U.S. District Judge Mark Goldsmith Haults Michigan Recount Charade by Green Party candidate Jill Stein

MICHIGAN PRESIDENTIAL VOTE RECOUNT STOPPED …

U.S. District Judge Mark Goldsmith has sided with a state appeals court Wednesday in stopping the Michigan presidential vote recount. Previously, a Michigan appeals court ruled 3-0 that Green Party candidate Jill Stein should not have been allowed to demand a recount because she is not an “aggrieved candidate.” Gee, really? How would anyone be allowed to claim they were aggrieved in the voting process when they only won 1.1% of the vote? Thus, the recount sham on the part of Green Party candidate Jill Stein is over and it is as it was, TRUMP WINS MICHIGAN!!! In fact, thanks to Jill Stein’s joke recount efforts, Trump picked up even more votes than originally determined.

A federal judge has stopped the hand recount of nearly 5 million ballots in Michigan, a decision that seems to secure Donald Trump’s narrow victory in the traditionally blue state.

U.S. District Judge Mark Goldsmith, who effectively ordered the recount to begin Monday, sided with a state appeals court Wednesday in halting the effort, ABC News reported.

On Tuesday, a Michigan appeals court ruled 3-0 that Green Party candidate Jill Stein should not have been allowed to demand a recount because she is not an “aggrieved candidate.” Goldsmith, after hearing arguments from the state Republican Party and GOP attorney general, agreed.

“Because there is no basis for this court to ignore the Michigan court’s ruling and make an independent judgment regarding what the Michigan Legislature intended by the term ‘aggrieved,’ plaintiffs have not shown an entitlement to a recount,” Goldsmith said.

Gallup Poll: Americans’ Support for Electoral College Increases Greatly Despite Democrat Whining … Up to 47% from 35% in 2011

AMERICANS SUPPORT FOR THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE INCREASES …

According to a recent Gallup poll, Americans support for the electoral college has increases  from 35% in 2011 to 47%. In the wake of the 2016 Presidential election that saw Donald Trump win in an electoral college landslide 302-232, where Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, many on the Left are moaning as they cannot accept the election results. As Red State opines, some of that shift can be attributed to increased Republican support in the wake of the election results; it’s not like it spiked in the last year.

Despite Democrat whining as Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, there is a reason why the electoral college exists. The Founding fathers established the Electoral College in the Constitution as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens. There are currently a total of 538 electors, corresponding to the 435 Representatives, the 100 Senators, plus three electors for the District of Columbia as provided for in the Twenty-third Amendment. But of course the LEFT has an issue with a system set up by the Founding Fathers and has served this country well as Libs think that populated states like New York and California are more important than the US citizens in states like Idaho and the Dakotas.

Americans’ support for keeping the Electoral College system for electing presidents has increased sharply. Weeks after the 2016 election, 47% of Americans say they want to keep the Electoral College, while 49% say they want to amend the Constitution to allow for a popular vote for president. In the past, a clear majority favored amending the U.S. Constitution to replace the Electoral College with a popular vote system.

This year, for the first time in the 49 years Gallup has asked about it, less than half of Americans want to replace the Electoral College with a popular vote system.

The reason for this shift in opinion is clear: In the aftermath of this year’s election, the percentage of Republicans wanting to replace the Electoral College with the popular vote has fallen significantly.

Currently, 19% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents favor basing the winner on the popular vote, down from 49% in October 2004 and 54% in 2011. Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents already widely favored having the popular vote determine the winner and are slightly more likely to do so now than in the past.

Of course the ignorant whiny LEFT want mob rule. Because we all know they know more than The Founding Fathers, sarcasm intended.

The American People Want Change and Democrats Just Voted Nancy Pelosi Minority Leader Again

TRUMP SAYS DRAIN THE SWAMP AND DEMOCRATS STAND FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT STATUS QUO …

If you ever want to know why Democrats lost the 2016 elections one has to look no further than how they have handled themselves following the election. Yesterday, in a closed door vote, House Democratic minority leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) held off a challenge to her long leadership reign, defeating Rep. Tim Ryan (D-OH) 134 votes to 63. After Democrats got hammered in the 2016 elections seeing them lose the White House to Donald Trump, continue to be in the minority in the House and Senate, lose governorship’s and state house elections, the party that refuses to listen to the people opted to keep Pelosi and her top lieutenants, Reps. Steny Hoyer (MD) and Jim Clyburn (SC). This is just remarkable. The Democrat party is no longer the party of the middle class and blue collar people, its the party of the power elite who are so far out of touch with the American people. Democrats in Washington appear to like the swamp and just voted back in the establishment just after a referendum election against the establishment. Just how clueless is the Democrat party, the GOP is certainly rejoicing.

