to the article be, 'Unholy Nightmare'?



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 06:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: UKTruth

In MI Trump leads by .2 of 1 percent...
In PA Trump leads by 1.2%
in WI Trump leads by .8 of 1%

She would need all three to turn her way to declare a win.

I think a recount is not justified, but it should be noted that Trump is on track right now to be elected with the largest percentage popular vote loss in the 240+ year history of our country. Right now he ranks 3rd from bottom for popular vote margin amongst every President we have ever had and the remaining count does not look in his favor. 7Mil. and much in CA.

Not saying recount...but he definitely has the teeniest "mandate" in a couple hundred years.



How many times do you need to be told that the popular vote is irrelevant?


Please don't take personal offense, but you keep confusing me with someone who gives a sh&$ what some guy in England who cheered fake news has to say about OUR election or outcome.

As a foreigner ...YOUR opinion is "irrelevant" to MY countries election.


ok fair enough...As a US citizen i ask -
"How many times do you need to be told that the popular vote is irrelevant? "



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 06:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: arrow60
At the risk of being accused of being religious, wouldn't a more fitting title to the article be, 'Unholy Nightmare'?


I was thinking Tim Burton's Nightmare before Christmas.



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 06:02 PM
link   
Yup. Good luck with all of that...

More than two decades of people complaining about fraud in our elections teaches this is a challenge that surpasses the most powerful nation in the world.

Now they know how it feels.


Next.



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 06:06 PM
link   
a reply to: loam

Whats funny is Florida did not win Bush the election in 2000. West Virginia, a state the Democrats thought was dark blue, was flipped and went Republican. Those 5 electoral votes put Bush over the needed amount to win.

The 5 electoral votes of W. Virginia was the deciding factor. Had he not won W. Virginia, his winning Florida would not be relevant.
edit on 23-11-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 06:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: loam

Whats funny is Florida did not win Bush the election in 2000. West Virginia, a state the Democrats thought was dark blue, was flipped and went Republican. Those 5 electoral votes put Bush over the needed amount to win.

The 5 electoral votes of W. Virginia was the deciding factor. Had he not won W. Virginia, his winning Florida would not be relevant.


Bush ended up with a decent mandate during his terms also, despite losing the popular vote and initially having to deal with a split Senate. Even as the Senate went Republican and the House majority was maintained into his terms, he still didn't have the kind of majority in the House that Trump has to work with. I think it was pre-WW2 the last time the Republicans had it so good.

It's a huge opportunity and mandate for Trump. He'll have to tread carefully though.



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 06:16 PM
link   
I made it to page 4 hoping to see an answer to Annee's question, because it's actually a good one, but all anyone could come up with was smug crap slinging.

SO.

Answer the Libertarian, will ya? (That'd be me) I don't know if the RNC or DNC could demand & actually GET a recount if their losing candidate didn't want one. Can they override the candidate and get a recount? Anyone? Bueller? Without the politi-feces in hand?



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 06:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

a reply to: UKTruth

My overall point is wouldn't it be nice to end all suspicion of the legitimacy of our election process? How freaking hard is it to have a one-person, one-vote, verifiable system?

It's the freaking 21st century, and I grow tired of listening to the losers complain.
edit on 23-11-2016 by loam because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 06:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nyiah
I made it to page 4 hoping to see an answer to Annee's question, because it's actually a good one, but all anyone could come up with was smug crap slinging.

SO.

Answer the Libertarian, will ya? (That'd be me) I don't know if the RNC or DNC could demand & actually GET a recount if their losing candidate didn't want one. Can they override the candidate and get a recount? Anyone? Bueller? Without the politi-feces in hand?


I believe Clinton would need to challenge the result.



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 06:26 PM
link   
So, Russia hacks into our election - and now we have evidence of that, and that's bad? Why? Why is Russia treated as a good guy at this site?!!! Boggles my #ing mind.

What exactly would be the consequence if Hillary became president? To my politically educated mind, not nearly as frightful as if Trump becomes president.

*crossing fingers that Hillary accepts this*



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 06:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Nyiah
I made it to page 4 hoping to see an answer to Annee's question, because it's actually a good one, but all anyone could come up with was smug crap slinging.

SO.

Answer the Libertarian, will ya? (That'd be me) I don't know if the RNC or DNC could demand & actually GET a recount if their losing candidate didn't want one. Can they override the candidate and get a recount? Anyone? Bueller? Without the politi-feces in hand?


I believe Clinton would need to challenge the result.

Thanks, UK. I assume the recount odds rest entirely on the recount/don't recount choice of the candidate themselves then? Since we don't have a habit of recounts every election, it shouldn't come as a surprise that the question of who can call a recount was brought up in the first place. Not everyone's a civics whiz, and this stuff isn't exactly talked about much anyway. Calls for recounts are, mechanics generally aren't.

This shouldn't have taken until page 7 to get answered, though, folks.
edit on 11/23/2016 by Nyiah because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 06:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nyiah

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Nyiah
I made it to page 4 hoping to see an answer to Annee's question, because it's actually a good one, but all anyone could come up with was smug crap slinging.

SO.

Answer the Libertarian, will ya? (That'd be me) I don't know if the RNC or DNC could demand & actually GET a recount if their losing candidate didn't want one. Can they override the candidate and get a recount? Anyone? Bueller? Without the politi-feces in hand?


I believe Clinton would need to challenge the result.

Thanks, UK. I assume the recount odds rest entirely on the recount/don't recount choice of the candidate themselves then? Since we don't have a habit of recounts every election, it shouldn't come as a surprise that the question of who can call a recount was brought up in the first place. Not everyone's a civics whiz, and this stuff isn't exactly talked about much anyway. Calls for recounts are, mechanics generally aren't.

This shouldn't have taken until page 7 to get answered, though, folks.


Well recounts are automatic based on specific criteria by state - i.e. a percentage difference or a vote count difference. As far as I know, there are no states that were within the automatic recounts levels, hence Clinton would have to make a case. Her campaign did have lawyers prepared well in advance for this.
Theoretically a recount should be faster than it was in 2000 because voting is now electronic. I am not sure the result would be any different unless glitches were found in the voting system software for reporting.

Pennsylvania uses a digital system in most precincts and does not even have a paper trail.
Wisconsin uses a digital system but does have a paper trail.
Michigan uses paper ballots (which I assume is why it is taking them so long to issue a final result!)

ballotpedia.org...
edit on 23/11/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 06:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nyiah
I made it to page 4 hoping to see an answer to Annee's question, because it's actually a good one, but all anyone could come up with was smug crap slinging.

SO.

Answer the Libertarian, will ya? (That'd be me) I don't know if the RNC or DNC could demand & actually GET a recount if their losing candidate didn't want one. Can they override the candidate and get a recount? Anyone? Bueller? Without the politi-feces in hand?


Might be a loaded question (considering the attitude of the source).

Laws vary from state to state.

Court action is usually required.

Some states require the candidate to challenge.

Very erratic.

one article

Pennsylvania: Automatic recount when vote margin is less than 0.5 percent. Voters can petition county boards for a recount. Voters or candidates can petition courts for a recount.


edit on Nov-23-2016 by xuenchen because: email.recount



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 06:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Astrocyte
So, Russia hacks into our election - and now we have evidence of that, and that's bad? Why? Why is Russia treated as a good guy at this site?!!! Boggles my #ing mind.

What exactly would be the consequence if Hillary became president? To my politically educated mind, not nearly as frightful as if Trump becomes president.

*crossing fingers that Hillary accepts this*


No. We don't have any actual evidence of that. What we have better evidence of is faulty polling.



new topics




 
27
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join