Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

WISCONSIN HELD HOSTAGE — Results Final, Trump Still the Winner

WISCONSIN HELD HOSTAGE — Results Final, Trump Still the Winner

A lot of money for very little change

Wisconsin’s presidential recount is over, done, and the results official. Trump remains the winner, gaining 131 votes over Hillary.

Failed Green Party presidential candidate, Jill Stein, forked over $3.5 million for a hand recount, claiming she wanted to ensure the integrity of America’s election process. It’s probably just coincidence she chose to test the veracity of our electoral process in the three states Hillary was projected to win, but failed.

In any case, Trump still wins:

In Wisconsin, officials said Trump defeated Democrat Hillary Clinton by 22,748 votes out of about 3 million cast — an uptick of 131 over his initial advantage over Clinton.

“The biggest reason for these small differences between the unofficial results on Election Night, the counties original canvasses and the recount results is human error,” Wisconsin Elections Commission Administrator Michael Haas said in a statement. “Some voters do not follow the instructions and mark their ballots correctly for the machines can count them. In the tight deadlines to report the results, election officials make math mistakes, we forget things, we accidentally transpose numbers.”

Stein finished well behind Trump and Clinton. She pushed for recounts over concerns about potential hacking and other irregularities. She presented no evidence to back up her claims.

In a statement, Stein applauded the workers and observers who took part in the Wisconsin recount. She also expressed disappointment that not all the counties underwent full hand recounts as she had initially requested.

“This recount was never about changing the outcome; it was about validating the vote and restoring confidence in our voting system to Americans across the country who have doubts. The recount in Wisconsin raised a number of important election integrity issues that bear further assessment and serious action to ensure we have integrity and confidence in our electoral system,” Stein said.

The Wisconsin State Journal explained further:

“Completing this recount was a challenge, but the real winners are the voters,” elections commission chairman Mark Thomsen said in a statement after signing off on the statewide results. “Based on the recount, they can have confidence that Wisconsin’s election results accurately reflect the will of the people, regardless of whether they are counted by hand or by machine.”

The commission originally advised county clerks to complete their recount process by 8 p.m. Monday so it could certify the results on Tuesday, the last day federal law guarantees a state’s electoral votes will reflect the popular vote when the Electoral College convenes on Dec. 19.

On Monday the Board of Canvassers in the final four counties — Dane, Milwaukee, Outagamie and Rock — certified their results. Dane County was the last to complete ballot-counting on Saturday night.

Governor Walker weighed in:

Gov. Scott Walker expressed appreciation for the work done by the state’s 72 county clerks and hundreds of full-time, part-time and temporary employees.

“They’ve shown all throughout this process that it was very clear that the vote was legitimate here in the state,” Walker said.

Stein requested recounts in Pennsylvania and Michigan, but a federal judge stopped the Michigan recount and the would-be Pennsylvania recount never happened, also thanks to a federal judge’s ruling.

That’s an awful lot of money for very little change.

Follow Kemberlee on Twitter @kemberleekaye

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Jill Stein has been posting nasty comments on Twitter about Trump’s win in Wisconsin recount. What a bitter nasty person. Here’s one Tweet: User Actions
Follow

‏@DrJillStein
#RecountWI is complete despite the many frivolous hurdles Trump put in the way of democracy.

DINORightMarie | December 12, 2016 at 8:37 pm

First – why Wisconsin allowed her to call and have a recount is beyond me. She NEVER had any chance of winning, her percentages were microscopic!

Second – I’d love to know how much it ACTUALLY COST the state to do the recount, because it is not possible, from what I’ve read, to do an entire state’s recount on a mere $3.5 mil….more like $10-$12 mil…..

    Gremlin1974 in reply to DINORightMarie. | December 13, 2016 at 3:41 am

    Well remember in Wisconsin she is responsible for the entire cost, the actual estimate was more than 3.5 million, so it will take them a while to compute the actual cost.

Well she did one thing for the Dems…got anyone voting green party to be more likely to vote Dem next election because she proved herself to be a shill.

Socialist Stein will continue her nonsense until she “runs out of other people’s money” in the words of the Iron Lady.

That’s an awful lot of money for very little change.

But well worth it. The point isn’t the magnitude of the change, it’s the confidence we can now have in the result. Hand counts should be automatic and routine in every state, not something anyone has to fight for.

    rscalzo in reply to Milhouse. | December 13, 2016 at 9:49 am

    Really? then when would you expect the results to be in? August? How about security in voter ID’s? I’m not confident that they are valid. How many college kid’s voted in their home residence and that of the school’s? No one checks.

      Tom Servo in reply to rscalzo. | December 13, 2016 at 10:16 am

      Everyone who was rational had confidence in the outcome by 3 am on Nov. 10. The progs are demanding an expenditure of millions of dollars and millions of man hours just to satisfy their own paranoid delusions. I think complementary doses of thorazine would be much cheaper and would accomplish the same purpose for them.

        Milhouse in reply to Tom Servo. | December 13, 2016 at 2:10 pm

        Read Halderman’s article that started this whole recount thing. The counting machines are easy to manipulate. The only way we can possibly have confidence in their results is to check them. Failing to do so is writing a gilt-edged invitation for fraud. You’ll never find evidence of fraud if you never look for it, whether it’s machines miscounting votes, or people voting in other people’s names, or aliens voting.

