Updated unofficial results show Trump beating Clinton by 10,704 votes

[portlander23]

Source: MLive

Republican President-elect Donald Trump beat Democrat Hillary Clinton in Michigan by just over 10,000 votes, updated unofficial results from the Michigan Secretary of State's office show.

County canvassers were required to certify and send their unofficial counts to the Secretary of State's office by Tuesday under Michigan election law. The Board of State Canvassers meets Monday, Nov. 28 to formally certify the results.

Some national news outlets, including the Associated Press, have not yet called the state for Trump because the margin over Democrat Hillary Clinton was so slim.

Secretary of State spokesperson Fred Woodhams has said it's unlikely that Trump's lead over Clinton would be reversed.




Read more: http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2016/11/updated_unofficial_results_sho.html

---

Once this is certified the electoral vote will be 306 Trump to 232 Clinton.

[Botany]

1. 88,000 people in MI showed up to vote but did not vote for President

[7962]

2. I know several who said they did the same thing. Voted all the other races.

Skipped president

[winstars]

3. Please tell those several people thanks for nothing! And that is the DU version of my words to them!

[MFM008]

17. I have 2 words for them

DROP DEAD.

[liberalmike27]

25. If Only

Hillary had worked harder in the rust belt states, hurt the most by the NAFTA agreement, if only she'd talked more about that, if only she'd have put more anti-globalization things in her commercials, instead of repeating bad things about Trump that our media had already completely covered.

Lots of mistakes.

Hillary folks are taking their time working the "stages of grief."

[yallerdawg]

5. That's about 1.8% of voters.

It would be interesting to know who didn't vote for any candidate.

[Sunlei]

9. 90,000 in detroit didn't vote for any candidate(left that part blank) all other parts were filled in

they knew enough to NOT vote for trump but they felt powerless vs any "status quo government", especially after the lead-poison- drinking water problems.

[NWCorona]

27. I'm curious if that's what happened in Flint.

[Sunlei]

28. Flint stayed home & didn't vote for any, after the way the poison water issue was handled.

People in both campaigns always holding bottles of expensive water, while people in Flint still have to take their children out of town for a bath! Some people gave up, can't blame them.

[FBaggins]

8. That isn't so uncommon

It was 50,000 in 2012 and 40,000 in 2008.

In a year where both major candidates had negative popularity ratings, it isn't surprising that the number is marginally higher.

[Coyotl]

12. One way to spoil a ballot is to mark a second candidate.

Trump saying the election was rigged was a dog whistle to his loyalists that they would be justified to also rig the election, since the enemy was already doing so. The result, people were arrested for voting twice. What of the loyalists at the elections offices?

[Sunlei]

29. I think there were only two idiots who voted twice? so easy to catch, imo thats not many idiots.

[jimlup]

24. I've wondered if this perhaps is a technical issue

rather than a political result. I guess in this year of false equivalences it may be intentional but I can't help but wonder.

[shraby]

4. That's not very many votes per precinct.

[Sunlei]

6. yes, it was close. The 90,000 'protest blank ballots' & the 'stay homes' can continue their apathy.

[FBaggins]

10. I don't think that it was apathy

It was active dislike for both candidates (at least for roughly half of those 90k)

It can't, for instance, be a surprise that there could be Republicans who couldn't be convinced to vote for Clinton, but would never accept Trump... can it?

[Sunlei]

11. sanders did take the primary votes & in 2008/2012 they voted obama. apathy after the primary.

[FBaggins]

16. That's not really apathy

These 88k are people who showed up and voted... they just couldn't find a candidate worth voting for in the presidential race.

"Apathy" is a label for the hundreds of thousands of people who voted in 2008/2012 and didn't show up this time.

[Sunlei]

19. If Sanders was the VP, Hillary would have won. To late now unless the electorial saves America from

the dangerous man or they find the machine malware. Happy Thanksgiving.

[FBaggins]

20. I don't know about him as a VP... but...

Is it too early for me to start talking about what he would have done as the nominee???

Happy turkey day to you and yours as well!

[LenaBaby61]

7. Of course that lead won't be reversed...

Because when you have friends in high places who can rig things for you

[Coyotl]

13. Recount coming right up.

The fund has grown well beyond Wisconsin's needs already.

[mitty14u2]

14. Republicans Cannot Claim a Mandate When Hillary Clinton Has a 2-Million-Vote Lead

A higher percentage of Americans rejected Trump in 2016 than rejected Romney in 2012.





The 2016 presidential-election campaign was long and arduous. And so too is the ongoing process of counting the roughly 135 million ballots cast in a relatively high-turnout election where most Americans did not vote for Donald Trump. What we have learned as the count continues is that the sweeping “Trump Triumphs” headlines and pronouncements from two weeks ago created Republican delusions of electoral grandeur that are not supported by the actual results.

https://www.thenation.com/article/republicans-cannot-claim-a-mandate-when-hillary-clinton-has-a-two-million-vote-lead/

[FBaggins]

18. They don't need to claim a mandate

Claiming that you have a mandate is for newly elected Presidents who face opposing Congresses. You're hinting "you're next if you don't get in line with what the people want". This is particularly useful when the new President's party picks up seats in the House and/or Senate but fails to gain the majority (especially when that's because 2/3 of the Senators did not face the voters).

As an example, Reagan was won in a landslide and picked up ten Senate seats for a new majority... but still trailed in the House (even after picking up 34 seats there). He was able to get lots of his legislative agenda because he could claim a mandate.

Trump doesn't need to claim a mandate... because Republicans control both the House and Senate.

[Tactical Peek]

21. At the same time, the Rs lost ground in both Houses of Congress.

And came damn close to losing the big one altogether.

Be thankful for small, rose-tinted favors.

[FBaggins]

23. Not enough to matter

Those senators won't face the voters again for six years... and the House change was minuscule (worse than any predictions).

Republicans in Congress will be far more worried about angering their base if they don't follow through now that they have a president who will sign their bills than they are about moderates who supported Hillary getting angry at them.

Worse still... I just read that Republicans in the House received more votes than Democrats (and by a larger margin than Hillary).

[newblewtoo]

26. Gird up your loins

because unless tRump falls on his sword before 2018, the Senatorial elections look bleak at best and a potential disaster in the making at worst.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2018



It would be far better to give money to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign than Jill Stein.

[MFM008]

15. RECOUNT

count them until we win.

[Achilleaze]

22. 1,000