Election recounts for the 2016 Presidential election will soon be underway thanks to the prodding of Green Party candidate Jill Stein and failed Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton.
Results in Wisconsin will be under review despite zero evidence of tampering. Even President Obama has thrown shade at the idea that election recounts are needed, per Business Insider.
The election recounts are being framed in part as an assurance against voter impropriety — an exercise in peace of mind for the low cost of a few million dollars that aren’t even guaranteed to go to the effort, but rather into the pocket of Stein herself, per LawNewz.
What they actually are — a sure-to-be-fruitless waste of money in order to raise the profile of Stein to a more mainstream level.
They are also a final humiliation of sorts for Clinton, who in the week leading up to the election was certain of a win and questioning whether President-elect Donald Trump would be able to accept the outcome of his inevitable loss.
Three weeks removed, the shoe couldn’t be more on the other foot than it is now, and Clinton’s camp has pretty much reacted in the way they expected Trump’s to respond.
It’s been an embarrassing example of what happens when the entitled don’t get their way, and it is one more triumph in Trump’s continual dismantling of the Democratic party that began on election night and continued into the streets and college campuses of major population centers throughout the country protesting the results of a legitimate election.
— EAGLE WINGS (@ConstanceQueen8) November 28, 2016
Trump had already embarrassed media elites, Hillary Clinton, and the Democratic party as a whole when he crumbled their blue wall on election night, picking off Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Ohio. His 306 electoral votes were more than enough to defeat Clinton in spite of not getting as many raw votes (mainly due to California, where Trump is deeply unpopular).
Before putting too much stock in that, keep in mind campaign resources are used in different ways in a most popular vote (MPV) election versus an electoral college.
Trump spent his resources more strategically than Clinton, earning almost as many raw votes while spending $212 million less. Had he spent the same amount of money — and cost per vote remained the same — he would have beaten her by around 50 million votes in a MPV election.
Trump said and did some of the most outrageous things during primary season and the general campaign — things that would have ended a lesser candidate, such as feuding with his own party and claiming to have grabbed women “by the p***y” against their will in “bawdy locker room talk” with former Access Hollywood host Billy Bush.
Bush lost his job for the 11-year-old video in spite of displaying a moderate level of sleaze compared to Trump. Trump, on the other hand, became President.
His win on Nov. 8 made a mockery of the polls while shattering the media’s coronation of Clinton and the carefully crafted narrative of the first female President of the United States.
Despite all the scrutiny, all the ridicule, Trump won the election fair-and-square and proved the American people trusted him more than they did the media, Clinton, or his own party, whom he took on during the primary and feuded with publicly, spawning the #NeverTrump movement.
Republicans threw more than a dozen experienced candidates from the establishment of their party at him. They even tossed in Ted Cruz. He beat them all. Even so, the media speculated the Republican party was all-but-dead thanks to the Orange one.
Trump brought the party to its knees and wrecked it completely, or so the story went.
But again, Nov. 8 didn’t just deliver a Donald Trump Presidency. It left Republicans full control of the Senate and the House of Representatives.
Suddenly, the party that was dead in the water was now in charge of the executive and legislative branches of government and poised to make key appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court, thus taking over the judicial as well.
Democrats woke up on Nov. 9 in shambles, and just when you thought they couldn’t go any lower, they pitched in to Stein’s election recounts.
Now that’s all they have left. The humiliation is complete.
Even if the election recounts did overturn some bit of impropriety, it wouldn’t be nearly enough to change the results due to Trump’s rather large margin of victory (306-232).
Clinton’s decision to pitch into the election recounts comes across as nothing more than desperation and sour grapes. To borrow a phrase used in the buildup to election day that described the President-elect’s possible contesting of results, they’ve gone “full Trump.”
— Laura Ingraham (@IngrahamAngle) November 27, 2016
There is the temptation here to see the Democrats’ side of things. After all, when you’ve apparently lost everything, what else have you got to lose?
But the reality is, Democrats are heaping even more shame on their party, setting back any type of recovery at least two election cycles, and all but guaranteeing Donald Trump a two-term Presidency.
But what do you think, readers?
Will the election recounts change anything, and even if they do, what will be the ultimate cost to Democrats? Sound off in the comments section below.