It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


James Baker: "Not Entirely Unlikely That We Might Have A Recount"

page: 1

log in


posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 09:59 AM
First posted as a "post" but as I started to consider the possible consequences of such a thing happening (such as the potential for rioting in the streets and the like) I had second thoughts and decided that its worthy of its own thread -

Originally posted by Vitruvian
This article is more significant than most people think - Of course - we don't really anticipate a re-count BUT, due to the sinister leftist tactics of the "Chicago Gang" we shouldn't be surprised if it comes to that - SO in the event that it does, a re-count could again be decided by the conservative majority on the Supreme Court - and, if it should come to that, and based on recent history, guess who will come out smelling like a rose?

James Baker: "Not Entirely Unlikely That We Might Have A Recount" (Video interview)

Posted on November 1, 2012
James Baker: "Not Entirely Unlikely That We Might Have A Recount"

"There are three or four states today, Bret, that require a recount if the result is within a certain number of percentage points. And so it's not in -- not entirely unlikely that we might have a recount in a -- in two or three of those states. And that could then trigger what happened in 2000," former Secretary of State James Baker said about the possibility of a recount.

"I don't expect it to happen. I hope it doesn't happen. It would be better for America's democracy if it doesn't happen. But you have to be prepared for it," Baker said on FOX News' "Special Report."

Note - This election will very likely be as close - or closer than Bush/Gore - that's for sure.

edit on 2-11-2012 by Vitruvian because: pic add

posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 10:05 AM
In my opinion, it is a "definite".

posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 10:07 AM
reply to post by Vitruvian

The lawyers already have the briefs compiled, if Romney doesn't win by at least 4-5% Obama and his crew of chicago thugs will be on the loose. It will be a long night and an epic night for the USA

posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 02:01 PM
Sick minded and bizarre Democrat Harry Reid knows Romney is going to win and is already refusing to cooperate with Romney's administration ............

HARRY REID says its 'Laughable' to think Senate Democrats will work with Romney...

Guess what - the Mormon hierarchy will command it - otherwise he's out of office.

Opening paragraph(s)

Five days before the election, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has ruled out trying to work with Mitt Romney should he win next week.

"Mitt Romney's fantasy that Senate Democrats will work with him to pass his 'severely conservative' agenda is laughable," Mr. Reid said in a statement on Friday, trying to puncture Mr. Romney's closing election argument that he'll be able to deliver on the bipartisanship President Obama promised in 2008 but has struggled to live up to.

Mr. Reid, a Nevada Democrat and a Mormon, like Mr. Romney, has become the Republican presidential nominee's chief critic this campaign, at one point accusing him of failing to pay taxes — a charge that Mr. Romney has refuted.

With Democrats appearing poised to keep control of the Senate, a President Romney would have to be prepared to work with Mr. Reid, who would set the upper chamber's schedule and determine what bills make it to the floor.

Mr. Reid flatly ruled out following Mr. Romney's agenda, saying he and his colleagues have already voted down many of those proposals, including House Republicans' budget, written by Republican vice presidential nominee Rep. Paul Ryan.

Read more: Reid says he can't work with Romney - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

edit on 2-11-2012 by Vitruvian because: txt

posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 02:28 PM
reply to post by Vitruvian

It won't be that close. There will be calls for a recount, and some hotbeds like Florida might even get the recount, but the popular vote nationwide will be a wide enough margin for us to know who the winner is.

Personally, I think we can get rid of the electoral college these days. With early voting, and easy voting access, and almost instantaneous vote counting, there is no longer a reason for the voters to elect electors that go and do the electing. It was necessary in the horse and buggy days, but not these days.

If we get rid of the electoral college, then the popular vote becomes the decider, and the strategy of winning key battleground states goes out the window, and every voter has an equal voice! If you are a red voter in a blue state, if feels like your vote doesn't matter, and vice versa.

Get rid of the electoral college, and every vote suddenly counts, and the need for recounts goes away.

new topics

top topics

log in