In the roughly two days since Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein called for a recount in three key battleground states, she's met her fund-raising goal — twice — having raised over $4.5 million and counting.
"Another people-powered win!" wrote Stein in an announcement on her Facebook page late Thursday night. "Congratulations on meeting the recount costs for both Wisconsin and Pennsylvania! We are now focusing on raising the needed funds for Michigan's recount (due Wednesday)."
It was 3:04 p.m. Wednesday when Stein and her campaign manager, David Cobb, announced on her Facebook page that she was seeking donations in order to file for recounts in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.
Initially seeking the $2.2 million needed for the states' filing fees, Stein hit her first goal by about 1:30 a.m. Thursday. She then upped her goal to $4.5 million — meeting it by about 11 that night.
Stein says on her website that the overall costs for recounts in all three states will be roughly $7 million — her next goal.
"With your help, we are raising money to demand recounts in these three states where the data suggests a significant need to verify machine-counted vote totals," read a statement about the recount on Stein's website.
Stating that the recount effort "is not intended to help Hillary Clinton," Stein's website claims that "[e]lection integrity experts" had raised concerns about "statistical anomalies" in those three states.
Stein's efforts for a recount come at a time when activists have launched different initiatives in efforts to try to keep President-elect Donald Trump out of the White House.
A Change.org petition asking the Electoral College to vote for Clinton on Dec. 19 has amassed over 4 million supporters, and a recently published New York magazine article reported that activists had claimed to have found data — but no proof — showing that results may have been "manipulated or hacked" in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania — three states where Clinton lost by just a narrow margin.
However, one of the computer scientists, J. Alex Halderman, a computer science professor from the University of Michigan, said in a blog post Wednesday morning that the magazine's article was inaccurate.
"Were this year's deviations from pre-election polls the results of a cyberattack? Probably not. I believe the most likely explanation is that the polls were systematically wrong, rather than that the election was hacked," Halderman wrote.
And while Trump won the Electoral College, thereby winning the Oval Office, Clinton leads him in the popular vote by more than 2 million, according to Politico.