Has a POTUS recount ever been completed?

The Bush v Gore recount in FL was not completed because of a partisan SCOTUS ruling. Has there ever been another POTUS recount before that?

I'm not talking about any recount. It MUST be a US presidential election.

@metal-brain said
The Bush v Gore recount in FL was not completed because of a partisan SCOTUS ruling. Has there ever been another POTUS recount before that?

I'm not talking about any recount. It MUST be a US presidential election.

Trump lost big.

Move on.

@metal-brain said
The Bush v Gore recount in FL was not completed because of a partisan SCOTUS ruling. Has there ever been another POTUS recount before that?

I'm not talking about any recount. It MUST be a US presidential election.

Google it.

@shavixmir said
Google it.

I did. That is why I suspect it has never happened.
It is difficult to find something that never happened.

This is why I have a problem with people pretending with fake certainty that election fraud is not a problem. They even use the dishonest words "we know" when claiming there is no election fraud to be concerned about.

If there has never been a completed recount in US history how can anyone possibly know?

History is clearly a poor guide to determining the validity of elections. There have never been any POTUS recounts to expose any election fraud. Of course there is no evidence. Nobody has ever looked for any.

Shouldn't you all be grateful that Trump is giving you a chance to find out if something is there that nobody has ever looked for in the history of the USA? Besides, if he is wrong you get to ridicule him some more. It is a win/win situation.

@metal-brain said
The Bush v Gore recount in FL was not completed because of a partisan SCOTUS ruling. Has there ever been another POTUS recount before that?

I'm not talking about any recount. It MUST be a US presidential election.

"The 1960 presidential election in Hawaii was held on November 8, 1960, as part of the 1960 United States presidential election. This was the first presidential election in which Hawaii participated; the state had been admitted to the Union just over a year earlier. The islands favored Democrat John F. Kennedy by the narrowest of margins: 115 votes, or 0.06%. The state voted more Republican than the national average for the last time until it did the same again by less than a percentage point in two-party vote share in 1972.

Initially it appeared Republican candidate Richard Nixon had won in the state, as he was 141 votes ahead after the first count.[1] A court-ordered recount was still underway when Hawaii's Republican governor signed the certificate from the GOP electors giving the state's three electoral votes to Nixon.[1] On the same day, the Democratic electors also issued a certificate awarding the votes to Kennedy.[2] The final recount showed Kennedy had actually prevailed, forcing the governor to sign the second certificate from the Democratic electors.[3] Both certificates had arrived in Washington by the time Congress convened in January 1961, with then-Vice President Nixon charged with presiding over a joint session to certify his own election loss. Hearing no objections,[3] Nixon ordered the Democratic certificate counted and ignored the accompanying Republican certificate,[1] even though it also bore the governor's signature as required by federal law."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1960_United_States_presidential_election_in_Hawaii#:~:text=A%20court%2Dordered%20recount%20was,three%20electoral%20votes%20to%20Nixon.&text=The%20final%20recount%20showed%20Kennedy,certificate%20from%20the%20Democratic%20electors.

@no1marauder said
"The 1960 presidential election in Hawaii was held on November 8, 1960, as part of the 1960 United States presidential election. This was the first presidential election in which Hawaii participated; the state had been admitted to the Union just over a year earlier. The islands favored Democrat John F. Kennedy by the narrowest of margins: 115 votes, or 0.06%. The state vo ...[text shortened]... xon.&text=The%20final%20recount%20showed%20Kennedy,certificate%20from%20the%20Democratic%20electors.

Okay, but the result changed. That hardly supports your position.
Are you pro recount yet?

@metal-brain said
Okay, but the result changed. That hardly supports your position.
Are you pro recount yet?

By 256 votes.

In States where the laws mandate a recount, have them.

@no1marauder said
By 256 votes.

In States where the laws mandate a recount, have them.

Why do you think the number of votes matter? Why would a 256 vote difference change things? If it was 10 times that it would still not be "apparent". You make it seem as if there is some cut off point making a vote count apparent and not. That is just hopelessly silly.

In States where the laws mandate a recount, Trump is getting them. No difference there because it was close enough.

@metal-brain said
Why do you think the number of votes matter? Why would a 256 vote difference change things? If it was 10 times that it would still not be "apparent". You make it seem as if there is some cut off point making a vote count apparent and not. That is just hopelessly silly.

In States where the laws mandate a recount, Trump is getting them. No difference there because it was close enough.

You are ridiculous.

Of course, it matters what the margin is. In fact, every State that allows recounts only requires them IF the margin is within a certain small percentage. https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/automatic-recount-thresholds.aspx

How "silly" of them according to you!

@no1marauder said
You are ridiculous.

Of course, it matters what the margin is. In fact, every State that allows recounts only requires them IF the margin is within a certain small percentage. How "silly" of them according to you!

That is not what I am talking about and why would I?
Georgia met that standard!

As I said before, it could be 10 times that amount and it would change nothing. Why does that particular number matter to you? If it doesn't stop bringing up irrelevancies.

You have made no point.

@metal-brain said
That is not what I am talking about and why would I?
Georgia met that standard!

As I said before, it could be 10 times that amount and it would change nothing. Why does that particular number matter to you? If it doesn't stop bringing up irrelevancies.

You have made no point.

LMAO! Your entire premise is that a recount is supposedly going to uncover some "election fraud" that might change the result of the Presidential election.

It won't because a recount with the leads Joe Biden has has never been reversed in US history in ANY State.

That's my "point".

@no1marauder said
LMAO! Your entire premise is that a recount is supposedly going to uncover some "election fraud" that might change the result of the Presidential election.

It won't because a recount with the leads Joe Biden has has never been reversed in US history in ANY State.

That's my "point".

Your entire premise is that you know the future and rumors matter more than facts and you are lying.

I NEVER claimed the result of the election would change. I am open to the possibility, but nothing more and I NEVER said otherwise. Nobody knows what the recount will uncover. Anybody who says they know is a liar.

@metal-brain said
Your entire premise is that you know the future and rumors matter more than facts and you are lying.

I NEVER claimed the result of the election would change. I am open to the possibility, but nothing more and I NEVER said otherwise. Nobody knows what the recount will uncover. Anybody who says they know is a liar.

Nobody "knows" that the Moon isn't made of green cheese.

However, all available evidence and prior experience tells us it isn't. So someone who says "the Moon isn't made of green cheese" isn't a "liar" but someone making a rational evaluation of perceived reality.

The same with someone who says a recount isn't going to change the result of an election where the candidates are more than 14,000 votes apart.

@no1marauder said
Nobody "knows" that the Moon isn't made of green cheese.

However, all available evidence and prior experience tells us it isn't. So someone who says "the Moon isn't made of green cheese" isn't a "liar" but someone making a rational evaluation of perceived reality.

The same with someone who says a recount isn't going to change the result of an election where the candidates are more than 14,000 votes apart.

I know that the Moon isn't made of green cheese.

Are you claiming an election cannot possibly be rigged to be more than 14,000 votes apart? How did Saddam Hussein get 94% of the vote in a Sunni minority nation? Are you claiming that the Shiite vast majority liked Saddam and voted for him?