Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Saturday, November 26, 2016

before the recount has even begun, evidence of either gross negligence or foul play has been exposed in three Wisconsin precincts – which had resulted in quite a number of phantom votes given to Donald Trump – and the vote totals have been revised accordingly. The story goes like this: after Wisconsin posted its voting totals, various internet users who looked at the numbers noticed the same discrepancy. Three precincts in Outagamie County were each claiming that more people had voted in the presidential race than had voted at all. That's not possible, of course. So after it became a minor online controversy, those precincts each revised their totals. The result: more than a thousand imaginary votes for Donald Trump came off the board from those three precincts alone, as first noted by Dan Solomon of Fast Company.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Here's the explanation which local officials offered to an ABC News affiliate to explain the discrepancy: "In order to give election returns to the Outagamie County Clerk's office as quickly as possible the Chief Inspector added together the votes from the election machine tapes. An error was made while keying the numbers on the calculator during this process resulting in an incorrect number of votes reported on Election night."

But for this to be believed, one would have to accept that the same honest error was made in three precincts – and that in all of them, Donald Trump was a huge beneficiary of that math error. Moreover, Hillary Clinton's vote totals didn't change at all in these three precincts. It was simply a matter of three precincts padding Donald Trump's totals with imaginary votes that they now acknowledge never really existed. How many more Wisconsin precincts may have used the same method to boost Trump, with tallies that weren't so immediately recognizable as being phony?

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

This should be twirling red sirens! How in great Caesar's ghost is this not leading every single news story within America? Election fraud? Found it in Wisconsin and it benefited only one specific candidate in one race out of all the other electoral results from the affected precinct's. Local ABC affiliate reported the admission that the totals from the precincts were mistakes, but shouldn't this spur additional investigation as to how these erroneous totals were tabulated in the first place?

#1 | Posted by tonyroma at 2016-11-26 04:06 PM | Reply

Probably was just a typo, I've been assured numerous times, pre-election, that election fraud and tampering is a myth.

#2 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2016-11-26 04:11 PM | Reply | Funny: 2 | Newsworthy 1

"shouldn't this spur additional investigation as to how these erroneous totals were tabulated in the first place?"

Depends.

Is the prosecutor a Democrat, or a Republican?

#3 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-11-26 04:12 PM | Reply

"Probably was just a typo, I've been assured numerous times, pre-election, that election fraud and tampering is a myth."

No, you blithering idiot, IN-PERSON VOTER FRAUD is a myth.

Vote fraud is not. And there's where the problem is. But since it favors the Rs, they avoid investigations like the plague.

For example, absentee ballots are MUCH easier to use to commit vote fraud. But Rs don't add precautions to that aspect, because absentee ballots historically favor Rs.

Any other stupid observations you'd like to make?

#4 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-11-26 04:18 PM | Reply | Funny: 2 | Newsworthy 5

Funny flag for you Danforth (helping you get onto the Flagged Comments page😊!
Enjoy your day/rage!

#5 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2016-11-26 04:20 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"helping you get onto the Flagged Comments page😊!"

Why should it make a difference at this point?

"Enjoy your day/rage!"

Enjoy the fact your hypocrisy is on full display.

#6 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-11-26 04:23 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Probably was just a typo....

Makes no sense because none of the other presidential candidates' totals were altered in that manner, only Trump's.

Use your brain for something more than a pit stop for disinformation. If there is a plausible reason for this specific discrepancy it should be easily explained. We await your reply.

#7 | Posted by tonyroma at 2016-11-26 04:26 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Enjoy your day/rage!

#5 | Posted by GOnoles92

It's rage to expect accuracy in our elections?

Even if this is an innocent mistake, it should make it clear that the numbers and tallies of at least Wisconsin should be analyzed by an independent outfit.

Or is your primary concern a Trump win, with the ends justifying the means?

#8 | Posted by jpw at 2016-11-26 04:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

This should be twirling red sirens!
#1 | POSTED BY TONYROMA

The entire process is antiquated and begs for a 21st century upgrade.

#9 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2016-11-26 04:32 PM | Reply

Even if this is an innocent mistake, it should make it clear that the numbers and tallies of at least Wisconsin should be analyzed by an independent outfit.

Granted, the results were from the unofficial total, but we all expect that "unofficial total" to only change on the margin with each change passing the common sense test.

Over 1000 invisible votes from only 3 precincts when an election has margins of .004 percent isn't an "error" it's a potential smoldering fire ready to burst into flames. No rational citizen should shrug at such circumstance and honestly claim to care anything about this nation's well-being but for their preferred party's electoral victory.

