2600 allots found yesterday in Georgia and 2700 found today. Wow, there are 159 counties in Georgia. At this current pace Trump will be back to where is was early on election nite before all the cheating set in. You guys just keep counting Trump out and repeating President elect Joe Biden, which he is not, until the electors meeting in December. Why not let this process play out and find out who really won, what in the hell is wrong with that approach.
Where did I say that Trump should not exercise his legal rights to challenge the results in some states?
You can get all excited about them finding an additional few hundred more votes in 1 state but he needs many tens of thousands of votes in 3 states.
Where can they possibly come from?
His chance to take GA is maybe 1 in 100(thats being generous). His chance then, to take PA and NV, along with GA is at best 1 in 100,000 and thats even if they find massive fraud. Maybe his chance is better to get AZ instead of NV, since he is closer in AZ but they numbers just are not there.
There has never been any 1 election in 1 state overturned with this much difference between the candidates and he needs 3 of them with a margin between him and Biden of 100 times greater than what the margin was in any other overturned election.
He needs 80,000+ votes in PA.
|Candidates||Vote %||Vote count|
|Joe BidenDemocratic Party||50%||3,445,548|
|Donald TrumpRepublican Party||48.8%||3,363,951|
|Jo JorgensenLibertarian Party||1.1%||79,046|
He needs 33,000+ votes in NV:
|Candidates||Vote %||Vote count|
None of the
|Joe BidenDemocratic Party||50.1%||703,486|
|Donald TrumpRepublican Party||47.7%||669,890|
|Jo JorgensenLibertarian Party||1.1%||14,783|
He needs 10,000+ in AZ:
|Candidates||Vote %||Vote count|
|Joe BidenDemocratic Party||49.4%||1,672,054|
|Donald TrumpRepublican Party||49.1%||1,661,677|
He needs 20,000+ in WI:
|Candidates||Vote %||Vote count|
|Joe BidenDemocratic Party||49.6%||1,630,716|
|Donald TrumpRepublican Party||48.9%||1,610,151|
|Jo JorgensenLibertarian Party||1.2%||38,493|
|Brian CarrollAmerican Solidarity Party||0.2%||5,266|
|Don BlankenshipConstitution Party|
He needs 146,000 in MI:
|Candidates||Vote %||Vote count|
|Joe BidenDemocratic Party||50.6%||2,796,702|
|Donald TrumpRepublican Party||47.9%||2,650,695|
|Jo JorgensenLibertarian Party||1.1%||60,386|
|Howie HawkinsGreen Party||0.2%||13,706|
|Don BlankenshipConstitution Party||0.1%||7,223|
He needs 13,000+ in GA:
"The breakdown of the uncounted ballots was 1,577 for Trump, 1,128 for Biden, 43 for Libertarian Jo Jorgensen and seven write-ins, Sterling said."
metmike: That's a gain of 449 votes in GA to go with the 200+ he got earlier.
He needs another 13,000 in GA and then to flip 2 of the states above with many tens of thousands of votes.
You can continue to have wishful thinking and believe that there is a chance of that happening if you want but I am just showing you the facts.
a person is allowed to ask for a recount. thats fine. we'll just let the process play out. both dems and pubs should respect this as part of the process.
Let's go back to 2016's recounts.
Maybe you forgot but Hillary Clinton asked for recounts.............actually, those sneaky/dishonest sob's, pretended that it was Jill Stein(who did their dirty work) asking for the recount so they wouldn't look like Trump does right now............a sore loser but it was Hillary Clinton/the dems not accepting the results and using their legal right to challenge. Man do I remember that one!
Hillary, on the surface pretended to be a graceful loser and acknowledging defeat, then did her damnedest to change the results and get Trump out of office.........without us knowing that she was doing it.
"The Wisconsin vote in the presidential election is undergoing a recount. Green Party candidate Jill Stein, who requested the Wisconsin recount, also has raised funds for a recount in Pennsylvania and is seeking more funds for one in Michigan and possibly other states. Could the recounts possibly change the outcome in any of the states? Not if they go anything like statewide recounts over the last 16 years.
Recounts typically don’t swing enough votes to change the winner. Out of 4,687 statewide general elections between 2000 and 2015, just 27 were followed by recounts, according to data compiled by FairVote, a nonpartisan group that researches elections and promotes electoral reform. Just three of those 27 recounts resulted in a change in the outcome, all leading to wins for Democrats: Al Franken’s win in Minnesota’s 2008 U.S. Senate race, Thomas M. Salmon’s win in Vermont’s 2006 auditor election and Christine Gregoire’s win in Washington’s 2004 gubernatorial race.
