The Republicans have issued a legal complaint against Jill Stein’s recounts in Wisconsin and Michigan on the basis that Stein is the one legally compelling the recount, but the only possible beneficiary is Clinton. That clearly implies Clinton could possibly benefit. They also allege coordination in fundraising. I don’t know the law on coordination, but the assertion that Clinton could benefit, but Stein could not, implies that the recount could give Clinton victory in the state. If the “benefit” in question is merely the PR benefit of an increased vote total not changing the outcome, Stein is as likely to benefit as Clinton. The only benefit that could possibly accrue to Clinton, but not to Stein, is victory in the contest, and that is only true if you consider victory a realistic possibility in Clinton’s case, but not in Stein’s.
By making this argument in court, the GOP has put itself on record as acknowledging the possibility that the recount could turn the states to Clinton.
Here’s a good site to track developments, which the liberal press is mostly not covering:
By the way, Stein’s request for a hand recount in Wisconsin was declined, and she has decided not to appeal. This leaves it up to the individual counties whether to recount by hand, and some evidently plan to. However, the first results in will probably be from machine-counted counties. This should be kept in mind in evaluating early returns.
I don’t think I can do a second diary today, so I’m commenting here.
Partial recount in Nevada is on. Full if significant discrepancy is found. This is from an obscure independent candidate who says he wants to “counterbalance” Jill Stein’s recounts. Why would you counterbalance a recount if you’re sure Stein will lose?
I believe that you can post up to two diaries per day. One of the rules Booman hung on to from DKos when he started the frogpond. Thanks for keeping us posted, by the way. I’m skeptical that the recounts will change much in terms of outcome, but given the nature of this election they strike me as very necessary.
yes, thanks for diary. what recounts will do – and I’m all for them – get us on the road to reliable voting (I hope).
You and me both.
Update: the Republican lawsuit has stopped the Michigan recount until at least early next week. If they win, no recount. Wisconsin has begun.
Thanks for the update. Will keep the fingers crossed that the Michigan recount is allowed to proceed. Voters have a right to know that their votes actually matter. The alternatives are too unpleasant to consider.
yes. and if you want to post this comment again, all the better!!! it’s like a tiny silver lining
Trying to figure out if you’re being serious or snarky. Given the tone of comments on this blog over the last few months, it’s often unclear.
I’m absolutely serious. it’s the only cheery thing I’ve read for 4 weeks – started out to write that, then decided maybe cheery isn’t the right word. ppl are actually discussing how to have a reliable vote count, as you write, central to having gov by the people. I can see you’d be uncertain though.
Cool. Just checking it out. My ability to trust around here has been seriously tested over the last few months. Electronic media are both a blessing and a curse when communicating with one another. I am glad that something I wrote boosted your morale a bit. I think we could all use some morale boosting about now.
Agreed that a reliable vote count is crucial. Each of us who took the time and effort to vote deserves to know that our vote mattered and was counted. Will gladly repeat that as often as is necessary. I look at audits and recounts as a necessary part of the process. I am generally okay with using touch screen machines, as long as there is some sort of paper trail that can be kept track of. Crucial to have a backup. And suing to stop a recount (which the Trumpsters are currently doing), especially given the nature of this particular election, is something that does not sit will with me. Nor should it sit well with anyone else in the frogpond or nationwide. We deserve better.