If you have "no place to go," come here!

Va. Attorney General race recount aborted--attempted theft by fraud exposed.

rexvisigothis's picture

A strange thing just happened on the way to a (true blue) full Democratic sweep of Virginia .

The Attorney General election ended with a razor thin victory by the Democrat, Mark Herring. (169 votes out of millions cast).

This being well within the .5% margin entitling the loser to a recount, Mark Obenshain availed himself of the statutory remedy.

Several days into the recount, he decided to concede, rather than let it run its course.


The examination of ballots, rather than yielding the statistically likely spread of errors in which some votes first counted for Herring go to Obenshain, and some vice versa, was quintupling the original Herring margin.

What can this mean?  Coupled with Obenshain's odd decision to abort the recount, which after all was costing him nothing, it can only mean that a balls-to-the-wall election fraud campaign had almost squeaked out an Obenshain victory, falling just short.

Knowing that he was a guilty vote-stealing Repugnant, Obenshain cut the recount short via concession, because he knew that further ballot scrutiny risked exposure of the underlying conspiracy.

No votes yet


Submitted by lambert on

... but not on the evidence presented here. It's irresponsible not to speculate, of course, but I'd like to see a lot more evidence. And not none. I mean, maybe somebody bought him off, or he found a horse's head in his bed.

rexvisigothis's picture
Submitted by rexvisigothis on

I may have been carried away by enthusiasm for a good theory...Alexa's data cuts against my thinking that the recount was actually aborted by the concession. Given the falsity of that key bit of theorizing, the rest falls of its own weight.

affinis's picture
Submitted by affinis on

Obenshain conceded only after the recount was more than three quarter over and Herring was ahead by over 800 votes (i.e. beyond the margin of litigation). Recounting continued after the concession, with Herring ultimately coming out ahead by 907 votes.

Moreover, the claim that there’s some violation of the "the statistically likely spread of errors" is erroneous. If there’s a known (non-hidden) bias (i.e. known systemic sources of difference) between an original count and a recount, that would not be the case (i.e. it would not be equally likely to go up or down). In the original count, the election board changed the counting rules (to prohibit legal representatives stepping in to get provisional ballots counted unless the voter who cast the provisional ballot was physically present during the hearing to assess the vote) after most counties had finished the count, but before heavily Democratic Fairfax County had finished. Moreover, and perhaps even more importantly, optical scan voting machines (which were not uniformly distributed throughout Virginia) would tend to generate undervotes and overvotes which would not be initially counted, but which would get counted in the recount (i.e. given manual examination of ballots that occurs in the recount); and Democratic Fairfax County’s optical scanners were known to be especially temperamental (prone to calling a ballot an under or overvote), which some analysts expected to add lots of Dem votes in the recount. I.e. the procedures used in the original count and in the recount differed in substantive, important ways - such that maintaining the same mean result would NOT be expected.

A nefarious hidden conspiracy is not needed when known factors can account for an outcome, And the concession was just a concession - it did not abort continuation of recounting.

DCblogger's picture
Submitted by DCblogger on

Take-Aways From the AG Recount

While the iron is hot, there are a few observations that should be taken concerning elections. While paper ballots provide a tangible record, it turns out they are not slam dunk evidence. The cost of optical scan and paper methods is unjustifiable except in distinctly unique cases. DRE is optimal.