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Wednesday fended off a challenge to her long leadership reign, defeating Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio) in a closed-door vote prompted largely by Donald Trump’s unlikely ascension to the White House.

Pelosi got 134 votes to Ryan’s 63 — winning 68 percent of the votes after declaring before the election that she had the support of two-thirds of the caucus. The victory sends a message that while there’s a growing appetite for major changes in the party’s leadership structure and messaging tactics, it’s not strong enough to loosen Pelosi’s grip on a liberal-heavy group that’s rarely challenged her authority.

Ryan and his supporters had argued that the Democrats’ grim performance in this year’s elections — the latest in a string of cycles planting Republicans firmly in the majority — was a clear signal that Pelosi’s leadership strategy has failed to attract the broad coalition of voters required to return the Speaker’s gavel to the Democrats’ hands.

The critics pointed, in particular, to the party’s alienation of the middle-class Rust Belt workers, who flocked to Trump and secured victories for a long list of vulnerable Republicans down the ballot. Ryan, who represents an Ohio manufacturing district that’s struggled to keep pace with globalization and rebound from the Great Recession, said he was the right fit to make inroads with those voters.

Most Democrats disagreed, opting to keep Pelosi and her top lieutenants — Reps. Steny Hoyer (Md.) and Jim Clyburn (S.C.) — in charge of efforts to improve the party’s fortunes heading into the 2018 midterm elections.

Desperate Libs Urge Hillary Clinton Campaign to Challenge Election Results in 3 Swing States

WASN’T IT THE LEFT THAT WAS BELLYACHING THAT TRUMP WAS NOT GOING TO ACCEPT THE OUTCOME OF THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION?

Remember when prior to the election the LEFT and Hillary Clinton lost their minds when Donald Trump stated that he would withhold judgement as to whether he would accept the results of the election in case their was fraud? Now, the Libs in just another example of hypocrisy are questioning the election and want to challenge the vote count in three swing states without any proof what-so-ever of voter fraud. They just are speculating because how else could Trump have won. UNREAL. The Clinton campaign is actually considering this.

Of course I said I would agree to the will of the people’s vote, that was before I lost

Hillary Clinton is being urged by a group of prominent computer scientists and election lawyers to call for a recount in three swing states won by Donald Trump, New York has learned. The group, which includes voting-rights attorney John Bonifaz and J. Alex Halderman, the director of the University of Michigan Center for Computer Security and Society, believes they’ve found persuasive evidence that results in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania may have been manipulated or hacked. The group is so far not speaking on the record about their findings and is focused on lobbying the Clinton team in private.

Last Thursday, the activists held a conference call with Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta and campaign general counsel Marc Elias to make their case, according to a source briefed on the call. The academics presented findings showing that in Wisconsin, Clinton received 7 percent fewer votes in counties that relied on electronic-voting machines compared with counties that used optical scanners and paper ballots. Based on this statistical analysis, Clinton may have been denied as many as 30,000 votes; she lost Wisconsin by 27,000. While it’s important to note the group has not found proof of hacking or manipulation, they are arguing to the campaign that the suspicious pattern merits an independent review — especially in light of the fact that the Obama White House has accused the Russian government of hacking the Democratic National Committee.

According to current tallies, Trump has won 290 Electoral College votes to Clinton’s 232, with Michigan’s 16 votes not apportioned because the race there is still too close to call. It would take overturning the results in both Wisconsin (10 Electoral College votes) and Pennsylvania (20 votes), in addition to winning Michigan’s 16, for Clinton to win the Electoral College. There is also the complicating factor of “faithless electors,” or members of the Electoral College who do not vote according to the popular vote in their states. At least six electoral voters have said they would not vote for Trump, despite the fact that he won their states.

More from Twitchy … IT’S REAL: After insisting the election couldn’t be rigged, liberals pretty sure election could have been rigged.

Barack Obama Says He Will Criticize Trump If He Thinks It Is “Necessary” … Also Made Excuses Why Democrats Lost in 2016

SO MUCH FOR OBAMA ACTING THE WAY OF PAST PRESIDENTS AND NOT CRITICIZING HIS SUCCESSOR …

At a press conference Sunday in Lima, Peru, Barack Obama said he does not believe he will be the last Democratic president, for a while, and also made no promise to not speak up and criticize President-elect Trump’s proposals,  if he feels it to be “helpful” and “necessary” for him to comment. Obama was also asked whether he thought he might be the last Democrat president, playing off the comments that GWB made earlier this year. Obama stated no and then gave some of the most ridiculous reasons for losing the 2016 elections, including geography and that terrible concept that Wyoming gets the same number of Senators as California. What the hell is he talking about? Note to Obama, this same geography occurred when you won two elections. Why wasn’t that an issue then? Make no mistake about it, Obama was is and always will be a community agitator. Many of his policies are about to be wiped away like a bad dream. Who honestly thinks he is going to sit quietly by and watch his 8 years be eliminated for the good of the American people?

