So, Hillary Clinton has now joined the Jill Stein quixotic recount effort in swing states,

including Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan.

Campaign Council Mark Elias announced that while the Clinton campaign had no evidence of hacked

voting systems, they wanted to ensure the veracity of the vote.

Quote, because we had not uncovered any actionable evidence of hacking or outside attempts

to alter the voting technology, we had not planned to exercise this option ourselves, but now that a recount has been initiated

in Wisconsin, we intend to participate in order to ensure the process proceeds in a manner

that is fair to all sides, unquote.

Stein is infamously launching a recount effort if you missed it in an obvious effort to raise

money for the Green Party.

So, what's the goal here?

Well, not to overturn election results, clearly, because Hillary lost.

But Ron Fornier of National Journal raises another awful, horrifying possibility, quote,

raising doubts about the legitimacy of the election, even without overturning the result,

is part of Clinton's plans to keep her options open for 2020.

Make some calls.

You'll hear the same from her confidants. Or no. Except this would actually be the best case scenario for Republicans. Hillary was a historically bad candidate. She was the first female

major party candidate in history, and she was somehow unable to beat the guy who was caught on tape

talking about ground and women by the bleep. Her husband was a president with significant blue-collar appeal. She lost the blue-collar white vote in historic fashion. She didn't even match Barack Obama's numbers among Hispanics. After Trump openly said, a judge of Mexican descent couldn't judge his case fairly. She relied on Hollywood glitz rather than on-the-ground campaigning, and she paid for it with the White House.

Hillary for re-election in 2020 would be incredible for Republicans, who'd be so great.

She'd be back.

She'd be twice as annoying, which is almost mathematically impossible.

...