Source: New York Times
Blogging the Election
Up-date: Clinton Lead in Popular Vote Remains at 1.2% ("New York Times")
From Wednesday morning --
Rush Post
An election system designed over 200 years ago, aided and abetted by the media and other factors has once again declared the loser of the popular vote to be the President-elect. The New York Times is reporting that Hillary Clinton leads the popular vote by 0.6%.
It is extremely unfortunate that a Democratic candidate who wins the popular vote is forced to concede before all the facts are known.
Just what do I mean by "all the facts?" First notice that I am saying all the facts are not known at this time. What we do know is that respected reporter, Greg Palast, an American investigative specialist and writer for the Guardian has reported that he has in his possession a list of 100,000 names drawn up by the Republican Secretary of State of a major battleground state -- names of people who have been targeted for elimination from the voting rolls. Let that sink in for a moment -- 100,000 persons who otherwise would have been able to vote.
This issue of voter suppression will be a matter I will be looking into today and beyond.
Until the picture is clearer, it is far from certain that Trump is entitled to an Electoral College victory. But certainly he has not yet gained a popular vote victory, to say the least.
Live "New York Times" Vote Feed
Greg Palast Reports:
Ohio Stolen?
Live "New York Times" Vote Feed
Greg Palast Reports:
Ohio Stolen?
I realize this will seem "nerdy" to many. However, I feel I must remind everyone that Trump's assumed "win" is based on uncertified and thus -- in actuality -- unofficial results. Announced totals can be contested before, and in some cases after, certification. I remain truly incredulous over this supposed Trump "win." And there is good reason to be highly skeptical. The article at the link helps explain why. Please do follow the link. I hope to have more in the near future.
ReplyDelete