Trump defeated Clinton by 10,704 votes in Michigan


#1

Reuters: Trump defeated Clinton by 10,704 votes in Michigan: unofficial tally reut.rs/2fqxJOU


#2

when will the votes be officially recorded?

good news for now!


#3

I guess we have to wait and see what happens with this Jill Stein attempt to force a recount.


#4

In Michigan?


#5

Yes, she’s trying to gather sufficient funds to challenge the vote counts in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. The likelihood of a state like PA being somehow overturned is seemingly nil, let alone all three states, but she presses on in the name of greater confidence in our election system.


#6

Why is she wanting a recount when she is a 3rd party candidate and did not receive very many votes to begin with compared to Trump and Clinton?


#7

When recounts produce different numbers, the confidence won’t increase much IMO.

You might as well let Nate Silver run his computer simulations 10,000 times and take the average.


#8

A recount is a win-win. If there was hacking, we need to know. If there wasn’t, it quiets any conspiracy theories. Auditing results should be routine.


#9

I wish we had a unified voting system throughout the country.


#10

Monday, November 28, or so I’ve read.


#11

Clinton/Kaine 232 Electoral votes
Trump/Pence 306 Electoral votes

realclearpolitics.com/incls/ap_results/2016_general/live_map_president.png?1480015102004


#12

It is routine … when the votes are incredibly close in accordance with an agreed-upon, legal threshold. That’s not the case in any of these three states.

But do you know what else is routine? It’s routine that, even when there are recounts, the difference between the vote tallies is overwhelming a couple of hundred at most. MAYBE a couple of thousand. Seventy thousand votes in one state are not going to suddenly be overturned.

In PA, do you know that a candidate contesting the result would most likely have to get a judge to agree that there is a probability that voter fraud was committed? No one here is even remotely alleging that. They’re just claiming that there’s a possibility that voter fraud occurred because of an analysis of the data that well-known experts find to be ridiculous.

Nate Silver, Nate Cohn, David Wasserman, and others have all weighed in on this. In examining the evidence, they find nothing whatsoever that would insinuate “hacking.” David Waserman calls the whole thing pathetic. Nate Cohn says, “It’s hard to stress how weak this is.” One of the professors cited in the original report thinks that the election was “probably not” hacked.

The only conspiracy theory here is coming from those who are in denial about the results.


#13

“Thank God for Michigan!”

–Abraham Lincoln, May 1861


#14

Thanks. That is not far away.

If California would ever secede, the democrats would lose a lot of the popular vote plus electoral votes! The electoral map posted by Gilliam speaks volumes and makes it clear why we need the electoral college.


#15

It would make more sense to split California so the electoral votes exceed 55.


#16

I don’t understand Jill Stein’s request for a recount. I thought she didn’t want Hillary to win so now she is upset Trump won? No matter how many times they recount the votes she will never be declared the winner. Why is she raising so much money for this? Is she working for Hillary now?


#17

It’s not that clear because neither system is perfect. As things stand now, if a voter is a Republican in CA or NY or any of the other blue states on the map, their vote doesn’t count. And if a voter is a Democrat in a reliable red state such as TX, Mississippi, AL, OK, theirs doesn’t count. Right now voters in basically less than 2 handfuls of states out of 50 decide. And it’s only those states that get the bulk of the candidates’ attention.


closed #18

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.