Posted on 11/12/2009 4:22:19 AM PST by brianr10
3000 votes is not that close.
Conceding itself is not an official act. It simply suggests you won’t push for recounts. It’s not a commitment to even avoid that.
Gore conceded in 2000, and then wasted the country’s time and money fighting over Florida.
Still, 3000 votes is not close. We have an election in Va where 13 votes separate the candidates.
I was amazed that they were able to certify the election, and swear in Owens, before the votes were officially counted.
In Va, they won’t have official numbers for another 2 weeks. Only then can the losing candidate contest the election.
I certainly hope that Hoffman’s “concession” didn’t allow them to swear Owens in. Because if so, he should have contested the race, just to deny Pelosi a vote this past week.
But my guess is the democrats in the house would have sworn him in anyway. They pretty much seem to do whatever they feel like.
> Let’s say it turns out Hoffman had won, would Owen’s hellcare vote be nullified?
No.
His vote was cast in “good faith”, serving in the capacity for which he was sworn-in.
If those votes cast blindly for the ‘R’ on election night had been cast for Hoffman instead; the end results would have been different.
No, it's not, but debating the "what if's" is interesting.
And, because there is an "if", there's always that slight chance he could pull it off.(Extremly slight)
Conklin said the state sent a letter to the House Clerk last week explaining that no winner had been determined in the 23rd District, and therefore the state had not certified the election. But the letter noted that Owens still led by about 3,000 votes, and that the special election was not contested -- two factors that legally allowed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to swear in Owens on Friday.SO the election is not certified, and Owens is not the official choice. But since Hoffman was not contesting the race, that allowed Pelosi to swear Owens in."We sent a letter to the clerk laying out the totals," Conklin said. "The key is that Hoffman conceded, which means the race is not contested. However, all ballots will be counted, and if the result changes, Owens will have to be removed."
Of course, the Republican Party could have contested the race -- they had a candidate as well. But Hoffman was the one who could have won, and if he had contested, Pelosi would have had to sweat more.
Still, it's pretty amazing that Pelosi was able to swear in a new representative before the votes were official, and not a single news outlet noted the exceptional action.
My guess is that if Hoffman actually ended up ahead by a few votes, the democrats in congress would simply refuse to vote to remove Owens and seat Hoffman, and would make some excuse up about disrupting the natural order, and the media would be happy to help them, including finding a couple of "voters" to say that they think they cast their votes wrong, so that it "feels OK" to leave Owens in place.
NEVER CONCEDE. There is nothing good that ever comes of it.
” NEVER CONCEDE. There is nothing good that ever comes of it. “
‘Show me a good loser, and I’ll show you a loser...’
O’Really. Paging Sarah Palin. Please pickup the red courtesy phone.
However, and I’m not a conspiracy theorist, it seems awfully convenient that democratic officials made a 2300+ vote counting error against Hoffman, in an election that they needed to be a big enough win that the national democrats could justify swearing in the candidate before the ballots were officially counted.
If they had properly reported the race on election night, Hoffman wouldn’t have conceded, the discussion would have been about how close the race was and how Pelosi had to wait for the absentee ballots, and Pelosi may not have felt comfortable pushing for the saturday health care vote.
Yeah, won’t really matter if Owens is removed. They got through what Pelosi wanted. That’s all ACORN and SEIU care.
"We sent a letter to the clerk laying out the totals," Conklin said. "The key is that Hoffman conceded, which means the race is not contested. However, all ballots will be counted, and if the result changes, Owens will have to be removed."
If Owens had not been sworn in, instead of 219-215, before Cao voted, it would have been 218-215. Still a win for Pelosi.
I never understood the "concede" thing. What's the point, other than making the loser speech while everyone is paying attention?
The rules are (or ought to be) like those we use in our poker games - "cards talk, BS walks". (i.e. if I say I have "3 of a kind" and I really have a full house, I have a full house - cards talk.)
Votes talk, BS walks.
Yes. Even though Owens has been sworn in, if the conservative canditate has the most votes, he would be judged the winner and put in office.
Ok so several in Jefferson county "mistakenly entered as zero"
Does that even make sense? Scozza dropped out and she didn't get zero's (however few still got some) Wouldn't common sense tell you if you were entering 0 there was a mistake?Oswego county totals were off by more than 5%? Because of a phone problem? Does that make sense?
Hmmm repub county chairs angry their power may be stripped after their nomination? Dems mad that a 3rd party came out of nowhere?? Suspicion on both sides here.
Then a 3,000 vote lead, no absentee ballots counted, 10,200 to be counted. Hmmmm snowbirds/seniors & active duty deployed military I wonder who do those 2 demographics tend to favor by large margins?
Add to the above that Obummer appointed Owens' Republican predecessor to a Federal position that gave Owens and Dede the opening....Hoffman's candidacy was unexpected as were all his endorsements like Palin's. Yep, he was "The fly in the ointment; the monkey in the wrench; the pain in the a$$."
Especially since officials made such a big deal that night about NOT reporting returns on-line or to the media, but that they were going to wait until the morning or have the AP come to their locations to get the data.
-PJ
Ah... the "natural order..."
During the Clinton impeachement, the Democrat mantra was "overturning the will of the People."
-PJ
Can one “un-concede?”
I would say yes under the principals of the living constitution, clearly lets not let laws interfere with justice. The real question, did the WH coordinate this corrupt election to insure passage of its healthcare bill? Inquiring minds want to know? Why so many irregularities? Where unionistas imported from other districts and states to seal the deal? Where was SEIU on election day? Ditto Acorn?
Well, that’s a big difference. That would have meant that #218 would have been the decisive vote and it would have gone down without him or her. A bit more pressure when you need one person to step up and basically serve as the fall guy. Maybe a few more people get cold feet in that situation. Maybe the GOP could have held Cao if he could have been the difference in stopping it. I suspect once it became clear it was going to pass they let him go. But if they needed his vote to stop it, things may have turned out differently.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.