Other than giving Jill Stein the most media coverage she has ever had, the biggest thing the recount effort does is set a new bar for "honoring a clear victory". It used to be that an electoral college landslide like what Trump pulled off would silence the most obtuse of election critics.
For a little history:
Recounts also typically don’t change the margin by an amount that would be large enough to affect the result of this year’s presidential election. The mean swing between the top two candidates in the 27 recounts was 282 votes, with a median of 219. The biggest swing came in Florida’s 2000 presidential election recount, when Al Gore cut 1,247 votes off George W. Bush’s lead, ultimately not enough to flip the state to his column.So if these recounts were to have an effect, they would need to flip multiple states, all won by at least ten thousand votes -- more like 70K in Pennsylvania.
Trump was roundly chastised for saying that he wold "recognize a clear victory". Formerly, that would be something like a couple K votes in one state based on the Gore precedent.
No longer. What is a "clear victory" now? Clinton (or Stein, or Soros, or whomever) would need to flip MULTIPLE states, each with margins well outside the old high water mark.
But never mind. There is now a new bar for "honoring an election".
Oh, and which side is it that claimed prior to losing that "fraud is not a factor in US elections"?
There is NOTHING but politics and "spin" for "standards" in BOistan, and the wages of that is Trump.
Imagine how much the Democrats are going to enjoy the precedents they set by passing BOcare with "reconciliation" so they only needed 51 votes and establishing "The nuclear option" in the Senate for everything but SCOTUS during the reign of Harry Reid.
What goes around does indeed come around. Since Trump's margin was not a "clear victory", there really is no future standard for what a candidate can legitimately cry foul on.