Trump loses 23,700 votes in Pennsylvania before recount begins

Conservative · Dec 12, 2016

Tangmo said:
The more the votes are counted in each of the three blue states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, the more votes Donald Trump loses, in each state. This is true even before any recounts begin or, as in Wisconsin, have begun.

Ahead of recounts, three states admit they “erred” in Trump’s favor by thousands of votes

By Bill Palmer | December 1, 2016

In the past two weeks Michigan and Wisconsin have both voluntarily revised the size of Donald Trump’s “win” downward by thousands of votes each. And now Pennsylvania has shrunk the size of Trump’s win by tens of thousands of votes.

Yesterday Trump's margin of his Pennsylvania vote win was slashed to 46,938 votes from the previously counted 70,638.

It’s important to understand that these revisions have been made by the states before the recounts even got underway.

These shifts in the vote totals have been based on precincts revising their own numbers, either because they caught errors of their own accord, or in some instances because internet gawkers spotted numerical impossibilities that forced those precincts to check themselves.

But the sudden shift in Pennsylvania voting totals is dramatic, in that it wipes out around one-third of Trump’s lead in the state ahead of the recount.

Ahead of recounts, three states admit they "erred" in Trump's favor by thousands of votes - Palmer Report

Here are the major changes to vote totals that keep creeping up on the Creepy Trump...

• Michigan: Trump presently leads by 10,704 votes -- on Nov 14th it had been +13,107)
• Pennsylvania: Trump presently leads by 46,938 votes -- until yesterday it had been +70,638)
• Wisconsin: Trump presently leads by 22,177 votes -- until last week it had been +27,257)

Trump's advantage over Clinton in PA is now 0.7% instead of 1.1%

The votes in Trump's margin of victory in each of the three blue states are creeping closer to the Clinton vote in each state, as the clerks continue to count. This was fact before the recount began in Wisconsin, and before any recounts might begin in Michigan or Pennsylvania.

I continue to say the recount will not change the outcome of the election. However, the direction of the votes as they continue to be counted, before any recount began or has begun in each state, is not in Trump's favor. The vote count in each instance is only moving away from Trump.

Since November 8th Trump has lost many tens of thousands of votes in key states while Hillary Clinton has either lost a few hundred or gained several hundred in each instance.

An open question also remains of election fraud in the three states. Election fraud is by elections officials, in contrast to voter fraud which is by voters only.

The current vote in each of the three states for, respectively, Clinton...then for Trump...

Clinton --- Trump
Michigan 2,268,839 --- 2,279,543 = 47.3% 47.5%
Pennsylvania 2,914,422 --- 2,961,187 = 47.9% 48.6%
Wisconsin 1,381,823 --- 1,404,000 = 46.4% 47.2%

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...73R68EZx4SfCnP4IGQf8/htmlview?sle=true#gid=19

Never in my voting life have I see such poor losers as today's liberal party. Anything to pump up fund raising for the radicals is all this is about. Without sanctuary cities Trump thumped Hillary even in the popular vote so saver your money instead of giving it to these leftwing radicals.

Μολὼν λαβέ · Dec 12, 2016

Objective Voice said:
I find this recount denial very interesting considering that in most local or state elections (State Representative or Senators), if the margin of victory is within +1-3% margin of error, recounts or even run-off elections are held. Considering Trump's margin of victory per the OP before recounts even began:

It's rather interesting that the argument of voter disenfranchisement cuts both ways.

If you're the winner, you want federal judges siding with your presumed victory.

If you're the loser, you want democracy to have a fair shot.

What I find fascinating is in a Representative Republic that relies on a democratic process of free and open elections, we really prefer a "winner take all" approach to democracy even when there is the slightest hint that the voting process may have run adrift of foul play.

Very fascinating...our views of what a free and fair election really means...."to the victor goes the spoils" or "let's ensure the people are truly and fairly represented".

Personally, I can see both sides of this issue.

If I'm Donald Trump, I'd want to halt every recount in its tracks!

But if I'm Hillary (by extension of Jill Stein who is trying so very hard to come off as a true patriot), I'd want each recount to continue for two very obvious reasons:

1) the more votes that go my way, the more likely she (Hillary) could over take Trump in a state or two; or,

2) Delay, delay, delay until December 13 when the Electoral College meets.

While I really don't think Jill Stein's efforts will amount to anything, I still find this entire exercise...fascinating.

Can you see this side of the issue? The legal one; the only one that counts.

A federal judge on Monday issued a stinging rejection of a Green Party-backed request to recount paper ballots in Pennsylvania's presidential election, won narrowly by Republican Donald Trump, and scan some counties' election systems for signs of hacking.

In his 31-page decision, U.S. District Judge Paul Diamond said there were at least six grounds that required him to reject the Green Party's lawsuit,

U.S. judge rejects Green Party's Pennsylvania recount case - Chicago Tribune

Objective Voice · Dec 12, 2016

Μολὼν λαβέ;1066651996 said:
Can you see this side of the issue? The legal one; the only one that counts.

I likely would have had you linked to the 31-page decision. But since you didn't...no.

Sarcasm aside, does anyone actually have a link to the document?

ludin · Dec 13, 2016

Objective Voice said:
I find this recount denial very interesting considering that in most local or state elections (State Representative or Senators), if the margin of victory is within +1-3% margin of error, recounts or even run-off elections are held. Considering Trump's margin of victory per the OP before recounts even began:

in PA it is .5% before an automatic recount is forced.

It's rather interesting that the argument of voter disenfranchisement cuts both ways.

PA law is very clear on how, who, and when a recount is considered.

If you're the winner, you want federal judges siding with your presumed victory.

The federal judge had no choice. Steins claims were bogus and she couldn't prove what she was arguing. Even her own experts admitted that they had no evidence.

If you're the loser, you want democracy to have a fair shot.

A fair shot was given. it is called an election.

What I find fascinating is in a Representative Republic that relies on a democratic process of free and open elections, we really prefer a "winner take all" approach to democracy even when there is the slightest hint that the voting process may have run adrift of foul play.

each state is free to assign it's electoral votes however it wants. if it decides on winner take all then that is how it is.
if people don't like it then petition your local state government to change it.

Very fascinating...our views of what a free and fair election really means...."to the victor goes the spoils" or "let's ensure the people are truly and fairly represented".
Personally, I can see both sides of this issue.

People flip flop based on whether they win or not.

If I'm Donald Trump, I'd want to halt every recount in its tracks!

If the recount is by a person that only won 1% of the vote if that then yes I would as well.
it was never about counting votes.

But if I'm Hillary (by extension of Jill Stein who is trying so very hard to come off as a true patriot), I'd want each recount to continue for two very obvious reasons:
1) the more votes that go my way, the more likely she (Hillary) could over take Trump in a state or two; or,

Yet the recount in WI backfired. trump won by a larger margin. his vote count increased 136 votes more than Hillary.

2) Delay, delay, delay until December 13 when the Electoral College meets.

This was the true purpose of the recounts. which to me federal charges should be filed in trying to upend a legal and fair election.
this is election tampering at it's finest.

While I really don't think Jill Stein's efforts will amount to anything, I still find this entire exercise...fascinating.

how is trying to upend a legal fair election fascinating?

ludin · Dec 13, 2016

Objective Voice said:
I likely would have had you linked to the 31-page decision. But since you didn't...no.

Sarcasm aside, does anyone actually have a link to the document?

nope can't find it anywhere just news articles with summaries.

Trump loses 23,700 votes in Pennsylvania before recount begins

Conservative

Μολὼν λαβέ

Si vis pacem, para bellum

Objective Voice

ludin

ludin