There were people urging Hillary to start the recount claim process and she didn't. Obviously because she would look like a sore loser if she was the only instigating it. This is a very smart move which was probably orchestrated in Washington to have an outsider do it. Well done.
Are there legitimate reasons to believe that the votes are inaccurate? Or is this just to make sure?
Quote:
Hillary Clinton is being urged by a group of prominent computer scientists and election lawyers to call for a recount in three swing states won by Donald Trump, New York has learned. The group, which includes voting-rights attorney John Bonifaz and J. Alex Halderman, the director of the University of Michigan Center for Computer Security and Society, believes they’ve found persuasive evidence that results in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania may have been manipulated or hacked. The group is so far not speaking on the record about their findings and is focused on lobbying the Clinton team in private.
Quote:
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. While it’s important to note the group has not found proof of hacking or manipulation, they are arguing to the campaign that the suspicious pattern merits an independent review — especially in light of the fact that the Obama White House has accused the Russian government of hacking the Democratic National Committee.
Are there legitimate reasons to believe that the votes are inaccurate? Or is this just to make sure?
Some rather prominent computer scientists have said that the precincts with machines are showing lower-than-expected turnout compared to precincts without machines.
I personally don't think it'll lead anywhere because many have noted the precincts with machines tend to be in urban areas, where people (outside of CA/NY) weren't as poised this time to vote for HIllary.
Some rather prominent computer scientists have said that the precincts with machines are showing lower-than-expected turnout compared to precincts without machines.
I personally don't think it'll lead anywhere because many have noted the precincts with machines tend to be in urban areas, where people (outside of CA/NY) weren't as poised this time to vote for HIllary.
even if one state snatches the votes in favor of Hillary, Trump wouldn't have 270 points and there would have to be round 2 with just Clinton vs Trump
even if one state snatches the votes in favor of Hillary, Trump wouldn't have 270 points and there would have to be round 2 with just Clinton vs Trump
She'd need all three states, actually. Even at my most optimistic, I think she'd be able to take Wisconsin and Michigan in the recount. Pennsylvania is too big of a deficit.
She'd need all three states, actually. Even at my most optimistic, I think she'd be able to take Wisconsin and Michigan in the recount. Pennsylvania is too big of a deficit.
The difference for now is:
Wisconsin: 27k
Michigan: 11k
Pennsylvania: 68k
Since PA seems like a lost cause, even if she got both MI and WI she'd have 258 EC votes to Trump's 280 so it won't work anyway, don't waste your money. She would need Trump to lose PA, or one of the other states that have 11+ EC votes (IN, OH, AZ, TN, NC, GA, FL, or , TX) and most of those races are not even close.
Even at my most optimistic, I think she'd be able to take Wisconsin and Michigan in the recount. Pennsylvania is too big of a deficit.
