What is Jill Stein's motivation in leading the effort for a recount?

[Anonymous]

I have wondered what Jill Stein's motivation is in pushing for a recount in the three states that Hillary lost unexpectedly and raising millions of dollars to fund it.

Keep in mind that she was sharply critical of Hillary during the campaign and more significantly, the votes that were cast for Stein together and Johnson in these states played a role in ensuring Trump's victory in these states quite apart from the votes in states like FL and OH for third party candidates.

For example, in MI Trump won by approximately 12K votes but Stein got 51K votes!

So we now have Stein - who may have helped cost Hillary the election - urging a recount and getting Democrats to contribute in the millions on a recount effort that has little chance of succeeding.

But what it does do for Stein and the Green Party is to provide them with a list of potential donors in future elections since each of these Democrats donating to the recount effort can count on receiving future requests for money - and she also gets perhaps some goodwill for making the effort to disqualify Trump.

In the meantime, she keeps raising her target for fund raising for the recount - it started at $2 million + to $4 million + and today she has raised her target to $7 million.

Also, from her website, note the potential use of the funds:

"These recounts are part of an election integrity movement to attempt to shine a light on just how untrustworthy the U.S. election system is.

All money raised goes toward recounts in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. We hope to do recounts in all three states. If we only raise sufficient money for two, we will demand recounts in two states. If we only raise enough money for one, we will demand a recount in one state.

We cannot guarantee a recount will happen in any of these states we are targeting. We can only pledge we will demand recounts in those states.

If we raise more than what's needed, the surplus will also go toward election integrity efforts and to promote voting system reform."

https://jillstein.nationbuilder.com/recount

I think she is playing Democrats for suckers!

[jsteele]

OP, it's good to see that you read Talking Points Memo, though you might have credited it as a source. It is interesting to me that Democrats, so used to immediate surrender, can't help but be suspicious of the motives of someone who is willing to put up a fight. Just think how suspicious you will be if a recount finds that Clinton won.

I don't think a recount is likely to result in changing the results, but I don't think it can do any harm. To the contrary, if it creates greater certainty in the vote count, it would be a good thing. I can't fault Stein for making the effort if Democrats are unwilling.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:OP, it's good to see that you read Talking Points Memo, though you might have credited it as a source. It is interesting to me that Democrats, so used to immediate surrender, can't help but be suspicious of the motives of someone who is willing to put up a fight. Just think how suspicious you will be if a recount finds that Clinton won.

I don't think a recount is likely to result in changing the results, but I don't think it can do any harm. To the contrary, if it creates greater certainty in the vote count, it would be a good thing. I can't fault Stein for making the effort if Democrats are unwilling.

Actually, I heard this on MSNBC first but could not recall who said it. Not an attempt to take credit for someone else's idea. I occasionally read Talking Points but I generally steer clear of sites that lean too heavily in either direction of the political spectrum.

Actually, I think our focus ought to be on 2018 and 2020 - given the number of Democratic senators up for election in 2018. We need to pick our battles - IMO, the recount is a losing battle and a distraction.

[Anonymous]

I don't see anything amiss in these calls for a recount. If the situation was reversed Republicans would have ground the country to a halt till every last vote was re-tallied.

[Anonymous]

What seems more dubious to me is that Obama won California in 2012 by about 2.3 million votes and Hillary won the state by 3.4 million. Hillary's raw vote was about a million more than Obama.

Given that people were much more motivated to vote for Obama than Hillary, it does make one wonder whether the accusation that there were illegals and non-citizens who voted may have some merit.

[Anonymous]

Penance. It's possible that she put Trump in the White House.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What seems more dubious to me is that Obama won California in 2012 by about 2.3 million votes and Hillary won the state by 3.4 million. Hillary's raw vote was about a million more than Obama.

Given that people were much more motivated to vote for Obama than Hillary, it does make one wonder whether the accusation that there were illegals and non-citizens who voted may have some merit.

People seemed more motivated this time around to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't see anything amiss in these calls for a recount. If the situation was reversed Republicans would have ground the country to a halt till every last vote was re-tallied.

Actually, the last ones to do that were, again, Democrats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't see anything amiss in these calls for a recount. If the situation was reversed Republicans would have ground the country to a halt till every last vote was re-tallied.

Actually, the last ones to do that were, again, Democrats.

That was a very different situation, but nice try.

[Anonymous]

This is her motivation:

"During a news conference in Milwaukee, Martin said Stein's campaign would also ask for a "reconciliation" of voting records that would go beyond an audit. He didn't provide details."

This is a clear attempt by liberals to cheat the vote. Two weeks to create new records, then audit to say "aha, look what we found".

[Anonymous]

One word OP: publicity

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One word OP: publicity

I sort of agree with this plus the point I made in my OP that it gives the Greens a list of Democratic donors who they can tap for contributions in the future.

Reversing the results of the election through a recount is secondary because she clearly states that depending on funding received, they may seek a recount in one, two or three states. Clearly, reversing the results of one or two states will not be enough in relation to total electoral votes.

This is quite apart from the fact that Hillary lost Michigan because of her participation in that state.

[Anonymous]

Jill Stein came no where near close to costing HRC the election. The honor of losing belongs to HRC alone.


Stein may be using the delusional desperation of HRC supporters to raise money, though!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Penance. It's possible that she put Trump in the White House.

no she didn't. stop being a cliton shill.

she didn't get enough votes to flip pa if they all went to her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:OP, it's good to see that you read Talking Points Memo, though you might have credited it as a source. It is interesting to me that Democrats, so used to immediate surrender, can't help but be suspicious of the motives of someone who is willing to put up a fight. Just think how suspicious you will be if a recount finds that Clinton won.

I don't think a recount is likely to result in changing the results, but I don't think it can do any harm. To the contrary, if it creates greater certainty in the vote count, it would be a good thing. I can't fault Stein for making the effort if Democrats are unwilling.

Actually, I heard this on MSNBC first but could not recall who said it. Not an attempt to take credit for someone else's idea. I occasionally read Talking Points but I generally steer clear of sites that lean too heavily in either direction of the political spectrum.

Actually, I think our focus ought to be on 2018 and 2020 - given the number of Democratic senators up for election in 2018. We need to pick our battles - IMO, the recount is a losing battle and a distraction.

Why is it so hard to believe that the recount isn't about getting anyone's person in the WH? It's about investigating whether there was interference. That's not a bad thing. And there's no rule that says the DNC can't focus on 2018 and 2020 AND still investigate to see if there were voting issues.