And though Obama said he wouldn’t get involved in every fight—including some fights likely to be about Trump and the Republican majorities in Congress ripping out his legacy—he very deliberately refused to say he’d hold to the tradition of presidents avoiding public comment or political attacks on their successors.“I want to be respectful of the office and give the president-elect an opportunity to put forward his platform and his arguments without somebody popping off in every instance …”

RCP – Transcript:

RICH EDSON, FOX NEWS: Thank you, Mr. President. Earlier this year President George W. Bush reportedly said he warned he would be the last Republican president and now Republicans have won the White House, controlled the House and Senate, two-thirds of state legislatures, 34 governorship’s and there are charges of a shallow Democratic bench behind you.

Are you worried you could be the last Democrat president for a while? And secondly, sir, speaking of your predecessor he made sure to offer essentially no public criticism of you during your time in office. Will you equally withhold public criticism for President Trump even if he attempts to dismantle much of what you have accomplished? Thank you.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, no, I am not worried about being the last Democratic president. I think — not even for a while. And I say that not being cute, the Democratic nominee won the popular vote [what a joke that Obama still thinks this means anything. You don't win a football game by the number of yards you run and pass for, it's the scoreboard] and obviously this is an extremely competitive race and I would expect that future races will be competitive.

I certainly think it’s true that politics in America right now are a little bit up for grabs. [Up for grabs? Republicans control The presidency, House, Senate, governorship's and State legislatures in the USA] That some of the old alignments in both parties, Democrat and Republican, are being reshaped. And although the results of this election involved some of the specifics of the candidates and aren’t going to be duplicated in every subsequent election, Democrats do have to do some thinking about how do we make sure that the message we have is received effectively and results in winning elections. This is something that I have been wrestling throughout my presidency…

There was a poll this week subsequent to the election that showed that the general public has a more favorable view of Democrats than Republicans. [Obama is going to quote a poll when the ultimate poll of the American people is an election, Seriously?] As I noted, my approval ratings are quite high yet what has been true during the course of my eight years is that does not always translate. In fact, too often it hasn’t translated into working majorities at the state level or the federal level.

Now, some of that is the nature of our system. And geography. As long as Wyoming gets the same number of Senators as California there is going to be some tilt towards Republicans when it comes to Congressional races [WHAT? So states should not have the same number of US Senators?]. The fact that a lot of Democratic voters are bunched up in big cities and a lot of Republican voters are spread out across geography gives them an advantage when it comes to Congressional races. Some of it is just political bad luck.

For example, I came in as the economy was in flow fall and although I took the right steps to save the economy, in my midterm election of 2010 people couldn’t yet see the recovery and not surprisingly the president’s party got punished. We lost control of a lot of not just Congressional seats but also governorships and state legislative seats and that happened to be the year that the census was done and you start doing redistricting. And so those Republicans took advantage of political gerrymandering to lock in majorities even though in a numerous subsequent elections Democrats have actually cast more votes or more votes have been cast for Democratic Congressional candidates than Republicans and yet you end up having large Republican majorities. So there are just structural problems we have to deal with. But, look, you can’t make excuses about the rules. That’s the deal and we have to do better…

One message I do have for Democrats, that a strategy that’s micro-targeting particular discreet groups in a Democratic coalition sometimes wins the election but it does not when you the birthday mandate — the broad map date you need. And the more we can talk about what we have in common as a nation and speak to a broad set of values, a vision that speaks to everybody, and not just one group at a time, the better off we will be. That is part of the reason I was able to get elected twice that I try to make sure not only in the proposals but in message that I was speaking to everybody…

Look, I said before, President Bush could not have been more gracious to me when I came in and my intention is to certainly for the next two months, finish my job and after that to take Michelle on vacation, get some rest, spend time with my girls and do some writing, some thinking.

I want to be respectful of the office and give the president-elect an opportunity to put forward his platform and his arguments without somebody popping off in every instance.

As an American citizen who cares deeply about our country, if there are issues that have less to do with the specifics of some legislative proposal but go to core questions about our values and our ideals, and if I think that it is necessary or helpful for me to defend those ideals [Exactly what ideals is Obama referring to, socialism? Redistribution of wealth?], I’ll examine it when it comes. But what I do know is that I have to take Michelle on vacation.