#10 | Posted by tonyroma at 2016-11-26 04:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Advertisement

Advertisement

The entire process is antiquated and begs for a 21st century upgrade.

Agreed!

Now let's advance along the same line - - - What if the recount uncovers thousands of Hillary votes that went (purposely) uncounted during the initial tabulations?

Will the Trump forces claim the process is rigged even though in each case a Republican governor/government will be leading the recall process?

#11 | Posted by tonyroma at 2016-11-26 04:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

Over 1000 invisible votes from only 3 precincts when an election has margins of .004 percent isn't an "error" it's a potential smoldering fire ready to burst into flames. No rational citizen should shrug at such circumstance and honestly claim to care anything about this nation's well-being but for their preferred party's electoral victory.

Exactly.

Besides, if Trump really won then there's nothing to worry about from a recount.

#12 | Posted by jpw at 2016-11-26 05:01 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The headline title should be: Trump Received 1000+ Phantom Votes in First WI Count

#13 | Posted by tonyroma at 2016-11-26 05:32 PM | Reply

Three precincts in Outagamie County were each claiming that more people had voted in the presidential race than had voted at all.

Which precincts, I did a look can't find it...
www.outagamie.org

ocgis.maps.arcgis.com

#14 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2016-11-26 05:45 PM | Reply

They were signed 11/16/16

#15 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2016-11-26 05:46 PM | Reply

Go back to the article and view the images embedded. I would assume the official site has the corrected numbers not the bogus ones. The uproar started from people on social media who perused the then-publicized totals and noticed the discrepancies.

It's gone over in the articles and the internal links listed within them.

#16 | Posted by tonyroma at 2016-11-26 05:52 PM | Reply

And to be perfectly transparent, if you didn't know, all these tabulations should have taken place in front of at least one observer from both parties to vouch for an honest count. If this indeed is the case, I could care less about which party this patsy might belong to, it's completely irrelevant. The procedure which produced the results should be investigated regardless.

#17 | Posted by tonyroma at 2016-11-26 05:58 PM | Reply

This is f#$&ing awesome. Hilarious. Obscene. Watching a crime slowly exposed. Proving Trump right. The system is rigged by the Rethugs (in States they control which are most)Not the first time. But the first time its going to be exposed on a significant scale.

www.amazon.com

#18 | Posted by nutcase at 2016-11-26 08:03 PM | Reply

This cannot be emphasized enough!

What this means is that Trump's margin of victory in one WI county with fewer than 100,000 voters is now down by 1,500 votes, about 1.5% Dan Solomon
Anyone care to argue against the need for a full recount in Wisconsin or consider it a "scam" now?

#19 | Posted by tonyroma at 2016-11-26 08:16 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

There has been funny vote totals here in Wisconsin since the Prosser/Klopnpenberg Court race not to mention the Walker recall vote.. Just wait until Michigan and Pennsylvania get their recounts there will be more surprises.

#20 | Posted by SLBronkowitz at 2016-11-26 10:05 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

This is how democracy dies.

If this recount shows the election was rigged.

How can the results ever be trusted again?

By the way.

Democratic primaries with emails exposing foul play. Nothing to see here.

General election with social media exposing foul play. Recount all votes!!

#21 | Posted by ClownShack at 2016-11-26 11:06 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I would assume the official site has the corrected numbers not the bogus ones. - tr

It is the official site.

Do some due diligence ffs.

#22 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2016-11-26 11:10 PM | Reply

"It is the official site. Do some due diligence ffs."

He was saying he was aware it was the official site, and because of that believes these numbers aren't the original ones with the imaginary votes, but the corrected ones.

FFS.

#23 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-11-26 11:18 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

General election with social media exposing foul play. Recount all votes!!

Election officials confirming and correcting over 1000 erroneously tabulated phantom votes from one single county of 100,000 voters when the total margin of difference stands at 25k or so out of around 5 million votes cast statewide? Ignore this anomaly, nothing to see here except butt-sore losers!

#24 | Posted by tonyroma at 2016-11-27 12:06 AM | Reply

Tony.

My point is.

When there were emails about potential fraud in the primaries, it was scoffed at.

Now.

Potential fraud was reported about the general election. And it seems there was fraud.

Wonder what would have happened had the primaries been investigated.

#25 | Posted by ClownShack at 2016-11-27 12:57 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Are you saying you think Bernie didn't win WI legitimately but was given that win due to voter fraud?