Recounts also typically don’t change the margin by an amount that would be large enough to affect the result of this year’s presidential election. The mean swing between the top two candidates in the 27 recounts was 282 votes, with a median of 219. The biggest swing came in Florida’s 2000 presidential election recount, when Al Gore cut 1,247 votes off George W. Bush’s lead, ultimately not enough to flip the state to his column. In each state Trump won or leads in, his advantage is more than 10,000 votes, according to counts to far. Some statewide races that have undergone recounts have far fewer votes than the closest states in the 2016 presidential race, but even in percentage terms, the average swing was 0.2 percentage points, which could be enough to flip Michigan but not any other states (and therefore not the Electoral College; even with Michigan, Clinton would be 22 electoral votes short of the 270 needed to win).
“I think there’s real value in post-election audits, in large part to catch something systemic — even more so for a big election like president, and with our Electoral College rules that can exaggerate the impact of results in one or two states,” said Rob Richie, executive director of FairVote and co-author of a forthcoming report on recounts — updating earlier FairVote reports — from which the data in the preceding paragraphs is drawn. “But as a general matter, the likelihood of a statewide recount having an impact on outcome is extremely small unless the original outcome is exceptionally close.”
Citing data from recent recounts, Marc Elias, general counsel for the Hillary Clinton campaign, wrote in a Medium post on Saturday that “the number of votes separating Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in the closest of these states — Michigan — well exceeds the largest margin ever overcome in a recount.” The Clinton campaign nonetheless will monitor the recount process, as is typical of affected campaigns in recounts.
It’s possible that typical recounts won’t be useful precedents for recounts of this election. Computer scientist J. Alex Halderman, in a Medium post of his own last week advocating for recounts, argued that electronic voting machines could have been hacked. If they were, hackers could have modified vote totals by more than the usual amount that recounts changed vote totals. However, an analysis of county-level vote data doesn’t provide evidence for hacking: Whether a county used electronic voting machines doesn’t seem to be associated with Clinton’s performance relative to expectations. And even if the machines were hacked, a recount might not find evidence to prove that hacking took place."
metmike: 4 years ago, we were told that computer hacking by Russia is what gave the election to Trump.
This later morphed into the fake narrative that Trump colluded with Russia and their assistance is what caused him to win. Then we were led down a dishonest path for 2.5 years by the MSM and all of Trump's enemies........that Mueller had Trump red handed colluding with Russia.
The Mueller report came out. No evidence of colluding.
joj has noted a couple of times here that Trump saying for the entire world to hear(before the election): "Russia if you can hear me, get the evidence from the emails that Hillary destroyed"
Since Mueller's 35,000,000 investigation found nothing, that's all they had/have to go on.
I personally think of the Mueller investigation scandal as being much bigger and worse than Watergate.
With Watergate, real crimes were committed and the criminals got busted and were held accountable.
With Mueller, the real criminals were the investigators and they did far more damage and because they were in control with no accountability, abused the laws with impunity and suffered no consequences.............and accomplished their goal.
Smear President Trump for 2.5 years and give the MSM and dems ammo for that entire period to speculate over Trumps crimes with Russia to destroy/ smear him.........when they knew the entire time it was all lies.
They knew very early on he was innocent and could have told us and not wasted our money but it wasn't about finding the truth. It was about creating a massive dark cloud of suspicion over President Trump's head and letting the MSM and others feed it every day until it turned into big thunderstorm, constantly sending lightning bolts down aimed at Donald Trump.
Then, after 2.5 very long years, Mueller finally came out and talked to us.
Mueller: Hi there everybody! All that time, President Trump was actually innocent of all those accusations that I listened to you accuse him of every day all day long. I didn't want to interrupt you though. I was busy creating crimes that did not exist before my investigation with people he knew to see if I could get one of them to give me some dirt on Trump.
Dang, there wasn't anything. Dang no crimes.......... but you all did such a great job on making up bad stuff about President Trump, that I didn't want to stop you!!
MM you have been calling this election since election nite. I am just saying how many times have many under estimated Trump and his accomplishments. And no, you did not say Trump does not have the right the , you have just repeated its foolish and you actually want to do to Trump what the country did to Nixon when the Kenndeys put the shaft to him. "for the good of the country" is BS. When there is cheating involved you go after it or you wind up with 1/2 the nation doubting. Not exactly sure when the libs instituted this deal where they lie, steal and cheat with immunity and rest of the country is supposed to swallow it. Seems the on set of the Clintons and Obamas had a lot to do with it.
