We have seen countless postmortems by the mainstream media, blaming Hillary Clinton's loss of the U.S. Presidential election on a variety of different issues, such as lack of diversity, her ground game, Hillary being a flawed candidate, Comey's announcement 11 days before the election, Comey's subsequent announcement, a lack of enthusiasm of Clinton voters, "missing white voters, racism, sexism, xenophobia, Islamophobia, just to name a few.
Of course let us not forget the main talking point that liberals have grabbed on to with both hands... "fake news" did it! In reality, the only "fake news" that influenced the election was the mainstream media informing all Clinton supporters and liberals across the board that Clinton would win in a landslide, so many most likely figured they didn't even have to bother going to vote, while Trump supporters did hit the voting booths.
ACTIVISTS WANT CLINTON TO CHALLENGE RESULTS
Now that the protests and riots by paid protesters and snowflakes that can't handle the reality that their candidate lost, haven't changed the results, and neither has the ongoing death threats to members of the Electoral College by people trying to intimidate them into going against the voters in their states, liberals are now throwing their Hail Mary with claims by supposed "prominent computer scientists and election lawyers," that the election results in the Swing States that handed Trump the election, might have been rigged...... by Russia!
Last Thursday, the activists held a conference call with Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta and campaign general counsel Marc Elias to make their case, 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.
One of those activists, J. Alex Halderman, followed up on the New York Magazine piece, admitting that he believes "the most likely explanation is that the polls were systematically wrong, rather than that the election was hacked," but he still wants the the Clinton campaign to petition for recounts in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.
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. Unfortunately, nobody is ever going to examine that evidence unless candidates in those states act now, in the next several days, to petition for recounts.
Despite the fact that the data used highlights Wisconsin, Halderman specifically names Michigan as well, but as has been reported by Nate Silver from Five Thirty Eight, definitely not a Trump supporters or conservative, "Michigan has paper ballots everywhere, so not even sure what claim is being made there."
Silver also breaks down each state in question, showing data that contradicts the claims that the elections results may have been rigged, all shown in a series of tweets on Tuesday, November 22.
Silver's last tweet on the topic pretty much sums up the reaction to this latest Hail Mary on the left, where the hyperbole and calls for recounts as liberal website after liberal website jump on the New York Magazine headline with relish.
Silver, who was once the poster child for polling on the left, was highly criticized by a HuffPo writer when he did the unthinkable and unskewed polling data before the election showing Trump had a better chance of winning than the traditional polling was showing, leading to some very harsh back and forth between the two. So it is understandable why Silver targeted HuffPo for his example.
It is amusing that some of the same liberal pundits that mocked Trump for saying elections were rigged are now pushing the storyline that the 'elections were rigged," since their candidate lost the election.
Raw Story headlines with "Pressure mounting for presidential election recounts in a key 2016 swing state," where they conclude the following:
Silver continued, "Look, maybe these researchers have a lot more than what’s in the article. But there’s a *very* easy explanation for the pattern in article." To which, longtime voting rights journalist Brad Friedman, of BradBlog.com, replied, on Twitter, "We don’t get results from "patterns" — (You & @NateSilver538 do. How’d that go, btw?) — but from BALLOTS. We should bother to COUNT them!"
Stay tuned, this isn’t anywhere near over. Even if there is the slimmest of chances that recounts will change the presidential election results, it appears anyone paying attention is going to see why the election integrity movement has many salient points to make about how America conducts its elections, and why the process must be improved to instill public confidence.
Other liberal snowflakes are starting a "Call the DOJ and demand an audit" campaign:
While I am no fan of Washington Post, it is heartening to see that at least two of their writers have a brain cell left as Wapo writer Matt Zapotosky informs the poor little snowflakes that "The Department of Justice is not going to conduct a vote audit based on your phoned-in outrage." That was followed up by Wapo's National News Reporter Mark Berman, tweeting "No, the Justice Department doesn't "tally calls" to decide if it will audit the 2016 election."
NYT liberal writer Paul Krugman went on a twitter rant after linking to the New York Magazine article, with the words "Ok, this is terrifying."
After losing his mind over the "terrifying" NY Mag piece, eventually he apparently got a little bit of it back after being set straight by real data, but continued about it for a while, ending with the statement "Truly last word: conspiracies do happen. You're only a "conspiracy theorist" if -- like voting fraud types -- u won't take no for an answer."
More Twitter reaction can be seen at Twitchy, who headlines their piece with "IT’S REAL: After insisting the election couldn’t be rigged, liberals pretty sure election could have been rigged."
This latest Hail Mary appears to be a non-starter, but it hasn't stopped liberals from jumping on the bandwagon to demand recounts.
ABOUT THAT POPULAR VOTE THING
Since these snowflakes keep babbling about "fairness, how about in the interest of fairness we "verify" the legitimacy of the people who voted, say in California, because what people neglect to mention as we see headline after headline claiming "Hillary Clinton Now Leads Donald Trump in the Popular Vote by a Margin of Two Million," is that in California alone tallies have Clinton up in that state by 3.7 million, according to the California Election website, meaning the whole of Clinton's claimed "popular vote" win, comes from one state, minus the approximate 1.7 million to which Trump made up in popular votes in other states that he won.
While it is unlikely the Clinton campaign will be pressing for a recount in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, due to the faulty data provided by those encouraging it, I would love to see a verification of legitimacy of the voters in California, which undoubtedly won't happen, but could very well completely unravel the claim that Clinton won the "popular vote," which seems to be liberals' rallying call.
Clinton didn't win the popular vote, she won California.
Now California snowflakes, unhappy that they couldn't control the outcome of an entire election, wants a "Calexit", to break away from the United States. I say go for it.
