Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

soothsayer

(38,601 posts)
Wed Nov 18, 2020, 11:56 AM Nov 2020

WI recount request will NOT be statewide - it will be a PARTIAL recount in several key counties. No


?s=21

John Roberts
@johnrobertsFox
UPDATE TO BREAKING: The @realDonaldTrump WI recount request will NOT be statewide - it will be a PARTIAL recount in several key counties. No word on WHICH counties yet.
24 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
WI recount request will NOT be statewide - it will be a PARTIAL recount in several key counties. No (Original Post) soothsayer Nov 2020 OP
Yeah. Milwaukee Dane and one other Democratic county. LakeArenal Nov 2020 #1
The cost of those 2 is $2.8M and are machine counts , not hand counts. So pointless really. sunonmars Nov 2020 #3
They're trying to find even the littlest of discrepancies to deny certification. Drunken Irishman Nov 2020 #6
I can give them a clue what counties will be targeted mercuryblues Nov 2020 #2
No kidding! jcgoldie Nov 2020 #4
Sure as hell won't recount places where Trump won... Wounded Bear Nov 2020 #5
That is most likely where trump could actually pick up a few votes mercuryblues Nov 2020 #9
Isn't that pretty much what the SCOTUS ruled against in Bush v Gore? 11 Bravo Nov 2020 #7
Their issue was with the inconsistencies of the partial recounts. Drunken Irishman Nov 2020 #13
That's more or less the way I remembered it. But would ... 11 Bravo Nov 2020 #15
Speaking of chads - true story central scrutinizer Nov 2020 #21
All or nothing. A partial recount request should be rejected. PubliusEnigma Nov 2020 #8
They should not be allowed to request selective recounts. liberalmuse Nov 2020 #10
That was the USSC ruling in Bush v Gore in 2000. roamer65 Nov 2020 #18
IMO not a smart move. LiberalFighter Nov 2020 #11
The audit they did statewide increased Bidens lead already. sunonmars Nov 2020 #12
Their goal is to try to find discrepancies in the initial count. Drunken Irishman Nov 2020 #14
It's a scam to fleece the rubes central scrutinizer Nov 2020 #22
recount pamdb Nov 2020 #16
You can say that again! Wednesdays Nov 2020 #24
recount pamdb Nov 2020 #17
Al Gore wasn't allowed a partial in 2000. Baitball Blogger Nov 2020 #19
Yes. roamer65 Nov 2020 #20
Partial recount should not be allowed. LisaL Nov 2020 #23
 

Drunken Irishman

(34,857 posts)
6. They're trying to find even the littlest of discrepancies to deny certification.
Wed Nov 18, 2020, 12:03 PM
Nov 2020

But I doubt it'll work.

mercuryblues

(14,491 posts)
2. I can give them a clue what counties will be targeted
Wed Nov 18, 2020, 11:59 AM
Nov 2020

the ones with a high percentage of the black population and the ones that broke heavily for Biden.

jcgoldie

(11,584 posts)
4. No kidding!
Wed Nov 18, 2020, 12:01 PM
Nov 2020

I sense a pattern here... dispute results in Detroit, Philly, Atlanta... most likely Milwaukee... hmm what is it about the voting population in those places that Republicans object to? 🤔

mercuryblues

(14,491 posts)
9. That is most likely where trump could actually pick up a few votes
Wed Nov 18, 2020, 12:07 PM
Nov 2020

If a machine didn't pick up a vote it would be more likely to be a trump vote.

 

Drunken Irishman

(34,857 posts)
13. Their issue was with the inconsistencies of the partial recounts.
Wed Nov 18, 2020, 12:22 PM
Nov 2020

Some counties were counting, and subsequently accepting, ballots differently. One good example was the hanging chad. Some counties were accepting those votes, others weren't. So they ruled that violated the Equal Protection clause of the constitution - not the act of the partial recount itself.

11 Bravo

(23,922 posts)
15. That's more or less the way I remembered it. But would ...
Wed Nov 18, 2020, 12:48 PM
Nov 2020

not a recount of votes cast in a state-wide election being conducted in some counties within that state, but not others, also violate that same Equal Protection clause?

central scrutinizer

(11,617 posts)
21. Speaking of chads - true story
Wed Nov 18, 2020, 01:37 PM
Nov 2020

Back in 2000, Oregon ballots required punching out the chad of your selection. My next door neighbor was hired as a “chad plucker” and he would look at the underside of the punch card and pick off any hanging chads.

LiberalFighter

(50,499 posts)
11. IMO not a smart move.
Wed Nov 18, 2020, 12:21 PM
Nov 2020

More likely to increase Biden's lead.

Now if he had targeted the red counties he might have a chance to increase his votes.

 

Drunken Irishman

(34,857 posts)
14. Their goal is to try to find discrepancies in the initial count.
Wed Nov 18, 2020, 12:25 PM
Nov 2020

Then they can say the results should not be certified.

It won't work but they're not actually trying to make up the gap - just find enough discrepancies in the recount to push a narrative that the selected counties having irregularities in their results.

central scrutinizer

(11,617 posts)
22. It's a scam to fleece the rubes
Wed Nov 18, 2020, 01:40 PM
Nov 2020

They ran the numbers and projected that they can raise more than the cost of the recount and pocket the profit. Just another grift.

Baitball Blogger

(46,574 posts)
19. Al Gore wasn't allowed a partial in 2000.
Wed Nov 18, 2020, 01:18 PM
Nov 2020

Did the Supreme Court claim that the entire state had to be recounted, to be fair? That Al Gore couldn't just cherry pick the counties?

LisaL

(44,962 posts)
23. Partial recount should not be allowed.
Wed Nov 18, 2020, 01:42 PM
Nov 2020

I supposed Trump doesn't want to fork up $8 millions, but that's not a reason to allow partial recount. I hope our lawyers are on that STAT.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»WI recount request will N...