This is just my opinion and take it for what it worth
1st: I haven't seen anything or anybody that denies fraud exists in USA elections from state legislature all the way to congress or presidential election. Perhaps the most famous was Chicago handing the election to JFK with numbers from chicago putting JFK in the WH
MM has said re-counts rarely change an election with the numbers Trump needs, and history proves MM is correct
But is this a re-count as we know from previous experience?? I think not
I think the Dominion machines is the big issue in this legal challenge. So far Trump has lost various court challenges or won small amounts of votes. Nothing so far that will be a winner for Trump. It doesn't look good for Trump
But that Powell lawyer doesn't say things, if she isn't prepared to win. It seems the smaller court cases have been brought by individuals or small groups. Powell is working on a much larger issue of massive fraud. I think when we hear from her, she will set the stage to go through the appeal system until she reaches the Supreme Court on just one issue
That being the Dominion machines and ask the Supreme court to rule on possible or actual fraud related to these machines. Other countries around the world refuse to use these machines because they are so easily hacked
I doubt you can go to the supreme court with a hand full of small claims of voter fraud and ask for re-counts in 4-6 states. You have to swing a big stick and I think that big stick is the Dominion machines
And by the way, Powell knows her reputation is on the line in her legal battle. No high profile lawyer would risk a reputation unless they were very confident of winning. If she loses she might as well retire and hope she has enough put away for retirement
This is not a lawyer that takes a case with a 50-50 chance of winning. She got Flynn out off his hot spot and is highly regarded by her peers
She isn't on the Trump team just for money. She has long ago decided her battles on a different criteria
It is interesting that many lawyers agree that Powell has a path way to the supreme court based on the law
Not many lawyers have said she will win on re-counts. The election laws seem to be the issue at hand
A national coalition announced Thursday that there is no evidence that any voting software deleted or changed votes in last week's election, per USA TODAY.
In fact, the security group — which includes the Department of Homeland Security's Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency and the National Association of State Election Directors — described the election as "the most secure in American history."
"There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised," the coalition concluded.
It added that all states with close results have paper records of each vote that allow for a recount, if necessary.
"This is an added benefit for security and resilience," the coalition wrote. "This process allows for the identification and correction of any mistakes or errors."
Based on our research, the claim that Dominion Voting Systems deleted votes for Donald Trump or switched votes to Joe Biden is FALSE. A national election security coalition announced on Thursday that "there is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised." Other experts and Dominion itself also condemned the claims.
one of the most interesting things about this is the reversal of positions from 4 years ago.
When Clinton lost, the left was screaming FRAUD and computer hacking(by Russia) and Clinton asked for massive recounts(cleverly using Jill Stein, so she would appear to have conceded and not look exactly like Trump does here in 2020)
The right was insisting the election was completely legit.
December 6, 2016
"But even lawyers for the plaintiffs acknowledge time isn’t on their side. Clint Curtis, an Orlando attorney representing the plaintiffs, said the defendants may not respond by the time the Electoral College meets on Dec. 19."
I'm pretty much with you MM. I am pretty sure there was some fraud, but was there enough to change the outcome? More accurate, enough provable?
But, if you listen to this Sydney Powell, she seems pretty confident she has all she needs. I've done some checking, And she's no Rudy Guliani. (Caveat: I had a world of respect for Guliani up until about a year ago. Seems he's said and done a lot of stupid things of late, but he was one heckuva mayor).
Anyway, Ms. Powell is no light weight and has a lot of success/credibility under her belt. Would she toss all that away on some pie in the sky conspiracy theory? If so, why?
Here is a link to an interview typical of what I've been hearing from her. She's either a raving lunatic or this country has a huge problem, and her history does not suggest she's a raving lunatic. Quite the contrary.
metmike: With the hand count almost over in GA and them not finding all these many thousands of switched votes that were dialed in using the Dominion voting machines, what else is there? This is proof that the machines didn't do what they are accused of doing in GA. I guess only hand recounts in every other state will satisfy those convinced otherwise.
It's not like Trump was expected to win by 10 points and then lost by a close margin.
He was expected to lose by a lot and did BETTER than expected but still lost......by a little. Why some want to believe that he should have done even better than better than expected and won, when the numbers don't support that is based on ...........wishful thinking.
Go ahead and do the recounts, legal court challenges and fraud discoveries but expectations always determine how we feel about end results.
Everybody that has any hopes/expectations that a miracle will give the election to Trump is setting themselves up for a big disappointment.
Trump was not a popular president. Extraordinary enthusiasm from those that supported him but not the numbers that one would have expected to win an election.
It's just not rational to think that somebody in this category should have received even millions more in votes than the person running against him and when that didn't happen, it must be fraud.
Not based on the real world.
Biden got tens of millions of his votes for the same reason above, Trumps not being popular and hated like no other president in history. When people voted, they may have seen "Joe Biden" on the ballot but what they were thinking was "NOT Donald Trump."
Regardless of some of his great agenda and me supporting most of it, including the most important for me........the fake climate crisis" he totally caused this to himself.
