Apparently Stein’s main concern in Wisconsin is absentee ballots. Theoretically that could be a problem in PA, although their absentee procedures aren’t as full of holes as Wisconsin’s.
I don’t think a recount in Pennsylvania would be any different from a recount in Wisconsin. As far as I know, a recount means reading the numbers off the machine again, not unwinding the paper trail and counting it up by hand.
why are they doing this? The margin’s a lot bigger than ~600 votes like in Florida 2000. Is this merely a stunt to help delegitimize Trump and create a narrative, or to bait him into something?
I think the Greens have accepted that they’ve lost. This is a fundraising thing for them, as was the election in general.
Hillary’s campaign is announcing their participation in response to public pressure to appear that they are doing something. They know that a portion of the left has, rightly or wrongly, lost faith in the Democratic Party and they’re trying to staunch the bleeding.
Number one, it ain’t all that much. Number two, what do you care? And as far as damaging Il Douche’s dignity and legitimacy, what can the Greens do that he hasn’t already done?
This is essentially an expression of protest (certainly Stein doesn’t expect to get a reversal which favors herself or the Green party), but she is entirely within her rights to do so, and for Clinton ‘participation’ is essentially being an interested observer. It is very unlikely to result in a clear reversal but could potentially expose any irregularities in the vote that could impact future elections. In any case, it is a civil expression of inconfidence in a Trump administration, and if it goads him into tweeting more bullshit and calling for illegal measures to restrict reevaluating election results, all the better. The more people can do to prod Trump into expressing his genuine vengeful and reflexive persona, the better.
Of course he does. Stein is a tree-shaker; she is explicitly trying to challenge the system in quixotic fashion. Obama, as a Constitutional scholar (and as a black man) knows how shaky the foundations of Constitutional laws can be, that it can often be interpreted this way rather than that, but almost just as readily back, and it is really public confidence in the consistency of that interpretation and the legitimacy of the democratic institutions that actually keep the population civil. Generally speaking, the popular vote matters much less than the money and influence behind elections, so the popular vote is a means to assure the public that they have some measure of say in the process, even though if you actually try to contact your senators or representatives in Congress you are most likely going to get a polite brushoff while said Congressperson consults with “policy advocates” (lobbyists) or does meet-and-greets at fundraisers for their next election campaign, which pretty much starts the week after they get elected. The campaign money and influence behind the process drives most of the decisions that are made. It is a corrupt as hell system that is out in plain view, and the only thing that makes it seem balanced is that votes do technically count, even as they are swayed by misdirection and falsehood publicized by that same campaign money. Trump was able to capitalize on that by disrupting the balance and presenting himself as being outside that sphere of influence, even though he is also corrupt as hell, and not only in plain sight but practically boasting of it.
Even if there is indication of fraud in the votes, unless clear evidence of outright tampering is found that would stand up in court it is just going to lead to an erosion of confidence, so from that standpoint it is better to let dogs lie, investigate the potential for systemic bias or tampering, and run a far more popular and positive candidate for president in the 2020 elections. Challenging the vote as kind of disruption tactic (which this is; even if recounts in Michigan and Wisconsin resulted in a flip, that won’t happen in Pennsylvania) sets a precedent for future elections to do the same thing by default if any vote is close. In a sense I kind of applaud Stein for the effort, because I’d like the see the electoral system torn down and built back up in a more sensible, transparent, and reliable manner that reflects the current demographics and uses validated technology rather than a patchwork of systems with sometimes questionable veracity, but that is also kind of a dangerous path to do down because it also exposes an existing system, however flawed, to being replaced by something even worse. I’m sure President Obama feels that way, and it is a legitimate point of concern.
Hillary refusing to concede an election, or even hinting that she might, is totally un-American. We can all be glad that our new President wouldn’t stoop to such!
Well, he hasn’t said that he’s no longer keeping us “in suspense”. He could still step up and challenge the results as being “rigged”. I mean, it is not what a normal or reasonable person would do, but I think it is well established that Trump is not either of those things. And as much as I think it would be destructive to uncover circumstantial but not definitive evidence of bias, the image of Donald Trump hulking out, bursting from his ill-fitting suit to emerge as a giant orange rage monster jumping from Trump Tower and running down Fifth Avenue ineffectually pounding his still inexplicably tiny fists is just too delicious not to mentally entertain.