#26 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2016-11-27 01:04 AM | Reply | Funny: 3

My point is.

When there were emails about potential fraud in the primaries, it was scoffed at.

Were there exact charges or allegations or just "emails" claiming non-confirmed charges and allegations? Did election officials find actual fraudulent tabulations within the reported primary results and adjust the totals to account for them?

The answers are no. Your questions are moot and not related to the reality of this officially confirmed and corrected election fraud.

Apples, oranges.

#27 | Posted by tonyroma at 2016-11-27 07:29 AM | Reply

For lazily incompetent Andrea, HERE is a link to screen-grabs of the originally reported results BEFORE they were corrected which were linked-to in this thread's article as I articulated to you in post #16.

#28 | Posted by tonyroma at 2016-11-27 07:35 AM | Reply

#28 - To view the original numbers and the current numbers, click on Tony's link. A twitter feed will come up. The large tally sheet is the current results. The smaller tally sheet posted with Suzan Erasian's post is the original results reported. Click on the smaller (1st) tally, and it will come up full size and the discrepancies have been highlighted.

#29 | Posted by YAV at 2016-11-27 08:36 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Were there exact charges or allegations or just "emails" claiming non-confirmed charges and allegations? Did election officials find actual fraudulent tabulations within the reported primary results

Who knows. It was buried so quickly no one looked into them.

The DNC freight train kept rolling on.

Cause. --- the voter.

The irony here is blatant.

#30 | Posted by ClownShack at 2016-11-27 02:19 PM | Reply

I've been assured numerous times, pre-election, that election fraud and tampering is a myth.

#2 | POSTED BY GONOLES92 AT 2016-11-26 04:11 PM | REPLY | FLAG

No, we clearly see election fraud and tampering constantly by the parties. What is not significant is in person voter fraud.

#31 | Posted by 726 at 2016-11-27 06:13 PM | Reply

There's no evidence voter results were hacked or electronic voting machines were compromised.

- Associated Press.
hosted.ap.org

#32 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2016-11-27 07:00 PM | Reply

"There's no evidence voter results were hacked or electronic voting machines were compromised."

Shouldn't the word "yet" be in that sentence?

#33 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-11-27 07:02 PM | Reply

Shouldn't the word "yet" be in that sentence? #33 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

If that is your opinion on this matter. The Associated Press wrote that there is no evidence to support a conclusion of hacked or compromised voting machines.

#34 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2016-11-27 07:09 PM | Reply

"The Associated Press wrote that there is no evidence to support a conclusion of hacked or compromised voting machines."

Are you suggesting they've checked every one? Are they?

#35 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-11-27 07:13 PM | Reply

Are you suggesting they've checked every one? #35 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Take up your issue(s) with the Associated Press, not the messenger. That is, unless the AP is now "fake news."

#36 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2016-11-27 07:19 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

There's no evidence voter results were hacked or electronic voting machines were compromised.
- Associated Press.

As it stands, it appears that the AP has debunked a popular conspiracy theory among left-leaning, anti-Trump individuals.

#37 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2016-11-27 07:20 PM | Reply

As it stands, it appears that the AP has debunked a popular conspiracy theory among left-leaning, anti-Trump individuals.

The fact that there isn't an evidence of tampering doesn't mean tampering didn't happen.

How closely has anyone actually looked? So far all I've heard is discrepancies in reported numbers.

#38 | Posted by jpw at 2016-11-27 07:32 PM | Reply

As it stands, it appears that the AP has debunked a popular conspiracy theory among left-leaning, anti-Trump individuals.

There is no conspiracy theory moron, only accurate reporting of actual events as they occurred. You've invented some "conspiracy" in your own warped imagination. Asking for someone to investigate how the erroneous totals made their way into the "official preliminary tally" is not a conspiracy. It's American voters asking that an independent entity investigate the incident since it exposed how easy it actually is to change voter election results. It's easy to say that these three different wrong tabulations are an innocent mistake, but by their very existence, it becomes logical to inspect all the ballots and counting process to make sure that this is indeed the case.

What you blind partisan fools fail to see is that if actual election fraud is uncovered the damage it does to all American's faith in the electoral process is more to be feared than the simple changing from one winner to another. I want there to be no "mistakes" because idiots like you aren't prepared to rationally deal with what has to be done if indeed our electoral process is intentionally corrupted, namely charging the suspects and admitting they did something wrong if the evidence points to that conclusion.

