[bigbob]

I’ve also read (although I can’t find the citation) where some votes remain uncounted in CA (absentee?) because even if all went to Trump it wouldn’t change the outcome and Hillary would still win. However those votes would increase Trumps share of the popular vote. No real point in doing so other than this ongoing “contest”.

[Kozy]

I remember election night. All the networks kept talking about Trump didn’t have a way to 62mm votes. None. Hillary was on her way to 65MM and a sure landslide. They all called the election right.
Oh wait a minute I remember Martha Raddatz crying when Trump got to 270. I wondered why she was crying. He had no way to get to 65mm votes. I am confused.

[Alberta's Child]

That's simply not true. If the number of absentee ballots outstanding on election night is less than the margin of victory for the winning candidate, the winner may be declared on election night but the ballots will still eventually be counted. This is exactly what happened in Pennsylvania over the last few weeks, when Clinton picked up another 20,000+ votes from the absentee and provisional ballots.

They still have to count those ballots because there are a lot of other state and local elections down the ticket that may be much closer than the presidential election.

[justlurking]

I’ve also read (although I can’t find the citation) where some votes remain uncounted in CA (absentee?) because even if all went to Trump it wouldn’t change the outcome and Hillary would still win.

I thought this was the case, but I went looking for a citation. All I'm finding is the same claim by many people, but no one actually citing the policy/law.

Digging around on CA's Secretary of State website, I would say that it's probably not true. My reason: CA law requires that a method be provided for the voter to confirm that their absentee (vote-by-mail) or provisional ballot was counted. If it isn't, they have the right to contest it.