It looks like the gravy train has slowed down to a trickle. The amount collected has been hanging around $6.2 million with a target of $7 million. She kept raising the target as money flowed in to recount goal.

I think this has been one gigantic "scam" to raise money for the Green Party and possibly Stein's own political aspirations. She has suckered thousands of Democrats who mindlessly believed that the voting machines in the three states had been hacked. She made it abundantly clear that surplus funds would be used for "election integrity"

Amazing how some people are gullible enough to fall for any harebrained project .....

This us about Jill's bank account. Her entire national campaign raised less than $2.5 M. She's already said she doesn't have to spend it on the recount. She is going to enrich herself at the expense of other political priorities. Every dollar you donate to Jill's cause, is one you can't spend on BLM.

Thanks Jill.

How many people are even aware of Jill Stein's existence?

I read it would take too long now to recount and certify in time. . . so possibly no electoral college votes may be counted from those states

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Motivation? Perhaps to make Hillary look like even more of a sore loser? Like her post-election drunken throwing fits weren't enough?

Really wish someone would offer a bounty for a video of that. You know there's at least one staffer out there without a job, who might have something on her/his iPhone...

Odds are it probably happened - but just like the dudes on the grassy knoll there just is not any proof. Circumstantially there may be an argument for both, but do not get your hopes up for either theory being resolved any time soon. Conspiracy theories just never seem to pan out for anyone.

Anonymous wrote:Motivation? Perhaps to make Hillary look like even more of a sore loser? Like her post-election drunken throwing fits weren't enough?

Really wish someone would offer a bounty for a video of that. You know there's at least one staffer out there without a job, who might have something on her/his iPhone...

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



Personal enrichment and a power play. #1 She has already indicated she won't be spending all of that money on recounts. #2 She's trying to redeem herself in the eyes of the left and position herself as a person of influence instead of a spoiler.

It won't work. She won't succeed. The $7 million that she has raised could be better spent on other causes instead of wasted on her personal glorification.

she is just a proxy for clinton and the establishment to have a second look. there is not logic for her to do this, other than to skim maybe 30-40% for her staff as salary for the next few months as they look for new jobs. who cares?

it wont change anything, the election committee has the most to lose if they find anything. anything that may have happened will be denied almost as much as aliens visiting earth. undermines all concepts of authority and why anyone should play by society's rules.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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!

Yes she did. There are states where Clinton lost by fewer votes than the number of votes that Stein got.

As for her motivation, she claims it isn't on Hillary Clinton's behalf. She cites reports of potential hacking and fraud. She wants to know if our elections can be trusted. We ALL need to know our elections can be trusted.

It's funny. Before the election, when everyone thought Hillary was sure to win, I didn't hear any of her supporters worrying about the integrity of our elections.

Yes, it's so funny!

The more I hear about this recount effort, the more I believe that Stein’s motivation is more about publicity for herself and fundraising.

A candidate generally requests a recount when his/her vote totals are close in number to another candidate. Hers are not. She won 1.1% of the vote in Wisconsin. In fact, she received only a couple thousand more votes than the difference between Trump’s win over Hillary. It makes no sense for her to take this action.

There is no evidence of any tampering or election fraud. None. Merely speculation.

I will be interested in seeing where the extra funds she has raised end up.

And, I hope that if there is a difference in the voting totals after the recount in Wisconsin, it benefits Trump. It will serve her right.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This about (i) not being to accept the results of the election and (ii) wanting to ensure that the democratic process has not been hacked. Sad, but a transparent, fair and speedy recount is in the national interest, assuming that the wingnuts of the alt-left accept the final results.

Given the left's behavior throughout this election (and others), what guarantees to you have that the bolded is even a consideration for them?

Because the Left is always correct. Remember when about a month ago so many Clinton supporters were worrying that the loser in the election contesting the results and undermining confidence in the US election system? See, they were right?!

Anonymous wrote:This about (i) not being to accept the results of the election and (ii) wanting to ensure that the democratic process has not been hacked. Sad, but a transparent, fair and speedy recount is in the national interest, assuming that the wingnuts of the alt-left accept the final results.

Given the left's behavior throughout this election (and others), what guarantees to you have that the bolded is even a consideration for them?

Motivation? Perhaps to make Hillary look like even more of a sore loser? Like her post-election drunken throwing fits weren't enough?

This about (i) not being to accept the results of the election and (ii) wanting to ensure that the democratic process has not been hacked. Sad, but a transparent, fair and speedy recount is in the national interest, assuming that the wingnuts of the alt-left accept the final results.

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.

Ah, people who watch MSNBC and read Talking Points Memo, then get worried about "fake news". Love it! Bubble in Brooklyn for you?