Assorted recounts are in the works. What if they go Clinton’s way and hand her the Presidency? Outside the US I expect there will be huge - no, huuuuge 
- sighs of relief but what about inside the US?
Just as many - if not more - riots and protests.
I don’t recall riots after Obama’s election or after Bill Clinton’s election.
From here:
May not have been riots, but there were protests, upswings in hate violence. The Southern Poverty Law Center has a pretty decent breakdown of some of the incidents after Obama’s election.
If it happens, the alt-right will disappear, rapture style.
Nasty, but small beer compared to the recent rioting.
Except in the opposite direction.
I don’t recall hearing of any incidents where effigies of Trump were hung from trees, similar to a lynching. The protests may have been smaller and/or less frequent, but in many cases they were worse in magnitude.
Overturning an election will be widely viewed as outright deception.
Steal this election from the winner now?
They’ll be open warfare in the streets. Maybe even civil war in some parts of the US.
Remember this was basically a 50/50 vote. Hillary only has a 2 million vote margin.
What they are doing now is extremely dangerous and stupid.
It’s not even a close election. 290 for Trump and 232 Clinton.
There’s no excuse for challenging a lopsided victory.
This is pure spite and sour grapes.
If there were improprieties in the election, and I emphasize IF, there is every reason to challenge the count. And Trump now has 306 votes, by the way.
Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, have a total of 46 electoral votes. Changing the result of one state won’t switch the election to Clinton all by itself. But if all three of them change over to Clinton, she’ll have 278 and Trump 260, enough to give Clinton the presidency. I concede this is unlikely, but isn’t it worth it to verify the result and put any doubts to rest? It will most likely confirm Trump’s victory rather than overturn it, so what’s the harm?
This election involved hacking to a degree that no past election has, and if the election itself was hacked we need to know it even if it has very little chance of affecting the results. Not doing this is dangerous and stupid.
Normally there wouldn’t be any harm.
But right now the political situation in this country is so toxic. I don’t want to see open warfare on our streets. I think most people are aware just how tense things are.
Challenging a clear cut win just isn’t done in the US. Look back all the way to Roosevelt. We accept the initial results of our elections. The loser graciously concedes. There’s a orderly transfer of power. Something every American can be proud of.
The only exception was Bush/Gore where the result hinged on one state, Florida. Even then Gore took the high road and accepted the courts decision.
So in a Nascar race we should count style points as opposed to time?
The Electoral College is an anachronism, specifically put in place to protect slavery. It is in no way a good judge of the will of the people.
Now it’s hinged on three. Even more reason to make sure. And yes, Hillary Clinton has graciously conceded. But Jill Stein is pushing for the recount and she doesn’t have anything to gain personally from it.
I think the stated reason is perfectly, well, reasonable - to wit: to confirm the validity of the result for those (possibly many) who think shenanigans were done; or to reveal the (hopefully small) extent of such shenanigans, if any.
But don’t be afraid, it is very unlikely that Pennsylvania would be overturned, and even if the other states go, the end result will be the same.
“Only” 2 million vote margin? Is there a larger number which, for you, would make this legitimate? (note: rhetorical question does not require answer). I would say, in closing, that no election where the electoral college loser has a winning popular vote margin of over 1.5% could be called a lopsided victory.
If you have a lopsided victory, you don’t lose by “only” 2 million votes, you win the popular vote. You bet your sweet ass that if Hillary was the apparent winner in these states that the Republicans would be just fine with a recount, especially if it successfully reversed the outcome.
It’s the EC that is the problem here. Not the voting machines. The machines are not connected to the internet. How then, do so many get supposedly ‘hacked’? It would be a conspiracy like trying to fake the moon landing.
You realize this totally screws up the transition of power?
Will Trump continue building his cabinet? Will people he approaches be willing to participate in interviews that may be for nothing?
Meanwhile is Hillary supposed to start building a transition gov? On the slim hope she can steal the election now?
One way or another Obama is out the door Jan 20, 2017. We’re going to be left with a new Presidency that isn’t ready.
Thanks so much for screwing the USA Jill Stein.
A recount which verifies the results one way or the other doesn’t “steal” the election from anybody.
So we should worry less about an accurate vote count than we should about having a smooth transition? Your concern seems a trifle over-heated.
I believe that President Obama would have no problem at all switching his attention to a Clinton transition team; also that the Clinton team already had much more firm plans than Trump’s did, and so would hit the ground running. There is about one month between the EC vote and inauguration, and for Clinton that would be plenty.
That being said, I will repeat that this is not about overturning the election results, rather it is about establishing or re-affirming the public confidence in the accuracy of the results.