It’s going to cost Michigan up to $5 Million, when they desperately need money to address Flint issues.

Quote:LANSING — The Michigan Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that the Board of State Canvassers never should have allowed a recount requested by Green Party candidate Jill Stein to proceed, because she has no chance to overturn the result of the presidential election in her favor and is not an aggrieved candidate.

The panel ordered the board to “reject the Nov. 30, 2016 petition of candidate Stein that precipitated the current recount process.”

The ruling came out almost simultaneously with a 2-1 order from the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals which upheld U.S. District Judge Mark Goldsmith’s Monday order that the recount must get under way at noon that day, which it did.

The combined effect of the two rulings appears to set up further court proceedings in front of Goldsmith and the Michigan Republican Party has already filed for another federal hearing.

“The Michigan Court of Appeals ruled in our favor, determining that the petition for recount filed by Dr. Jill Stein should have been denied,” said Ronna Romney McDaniel, chairwoman of the Michigan Republican Party. “Dr. Stein is not an aggrieved candidate as she has no chance of winning the election in Michigan.”

http://www.freep.com/story/news/politics.../95048550/

(12-07-2016 01:43 AM)usmbacker Wrote:  

It’s going to cost Michigan up to $5 Million, when they desperately need money to address Flint issues.

Quote:LANSING — The Michigan Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that the Board of State Canvassers never should have allowed a recount requested by Green Party candidate Jill Stein to proceed, because she has no chance to overturn the result of the presidential election in her favor and is not an aggrieved candidate.

The panel ordered the board to “reject the Nov. 30, 2016 petition of candidate Stein that precipitated the current recount process.”

The ruling came out almost simultaneously with a 2-1 order from the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals which upheld U.S. District Judge Mark Goldsmith’s Monday order that the recount must get under way at noon that day, which it did.

The combined effect of the two rulings appears to set up further court proceedings in front of Goldsmith and the Michigan Republican Party has already filed for another federal hearing.

“The Michigan Court of Appeals ruled in our favor, determining that the petition for recount filed by Dr. Jill Stein should have been denied,” said Ronna Romney McDaniel, chairwoman of the Michigan Republican Party. “Dr. Stein is not an aggrieved candidate as she has no chance of winning the election in Michigan.”

http://www.freep.com/story/news/politics.../95048550/

This is common sense. If Hillary wants to throw a fit and prove she is a liar and bad loser, she at least has grounds. But they need to remove her front person. Jill Stein has no grounds for a recount.

(12-07-2016 01:43 AM)usmbacker Wrote:  

It’s going to cost Michigan up to $5 Million, when they desperately need money to address Flint issues.

http://www.freep.com/story/news/politics.../95048550/

I thought the Stein campaign was going to foot the bill?

Hillary must have won Michigan with muh field offices and muh Nate and muh betting odds had her at 99.8%.

(12-07-2016 08:43 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  Hillary must have won Michigan with muh field offices and muh Nate and muh betting odds had her at 99.8%.

Nate's pretty arrogant after getting it right in 2012. He had an article saying the pollsters didn't miss Brexit, that the interpretation of the polls was wrong. He then admitted the same thing about himself and everyone with Trump getting the Republican nomination. Then he couldn't admit to himself that he was still biased in the general election. He wrote that article saying Trump had a 33% chance to win and that he wasn't "trying to scare anybody." I guess he doesn't know anybody who isn't a Democrat.

(12-07-2016 09:10 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-07-2016 08:43 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  Hillary must have won Michigan with muh field offices and muh Nate and muh betting odds had her at 99.8%.

Nate's pretty arrogant after getting it right in 2012. He had an article saying the pollsters didn't miss Brexit, that the interpretation of the polls was wrong. He then admitted the same thing about himself and everyone with Trump getting the Republican nomination. Then he couldn't admit to himself that he was still biased in the general election. He wrote that article saying Trump had a 33% chance to win and that he wasn't "trying to scare anybody." I guess he doesn't know anybody who isn't a Democrat.

The problem with polls, if they aren't manipulated intentionally, is how they predict likely voters. Most these days use historical data and weight the samples instead of drilling down and determining who is actually going to vote this time. The margin of error only applies if the sample is representitive. When you have a traditional republican against a traditional democrat, they tend to be pretty accurate. When you have a different mold and different ideas that appeal to different people than the traditional candidate (Trump, Sanders) or special circumstances in a non-partisan question with major sovereign implications (Brexit), they are off. Brexit polling pretty much assumed it was a partisan issue when in actuality Brexit won quite a few Labour strongholds. Trump polling assumed Hillary would hold keep Trump at bay in traditionally democratic blue colar white counties throughout Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and even more suburban Florida on the I-4 corridor. They were wrong.

Thee's a reason why that professor from Stony Brook's methodology has been so accurate, and nailed this election months in advance.