          Barry in reply to Milhouse. | December 13, 2016 at 7:00 pm

          “You’ll never find evidence of fraud if you never look for it”

          They were not looking for fraud, rather they were looking for an opportunity to create it.

          If they were looking for fraud they would have looked in other places as well.

          Gremlin1974 in reply to Milhouse. | December 13, 2016 at 7:18 pm

          “Read Halderman’s article that started this whole recount thing.”

          I did an saw it for the liberal whining bs that is was from the moment I laid eyes on it.

          “The counting machines are easy to manipulate.”

          Actually no they are not since most are never actually linked to the internet they are not subject to hacking, meaning that someone would have had to physically manipulate them. Or are you claiming that Russian agent provocateurs were there to do the deed? Or maybe it was Ninja’s!

          “The only way we can possibly have confidence in their results is to check them.”

          They are checked before they are put into use, its called preventive maintenance.”

          “You’ll never find evidence of fraud if you never look for it,”

          Ahh, well then I let me know where you live so I can have the Sheriff look for evidence that you beat your loved ones, that you manufacture meth, and engage in child pornography, because if we don’t look for that evidence we will never find it.

          The problem with this particular delusion is when you go looking for evidence of X you will probably find it either real or imagined.

          “whether it’s machines miscounting votes, or people voting in other people’s names, or aliens voting.”

          Actually there is a much better and secure way of taking care of all of those issues, its called Strict Voter ID laws.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | December 15, 2016 at 2:08 am

          “Read Halderman’s article that started this whole recount thing.”
          I did an saw it for the liberal whining bs that is was from the moment I laid eyes on it.

          I don’t believe you read it, or you wouldn’t have delivered the ignorant claim that follows. And what makes you think Halderman is a liberal? There’s nothing in his article to suggest his political leanings, if any.

          “The counting machines are easy to manipulate.”
          Actually no they are not since most are never actually linked to the internet they are not subject to hacking,

          If you’d actually read Halderman’s article, or if you knew anything at all about the subject, you’d know how hopelessly naïve that is. No, Viriginia, keeping your machine off the net does not protect it from manipulation. It is extremely simple to manipulate these machines, and no hordes of agents or ninjas are needed.

          “The only way we can possibly have confidence in their results is to check them.”

          They are checked before they are put into use, its called preventive maintenance.”

          And that is exactly the lackadaisical attitude that leaves the door wide open to fraud.

          Ahh, well then I let me know where you live so I can have the Sheriff look for evidence that you beat your loved ones […]

          That analogy is so stupid it can’t be an accident. It’s deliberately dishonest.

          “whether it’s machines miscounting votes, or people voting in other people’s names, or aliens voting.”

          Actually there is a much better and secure way of taking care of all of those issues, its called Strict Voter ID laws.

          Liar. No system of voter ID can possibly prevent machines being manipulated to miscount votes. Nor can it prevent aliens from registering and voting in their own names, which so many do. Nor can it prevent the massive fraud that goes on with absentee ballots.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | December 15, 2016 at 2:11 am

          “You’ll never find evidence of fraud if you never look for it”

          They were not looking for fraud, rather they were looking for an opportunity to create it.

          If they were looking for fraud they would have looked in other places as well.

          These were the states where it was possible to demand a recount, and even among those they only managed it in one. Halderman wants routine hand counts in every state, but there isn’t any legal way to demand them. The recount process is the only way to get it at least in one state out of 50, which is better than none at all.

    Gremlin1974 in reply to Milhouse. | December 13, 2016 at 7:10 pm

    What a load of horse exhaust. This was never about “election integrity” and any claim otherwise is either willful ignorance or an outright lie.

    This was about seeing if they could game the system in a way to get Hillary elected regardless of the will of the people. There was no question about the integrity of the results except by those people who believed that Hillary was inevitable.

    Also, if it was really about testing the electoral integrity then why was it only the 3 states that Hillary lost that she was projected to win and have been liberal strongholds? That is not a test of anything, for it to be a real test you have to test states that went the other way as well and in different geographical locations or just have them chosen randomly by draw.

    Recounts should only be used in the most restricted of cases. What calls our electoral integrity into question is the fact that we allow frivolous unserious action such as that that only amount to a petty baby shit fit.

      Milhouse in reply to Gremlin1974. | December 15, 2016 at 2:14 am

      Also, if it was really about testing the electoral integrity then why was it only the 3 states that Hillary lost that she was projected to win and have been liberal strongholds? That is not a test of anything, for it to be a real test you have to test states that went the other way as well and in different geographical locations or just have them chosen randomly by draw.

      Indeed that is what should happen, but what can anyone do about it when the state and local authorities refuse to do it, ever? What is the point of having an audit trail in the first place, if nobody ever looks at it? These were the only states where it was possible to force the state to do what it should do anyway — and as it turned out it wasn’t even possible in two of these three. Trump should have asked for one in New Hampshire, for the same reason — because he could.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend