Hillary Clinton could still win the presidency

[Galloism]

Some humorous reading.

The Holocaust was an obscene period in our nation's history. [followup] No, not our nation's, but in World War II. I mean, we all lived in this century. I didn't live in this century, but in this century's history.

This fucking guy.

That's him. He was Vice President.

[Kravanica]

Pretty sure Biden would be next in line.

Yeah but Biden didn't win an election this year. The new Speaker of the House, presumably, would have either won an election this year or would have been elected in the 2014 midterms and thus might be a more 'legitimate' choice for a caretaker government. Maintaining all of Obama's cabinet and administration temporarily as a matter of expedience and continuity but have a Republican president in charge would have good 'bipartisan' optics.

Neither did Truman when he first became president.

Again, you'd need to actually prove that that's happened. Right now all anyone has is suspicions.

Yep. But they're significant suspicions, by people who know what they're talking about.

A group of left-leaning. Not trying to disrecdit them but they aren't exactly non-partisan.

[Kravanica]

This fucking guy.

That's him. He was Vice President.

Almost makes me wish Dick Cheney was that way.

[Galloism]

That's him. He was Vice President.

Almost makes me wish Dick Cheney was that way.

In that administration, the goofy one was president.

[The United States of North Amerigo]

no she can't you fucks, donald trump won and is being sworn in on january 20th

[Kravanica]

Almost makes me wish Dick Cheney was that way.

In that administration, the goofy one was president.

You might enjoy this.

[Galloism]

no she can't you fucks, donald trump won and is being sworn in on january 20th

Someone doesn't understand the rules.

And by "rules", I mean that in both senses.

[Washington Resistance Army]

no she can't you fucks, donald trump won and is being sworn in on january 20th

Technically he doesn't win until the electoral college votes.

[Bogdanov Vishniac]

Neither did Truman when he first became president.

Roosevelt died 82 days after he and Truman were elected, though. Truman arguably had a mandate to continue the administration through to the next election. A hypothetical caretaker government wouldn't have a four-year mandate.

A group of left-leaning. Not trying to disrecdit them but they aren't exactly non-partisan.

So?

[Galloism]

In that administration, the goofy one was president.

You might enjoy this.

I've seen that. He's good.

[Kravanica]

Neither did Truman when he first became president.

Roosevelt died 82 days after he and Truman were elected, though. Truman arguably had a mandate to continue the administration through to the next election. A hypothetical caretaker government wouldn't have a four-year mandate.

This isn't really about some theoretical mandate, though. It's about the law. A "mandate" doesn't affect the law.

A group of left-leaning. Not trying to disrecdit them but they aren't exactly non-partisan.

So?

Just making the point that partisanship can affect one's judgement and credibility.

[Kravanica]

You might enjoy this.

I've seen that. He's good.

He does some pretty good Trump impersonations now too.

[Bogdanov Vishniac]

This isn't really about some theoretical mandate, though. It's about the law. A "mandate" doesn't affect the law.

But the law, AFAIK, doesn't say anything about what should be done in a situation like this.

Just making the point that partisanship can affect one's judgement and credibility.

Can, but there's no evidence that this is the case.

[San Lumen]

no she can't you fucks, donald trump won and is being sworn in on january 20th

Technically he doesn't win until the electoral college votes.

Yes and the electoral college cold overturn the result. It's what they were created for. Donald Trump is neither fit or qualified to be President and there is evidence he's already breaking the law before even taking office. They have a responsibility to overturn the result and give the election to the popular vote winner.

[IceBuddha]

Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein said on Friday her effort to request recounts of the election results in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania was aimed at assessing the integrity of the U.S. voting system, not at undermining Donald Trump's White House victory.

While Stein's effort this week may have spurred hope among disappointed supporters of Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, the chances of such recounts - if they take place - overturning the overall result from the Nov. 8 election are extremely slim, given Trump's margins of victory in the three states.

Stein, who won just one percent of the national vote herself, told CNN that while there was no evidence of tampering or other voting errors in the election, only a full review in those states would give Americans confidence in the results.

"This was a hack-riddled election," she said, pointing to hacks before the vote of political organizations and individual email accounts, as well as recent media reports citing concerns by computer security experts.

The deadlines to request recounts are Friday for Wisconsin, Monday for Pennsylvania and Wednesday for Michigan. Stein has raised more than $4.9 million since launching the recount campaign on Wednesday. The Green Party said it wants to raise $7 million for recounts, including the cost of legal fees.

Although Trump won narrowly in the three states, the margins make it highly unlikely that any recounts would end up giving Clinton a win in all three states, which would be needed for the overall result to change. The Republican beat Clinton in Pennsylvania by 70,010 votes, in Michigan by 10,704 votes and in Wisconsin by 27,257 votes.

The presidential race is decided by the Electoral College, or a tally of wins from the state-by-state contests, rather than by the popular national vote. The Electoral College results are expected to be finalized when electors meet on Dec. 19.

Trump surpassed the 270 electoral votes needed to win, although once the final tallies of votes are in, Clinton will have won the national popular vote by more than 2 million votes.

Asked if she was trying to upset Trump, Stein told CNN "Absolutely not," adding that she also did not back Clinton.

A representative for the president-elect's transition team on Thursday had no comment when asked about Stein's effort.

But senior Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway suggested on Twitter that the push for recounts was ironic, given criticism of Trump before the election when he would not say whether he would accept the result of what he called a "rigged" political system.

Clinton has not commented publicly on Stein's effort. Representatives for Clinton could not be immediately reached for comment.

[Farnhamia]

Technically he doesn't win until the electoral college votes.

Yes and the electoral college cold overturn the result. It's what they were created for. Donald Trump is neither fit or qualified to be President and there is evidence he's already breaking the law before even taking office. They have a responsibility to overturn the result and give the election to the popular vote winner.

I doubt very much that it will happen.

The EC will meet on December 19th. We'll leave this thread in place, barring a descent into madeness, until then.

[San Lumen]

Yes and the electoral college cold overturn the result. It's what they were created for. Donald Trump is neither fit or qualified to be President and there is evidence he's already breaking the law before even taking office. They have a responsibility to overturn the result and give the election to the popular vote winner.

I doubt very much that it will happen.

The EC will meet on December 19th. We'll leave this thread in place, barring a descent into madeness, until then.

It this craziest of election years never say never.

[Siegmigalien]

You'd be willing to destroy trust in the American political system just to get Clinton into the Oval Office?

And, yet, that doesn't stop faithless electors from being anti-democratic.

It wouldn't be destroying trust. Its what the Electoral college was designed to do. He is unfit to be president and the electors should do their job and block it.

She is unfit too.
You do know she is a warmonger? She would love to see the same thing done in Libya be done in Syria, and support the neoliberal agenda, which is currently ruining Europe. As if the millions of savages they sent as "refugees" isn't enough already.

[Galloism]

It wouldn't be destroying trust. Its what the Electoral college was designed to do. He is unfit to be president and the electors should do their job and block it.

She is unfit too.
You do know she is a warmonger? She would love to see the same thing done in Libya be done in Syria, and support the neoliberal agenda, which is currently ruining Europe. As if the millions of savages they sent as "refugees" isn't enough already.

My other option was someone who was willing to start a war over someone showing their bare ass.

Not a lot of great choices out there.

[Scandinavian Nations]

Trump is very willing to threaten a war, but extremely unwilling to start one.

[Galloism]

Trump is very willing to threaten a war, but extremely unwilling to start one.

We will see, I guess.

[Scandinavian Nations]

I guess. But so far he's always started with extreme rhetoric, and gradually as it came closer to saying anything binding, moved to just right of center.

Ever play hold'em? The guy raising pre-flop the most is the first to fold to a probing bet on the river.

[Ifreann]

Who's going to postpone him taking office? You're delving seriously close to conspiracy theorist territory. Irregularities in some areas doesn't mean the entire election needs to be called into question.

With very close margins in key swing states? Certainly a possibility that can't be excluded. And again that's part of the whole 'uncharted territory' thing. AFAIK there isn't any legal precedent or framework for a situation where an election has to be audited.

12th and 20th Amendments, and Presidential Succession Act. When Congress meets to count the electoral college's votes, they can object to and discard the votes from specific states. If there's enough of a question about the integrity of the election Congress could, in theory, vote to object to almost all electoral college votes, and only count enough votes to tie the election between Trump and Clinton. This would trigger contingency elections in the House and Senate. They could, in theory, refuse to elect a president and vice president, respectively, until the results are audited to their satisfaction, and then vote to elect whoever should have won. If this lasts until inauguration day, the Speaker of the House would become acting-president until the House elects a president or the Senate a vice president. If the latter, the vice president would take over as acting-president.

Of course, this would require unprecedented levels of bipartisan cooperation. Can anyone really imagine Republicans in Congress voting to deny Trump the presidency, even temporarily? You'd need a hell of a lot more than "We have concerns about some voting machines in some counties".

[Morgantown West Virginia]

http://www.wisn.com/article/presidentia ... in/8365627

Jill Stein is expected to file for a recount in WI sometime today. This is after raising (so far) $5.1m to recounts there PA, and MI. Donald Trump won WI by 27,257 votes, by 11,612 votes in MI, and by 68,236 votes in PA. Jill Stein finished in 4th in all of those states.

[Balkenreich]

so why is she calling for a recount?