#39 | Posted by tonyroma at 2016-11-27 09:46 PM | Reply

I want there to be no "mistakes" because idiots like you aren't prepared to rationally deal with what has to be done if indeed our electoral process is intentionally corrupted, namely charging the suspects and admitting they did something wrong if the evidence points to that conclusion.
#39 | POSTED BY TONYROMA

So feisty! For whatever reason, it appears that you assume I wouldn't be prepared to accept election results whereas in reality you're discussing election results with someone who 100% expected his chosen candidate, Donald J. Trump (#MAGA), to lose the election. What a pleasant surprise that DJT won, right!? From a cursory glance at this website, it appears that there are numerous anti-Trump individuals who are having difficulty accepting DJT's incredible election victory.


Anyway, getting back to the facts, the Associated Press wrote that there is zero evidence of ballot result hacking or of compromised election machines. If you have evidence to the contrary of the Associated Press's reports then I suggest you contact the AP.

#40 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2016-11-27 10:02 PM | Reply

Anyway, getting back to the facts, the Associated Press wrote that there is zero evidence of ballot result hacking or of compromised election machines.

Find one single mention of hacking or compromised election machines in any post above. You are quite dense. NO ONE has claimed that those are issues of concern. We already know where to look. The election board said that bad ciphering resulted in the erroneous totals. Let's start there with any investigation and check the actual machine tapes that were used by the people adding the totals and check them for accuracy (This is per the election board's response on how they believe the mistake happened, not just my supposition) It's about starting with what we know and checking the process to make sure the mistake as was reported.

Your continued belief that wholly unrelated and unmentioned possibilities were eliminated has nothing to do with the actual known facts of this incident. Why keep bringing up what no one is questioning in the first place? Now, don't get me wrong, if evidence later points in those directions of course they should be investigated, but only if other evidence leads in their direction. Absolutely not now, it would be a waste of time.

Is it really that difficult for a FSU grad to figure out?

#41 | Posted by tonyroma at 2016-11-27 10:10 PM | Reply

--There is no conspiracy theory moron,

That's hilarious coming from Tony Truther, who never saw a conspiracy theory--9/11, Bristol Palin, JFK, OJ Simpson, that he didn't support.

#42 | Posted by nullifidian at 2016-11-27 10:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

42

Imagine the conspiracy crap Tony will swallow before Trump is out of office....

#43 | Posted by eberly at 2016-11-27 10:47 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

And please stop conflating that Donald Trump claiming that the entire election was "rigged" against him and that it would be "stolen" exists in the same universe of Stein and Clinton asking for recounts after computer scientists have noticed anomalies in vote counts between counties in the same states that use different types of voting machines: One's without paper trails showing percentages higher totals for Trump than demographically-similar counties having paper back-up machines.

Hey Tonyroma this is what you said yesterday so gonoles92 is just trying to help you realize your wrong. You did question the voting machines before. Just not in the above post as you said so your half telling the truth I guess.

#44 | Posted by PinkyanTheBrain at 2016-11-28 10:37 AM | Reply

Hey Tonyroma this is what you said yesterday so gonoles92 is just trying to help you realize your wrong.

So the AP is reporting that there has been a complete forensic examination of every single ballot cast and definitively determined that absolutely nothing was wrong within the complete vote tabulation process throughout the entire state of Wisconsin? A recount entails examining the results and accessing that they indeed are representative of the votes of the voters who cast them. This has not been done and won't be until the recount process commences. Anomalous results are not evidence of intentional fraud by themselves. Upon deeper examination they may become evidence in the future, but now, they are what they are. And no one is claiming any conspiracy until there is arguable evidence of one existing. That has not happened as of this moment.

These logical distinctions obviously evade you and FSU.

#45 | Posted by tonyroma at 2016-11-28 11:16 AM | Reply

The Palmer Report? Not ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, et al; but the Palmer report? LOL

#46 | Posted by homerj at 2016-11-28 11:56 AM | Reply

#46

It is ABC. Just another moron who refuses to actually click on links or read the copy:

Here's the explanation which local officials offered to an ABC News affiliate to explain the discrepancy: "In order to give election returns to the Outagamie County Clerk's office as quickly as possible the Chief Inspector added together the votes from the election machine tapes. An error was made while keying the numbers on the calculator during this process resulting in an incorrect number of votes reported on Election night."

#47 | Posted by tonyroma at 2016-11-28 12:08 PM | Reply

Let me get this straight, ONE typo (that was corrected before it was official). I agree they should check into it. However it's looking like you're making a mountain out of a mole hill though. We'll find out soon enough though, they are recounting after all.

