Sunday, November 27, 2016

Where Are The Recounts In New Hampshire, Colorado And Nevada (and Minnesota)?

I pointed out on my main blog last night the utter hypocrisy of Hillary Clinton jumping on the "recount" bandwagon started by lefty loon Jill Stein. She seems to think that even though she conceded, everyone in the world accepted the results (however reluctantly) and the transition has begun, there is some completely rational reason to think that she can overturn the results and still become President. I sort of get why she is doing this, her entire life has been consumed with becoming President and now that will never, ever happen. Our first female President will not be her but instead a, hopefully, at least reasonably decent person.

So I got to wondering, and I am sure others have as well but this is my pondering and my data gathering, why are there recounts being called for in just three states that Hillary Clinton lost? There are three states that she won that were awfully close, Colorado (9 electoral college votes), Nevada (4) and New Hampshire (3). See below for the vote differences in the three states she wants a recount (Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan) and compare them to the three I mentioned (see also addendum below re: Minnesota):


I got my numbers from the Fox News website this morning and verified them against Politico, and in the case of Colorado where the numbers were different I used Politicos numbers. If I am doing the math correctly, the total difference in the three recount states is 107,105 votes. The total difference in the three states she won and is not calling for a recount is 100,907. As an aside I managed to get a B.A. without taking (or at least passing) a single math or statistics course so please feel free to verify these numbers on your own.

Now maybe I am just being suspicious but it seems to me that if Jill Stein is so worried about "Election Integrity™", shouldn't she be calling for a recount in states like Colorado, Nevada and New Hampshire where the total margin was slightly less than the three she is raising funds to recount? Especially in New Hampshire where the difference was less than 3,000 votes?

Sure, I get that in the three states she won the total votes were mostly much lower so the margin percentage is much smaller but remember that we are worried about "election integrity" here. If 27,257 votes in Wisconsin made the difference and we should recount them, shouldn't 26,434 votes in Colorado be recounted as well? It is almost like Jill Stein is doing this whole recount thing for partisan reasons instead of because "Election Integrity™", a concept that only seems to matter to Jill when she wants to recount states her preferred candidate lost instead of when it comes to making sure people who are casting ballots are, ya know, actually legally voting in the first place.

Once she is made aware of the razor thin margins that Hilary won those three states by, I am sure Jill will immediately start to solicit funds from her Starbucks barista and community organizer fan base to have those states recounted as well. After all, she is the self-anointed champion of "Election Integrity™".

Addendum:

Someone pointed out that Minnesota with 10 electoral college votes was actually even closer. I didn't catch it because I initially looked at the list of battleground states and usually reliably Left Minnesota (home of Mondale after all) wasn't supposed to be contested. Here is Minnesota added in:


By my count that means that Hillary might have 26 Electoral College votes in error. Someone alert Jill Stein to this new threat to "Election Integrity™"!
Post a Comment