A Last-Ditch Effort to Steal the Election?



It’s time to recognize the Democrats for what they are: radical revolutionaries who intend to hold power by any means necessary. And they want that power to complete their transformation of America into a socialist dictatorship, with Muslim overtones.

As such, they simply cannot accept that every so often, a Republican wins the White House, and delays their mission. This year, they are particularly unwilling to accept their loss to a most unlikely candidate, who promises to not only delay the Democrats’ mission, but to dismantle much of it.

Like all fanatics, they know not—and care not—that this happened because a major share of the electorate rejects the Democrat ideology, with its penchant for the ingress of large numbers of Muslims, fiats giving legal presence to millions of illegal aliens, fiats setting standards for the contrarian usage of bathrooms. Having lost because it was too far left, the DNC seeks to move even more left.

Because of their detachment from sane Americans, Democrats come up with absurdly foolish responses to the election, such as: Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, so she has some claim on winning the election. (Of course, the Constitution says otherwise: The Electoral College decides the election.)

In support of their inane notion, Democrats and their allies in the Left promulgated the pathetic theory that the Electoral College is a vestigial organ that could be easily removed, like an appendix, when it causes trouble.

One absurdity spawns another, such as “a Change.org petition—now signed by more than 4.6 million people, encourage[ing] members of the Electoral College to cast their votes for Hillary Clinton when the college meets on Dec. 19,” or Huma Abedin’s sister Heba’s discovery of a new power of the DOJ: she “encouraged her Facebook followers to lobby the Justice Department to audit the 2016 vote.”

Most bizarre of all is a new bag of tricks that rivals, for cheekiness, Gore’s 2000 attempt to recount only 4 heavily Democratic counties in Florida, in an extremely close election. According to New York Magazine, “a group of prominent computer scientists and election lawyers” are urging the Clinton campaign to demand recounts of Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania.

“The group, which includes voting-rights attorney John Bonifaz and J. Alex Halderman, 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.

Were Clinton’s challenges to be successful, she would have 46 more electoral votes, capturing the Electoral College and winning the election.

What is the logic behind this move? According to NY Mag’s story:

Last Thursday, the activists held a conference call with [the] Clinton campaign,… according to a source briefed on the call. 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.

Nate Silver, the respected pollster of 538 fame, debunked this reasoning, on Twitter:

To follow: some *very* quick analysis which suggests the claim here of rigged results in Wisconsin is probably BS:

Run a regression on Wisc. counties with ≥50K people, and you find that Clinton improved more in counties with only paper ballots. HOWEVER: …the effect COMPLETELY DISAPPEARS once you control for race and education levels, the key factors in predicting vote shifts this year.

Maybe a more complicated analysis would reveal something, but usually bad news when a finding can’t survive a basic sanity check like this.

Nothing in Pennsylvania, either, whether or not you control for demographics.

His calculations are at the link.

Pennsylvania, by the way, uses paper ballots, or Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) System: votes are recorded directly into the computers’ memory—but there’s no paper backup. So, there’s nothing to check the results against.

Halderman writes at medium.com that the NY Magazine article, which quotes his views, includes some incorrect numbers. He then lays out a complex theory of how malefactors could have explored ways to compromise computers in our polling sites:

“Attackers would probe election offices well in advance in order to find ways to break into their computers…. when it was clear from polling data which states would have close electoral margins, the attackers might spread malware into voting machines in some of these states.”

(Except the polls were hugely wrong.)

The malware could lie dormant until election night, says he, could do its evil work, then delete itself.

He hints that it could have been a cyberattack by Russia, then says: “I believe the most likely explanation is that the polls were systematically wrong, rather than that the election was hacked.” But he then declares: “The only way to know whether a cyberattack changed the result is to closely examine the available physical evidence — paper ballots and voting equipment in critical states like Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.”

Why those three states? Could it be because their combined electoral votes are sufficient to throw the election to Hillary? This could go down in the history of cherry-picking. Clinton has not said she would demand the recounts, the results of which could be embarrassing, in the likely event that nothing is turned up. But lo: she won’t have to:

NBC News reports that Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate, wants a recount in precisely the same three states. There’s no way she can personally benefit, because she ran a distant fourth, getting less than 1.4 million votes overall. She apparently has the right to demand a recount, but would have to pay the expenses, which are daunting. She asked for funding help on her website.

It’s unclear whether the secretaries of state can deny her call for a recount. Her webpage seems to suggest that: “We cannot guarantee a recount will happen, in any of these states we have targeted.” Or perhaps the disclaimer seeks to avoid responsibility for any possible legal challenge to the recounts.

The surprising part is the speed with which she raised the money: Her campaign began the fundraising on Wednesday, November 23rd, said USA Today and her website; “As of early Thursday evening [Thanksgiving], Stein’s campaign said it had raised more than $4.4 million toward a goal of $4.5 million to fund the three recounts,” reported USA Today. This is astonishing, because it’s rare indeed that any candidate has raised such a sum in one day.

At the time of this writing, Friday, November 25th, it’s $4,986,518.82.

Her fundraising site, which is linked from her website, called the rapid response “a miraculous feat.” Indeed.

Her reason for calling for recounts in those particular states? “We are raising money to demand recounts in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania—three states where there is a significant need to verify machine-counted vote totals,” said her website. This mission is inconsistent with reality since, as noted above, Michigan has only paper ballots, and Pennsylvania has paper ballots in some counties, Direct Recording Electronic system in others, with no paper backup. In fact, Ballotpedia shows that many states use DRE.

Far more likely than this balderdash is, the Democrats seek to go on a fishing expedition in those states, perhaps to discover some previously unnoticed Clinton votes under a desk.


0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Thomas Iverson
Thomas Iverson
5 years ago

I am sure that the only fish they will catch on this fishing expedition will be carp. I think it will turn out that she got less votes than originally tallied plus any tampering will be found to be on the Democrat side.

Joe A
Joe A
5 years ago

I can’t help but be suspicious, Jill Stein gets .7% of the votes and wants a recount and miraculously raises 5MM in a few days. (Suspicious)

Sounds like someone payed her to be a pawn in a scam to add phoney votes/remove legitimate ones or at the very least put the DNC close enough so that the 6 announced faithless electors can flip the election.

Case in point, I found something on the web where aledegedy 5000 Trump votes were already removed, but when fact checked, the recount hasn’t even started yet….let alone any official results posted. Why would WI post anything until its over.

A lot of is is very suspicious. While I am not opposed to recount, nor am I opposed to tightening up security at the polls. The way this was implemented is fishy.

Who is going to keep the recount honest? Quite apparent people can be bought.