For all whom this applies when your drinking your tears please be advised of the danger.

Drinking saltwater will cause a number of early side effects as you get dehydrated. Dry mouth and rapid heartbeat are followed by low blood pressure, headaches and dizziness. Lethargy and confusion will eventually start to set in. Depending on how much sea water you had to drink and whether you're now drinking fresh water to eliminate the effects, you can also experience blood in the stool or vomit, loss of appetite and unconsciousness,

#48 | Posted by PinkyanTheBrain at 2016-11-28 12:11 PM | Reply

An error was made while keying the numbers on the calculator during this process resulting in an incorrect number of votes reported on Election night." - ABC

Called it:

Probably was just a typo [...]
#2 | POSTED BY GONOLES

#49 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2016-11-28 12:11 PM | Reply

"An error was made while keying the numbers on the calculator during this process resulting in an incorrect number of votes reported on Election night." - ABC

What baffles me is why they didn't double check their work. It seems like that should be SOP.

#50 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2016-11-28 12:22 PM | Reply

-It is ABC.

Yawn. Another fake news outlet. ABC = Anything But Correct news.

#51 | Posted by nullifidian at 2016-11-28 12:24 PM | Reply

Let me get this straight, ONE typo (that was corrected before it was official).

It wasn't ONE typo. There were bad counts in three different wards, not just one. And the "typo" changed the county's vote total by 7% when the margin between the two candidates is less than .5%.

And lastly, the only way the "typo" was discovered was because observant voters noticed that there were more votes listed for president than total voters in the affected wards. What if other totals were changed without ringing that particular bell? And if this official could make this mistake, doesn't that make it possible others did the same things?

For the last time, it's worthy of independent investigation at minimum because it's obvious that mistakes like these cannot be made or the integrity of the entire electoral process is brought into question.

But make no mistake, this is election fraud and it's been both verified and corrected. This isn't an allegation, it's a fact and it did happen. The winner of this election was determined through unofficial counts so don't act like this is somehow unimportant. Now it's incumbent to make absolutely sure that your supposition is indeed correct and that it was a localized benign mistake. But anyone willing to take only the word of the very officials responsible for initially reporting this fraud is woefully naive and obviously only concerned with their preferred candidate winning. Everyone should demand a more thorough accounting of just how it happened in the first place and put other safeguards in place so that it cannot happen again.

#52 | Posted by tonyroma at 2016-11-28 12:28 PM | Reply

5 stages of grief.

Stage 1: Denial

#53 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-11-28 12:32 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

For the last time, it's worthy of independent investigation at minimum because it's obvious that mistakes like these cannot be made or the integrity of the entire electoral process is brought into question.

Yes, and a quick recount should assuage any concerns about additional typos. As Gal commented, it is remarkable that there was such a rush to get election results on 11/08 that carelessness was allowed to enter into the equation, and that the Election supervisor did not take the minute or two to double check their work and calculation.

But make no mistake, this is election fraud

Fraud of any sort requires intent. There is no evidence of a purposeful intent to commit any fraud, including "election fraud." Occam's razor in this situation leaned toward human error, and thus far it has been indicated the the previously-miscounted unofficial figure was due to human error/typo.

#54 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2016-11-28 12:39 PM | Reply

And Einsteins, if this indeed was an innocent error of wrongly tabulating totals from voting machine tapes, why were the ONLY totals affected those of Donald Trump and no other candidate on the entire ballot and why only in those specific wards? Wouldn't the Chief Inspector make this same mistake with Hillary's total as well, or is his admission already evidence of a different counting method and process than he used for all the other candidates and races?

Some people just don't think, they only respond. The entire story is completely fishy on it's face and it's laughable that the same one's poo-pooing it now would have felt the same were the extra 1126 votes counted for Hillary instead of against her.

As Ricky Richardo always said, "Yoose got some esplainin' to do."

#55 | Posted by tonyroma at 2016-11-28 12:40 PM | Reply

Did you miss the part were I said "I agree they should check into it".

According to the Outagamie County Clerk, unlike other counties that have newer voting machines which allow election results to be reported electronically, Outagamie County's election results from each polling location still need to be manually tabulated and then phoned in by election inspectors, sometimes leading to mistakes.

Clerk Lori O'Bright says, "After the polls are closed, they're closing out things, they want to wrap it up and sometimes human error in reporting those numbers just occurs."