'why some expected he would do better" well MM it seems the repubs over achieved at every level...house, Senate, local everywhere. There were anomalies across the country that just do not make sense. Bell weather locations that every President has won since before RR? Trump won every single one, do not remember but there are 13 to 16. ALL the repubs that won owe their victory to Trump and yet the media and you having him losing ....again just like '16...where are these huge dem wins across the country if Trump was to be routed? What is the house? the Repubs picked up 13 seats. If Georgia comes out the way most would expect the senate will be 50 repubs. None of this makes any sense at all. Black guy burgess owns wins in Utah...really? First time female R candidate wins in S California, really?
Makes total sense to me mcfarm.
The sooner you accept the election results, the less frustration you will be going thru in the weeks ahead.
Don't forget, my signature issue is the fake climate crisis. Trump was the only thing blocking it from being used to obliterate our wonderful energy policy and way of life.
The Climate Accord will now accelerate the demise of the rich countries in the West, as it intentionally destroys capitalism and builds up China which will become the unchallenged #1 world power.
Global socialism will be the rule, well before this decade is over, part of the cultural revolution.
During the next 4 years, that will be even more obvious as the move accelerates.
In the Accord right now, China, which emits double the amount of CO2 as the next highest country can continue to increase emissions (supposedly destroying the planet) and build more coal plants until at least the year 2030.
When Obama got them to sign up(they were laughing at the absurd Accord prior to that), he pledged severe CO2 cuts and money from the US and they pledged to consider stopping their increase in emissions in the year 2030, as long as they got our money too.
China also receives money thru the Climate Accord because the United Nations has designated them a poor country............and that will be our tax payer money they get. Obama already sent 2,000,000,000 to the Green Climate Fund for this in his last term. Biden will add billions more.
And they will tell us that it's to save the planet.
CO2 emissions are well mixed in the global atmosphere, regardless of the source country.
However, we are told that CO2 emissions from the United States will destroy the planet but CO2 emissions from China, that are double ours, are ok.
The real objective is the transfer of global wealth to balance the quality of life, so that a poor citizen of China has a better quality of life(I am for that) while just the opposite happens to US citizens.
US citizens over consume natural resources and this must stop so that the world can have sustainable development based on the standards set by the United Nations.......our new Mommy and Daddy. Getting rid of our fossil fuels with the Green New Deal will accomplish that.
That is the real reason for the Green New Deal and Climate Accord. Neither of them will do anything for the climate, NOTHING, which has featured the best weather/climate in the last 1,000 years for life on this greening planet.
So Biden is making an appeal for everybody to come together.
Republicans and Democrats working together.
Put down our political differences and unite.
I really like that idea a great deal.
But here's the problem for me on coming together with Biden and his side on the fake climate crisis to supposedly save the planet.
It's not fair to ask somebody to support their expensive and completely fraudulent scheme, then accuse us of being divisive and uncooperative if we don't. Telling us that the science is settled and debate is over and accuse us of being science deniers(flat earthers was one of Obama's favorite smearing words to describe people like me) because we practice the scientific method.
Claiming (falsely) that your cause is saving the planet and anybody that disagrees with anything having to do with it, is supposedly trying to sabotage your altruistic objectives.
You are good and know whats good for everybody. You even know what the perfect temperature of the planet should be and what the perfect CO2 level for life is.
Absurdly, it was right when fossil fuels started emitting CO2.
Any climate change, temperature increase and CO2 increase after that..........is bad.
Even while climate science and biology tell us that the ideal global temperature for most life on this planet is probably around 2 degrees warmer. At least the benefits for additional warming will still outweigh the negatives until that point.
With regards to the CO2, this one is indisputable. The ideal ambient level of atmospheric CO2 for most life is double the current level.
We rescued the planet from dangerously low CO2.............CO2 starvation, when levels were less than 300 parts per million.
At 415 ppm now, we are nowhere close to the optimum level which is up around 900 ppm or more.
Greenhouses use CO2 enrichment generators to pump levels above 1,000 ppm because they know this.
So for me, uniting with Biden to support the fake climate crisis and to support the Climate Accord/Green New Deal would be like asking a MLB player to strike out each time to support the other team........where the other team is China and they want to eat our lunch.
Or an NFL running back to intentionally fumble the ball to help the other team.
Seems the left's idea of unity is that everyone who disagrees shuts the hell up.
Or as Buckley said "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover there are other views."
This not election related but more climate as you referenced in your post
There is some thing to this climate thing. We are not receiving acid rain or sulfur
We have done repeated trials and now need sulfur in our fertilizer
We have recorded as much as 7-10 bu less with no sulfur added
Just some thing we have to do and makes it hard but not impossible to add sulfur for the plant uptake
What this means, is that some machinery will not add sulfur at a cost that is acceptable
On the other hand corn grown with sulfur added, had larger yields for our location, this yr, which makes the ROI worth the cost, if we use the least cost application equipment