That's why those results are considered unofficial. It's not until a three board county canvass, is completed, are results verified.

From your link

#56 | Posted by PinkyanTheBrain at 2016-11-28 12:44 PM | Reply

Fraud of any sort requires intent.

You're talking about criminality, I'm talking about the strict dictionary definition. If I'd have meant criminal fraud I would have stated it. Fraud does not require intent. Fraud can occur by mistake. What if a person unknowingly overcharges someone for goods or services beyond the stated amount? They have taken more money than deserved and defrauded the individual who paid them.

Do they teach logic and reading comprehension at FSU or is it graduate level?

#57 | Posted by tonyroma at 2016-11-28 12:45 PM | Reply

#56

And the accounting mistake happened with the totals in three different wards within a single county and only affected the total of votes going in favor of Donald Trump.

So they counted Trump votes differently than the others? Please explain how the same person only makes accounting mistakes for one candidate and not any others if they use the same methods for all.

#58 | Posted by tonyroma at 2016-11-28 12:48 PM | Reply

-Do they teach logic and reading comprehension at FSU or is it graduate level?

Are you going to push this as hard as you did the Bristol Palin pregnancy conspiracy theory?

#59 | Posted by nullifidian at 2016-11-28 12:50 PM | Reply

#59

If you don't like it, don't read it.

Freedom is a wonderful thing. More should exercise it.

#60 | Posted by tonyroma at 2016-11-28 12:53 PM | Reply

Yes they only made one mistake, just happened to be Trump...... logic tony logic they added Clinton's correctly (or maybe they added more to her too using your logic)

#61 | Posted by PinkyanTheBrain at 2016-11-28 12:59 PM | Reply

At the end of election night the New York Times reported that Donald Trump had won the state of Wisconsin with a total of 1,409,467 votes, giving him a winning margin of 27,257 votes over Hillary Clinton's total of 1,382,210. These numbers were based on what the individual counties and precincts were reporting that night. But now seventeen days later, based on various Wisconsin precincts revising their own totals, Dave Wasserman of the respected Cook Political Report has updated the totals. Donald Trump now has 1,404,536 total votes in Wisconsin, while Hillary Clinton now has 1,382,011 total votes.

Two things immediately jump out, as first spotted by music critic Dave Greenwald. The first is that, even ahead of the forthcoming recount in Wisconsin, Donald Trump's lead has already shrunk to just 22,525 votes. That means 18% of his "lead" has already vanished, based on precincts catching some of their own incorrect numbers, and internet gawkers catching others. But the second thing that jumps out is that the revisions have served to erase thousands of votes from Trump, while affirming that Clinton's vote total was essentially correct to begin with.

Donald Trump has gone from originally having 1,409,467 votes to now having just 1,404,536 votes in Wisconsin. In other words, a total of 4,931 votes were reported for Trump on election night that never existed. In contrast Hillary Clinton has gone from 1,382,210 votes down to 1,382,011 votes, a difference of less than two hundred votes. In other words, Wisconsin essentially had Clinton's vote total correct all along, but is now acknowledging that nearly five thousand of the supposed votes for Trump simply never existed. Where did these votes come from? Who originally padded his numbers and how? www.palmerreport.com

Smoke, fire, anyone?

#62 | Posted by tonyroma at 2016-11-28 01:05 PM | Reply

#61

Yeah, one mistake and almost 5000 less Trump votes than announced on election night. Keep believing that lie Pinky.

#63 | Posted by tonyroma at 2016-11-28 01:06 PM | Reply

#47 | Posted by tonyroma
Oh the mighty WBAY out of the mighty Appleton, Wisconson?

#64 | Posted by homerj at 2016-11-28 02:08 PM | Reply

I can't help it.

#65 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2016-11-28 02:36 PMFlag: (Choose)FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusive

It's the only reason anyone has sympathy for you.

#66 | Posted by Zed at 2016-11-28 02:43 PM | Reply

Nullifidian,
Yes, on the back of Todd's "snow machine" while 911 co-conspirators cheered him on.
I remember it like it was yesterday because it was the only time he ever posted his own thoughts.
#truestorybro

#68 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2016-11-28 02:58 PM | Reply | Funny: 4

You talking about cut-and-paste Tony Truther, the man of a thousand words not his own?

#69 | Posted by nullifidian at 2016-11-28 03:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

That's it, you're all off my Christmas card list.....

#70 | Posted by tonyroma at 2016-11-28 03:50 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2016 World Readable

-->
Drudge Retort