Posted on 11/12/2009 2:09:01 PM PST by American Dream 246
Al Gore conceded in 2000 before he took it back. Concessions are not binding. It’s not a resignation. It’s just an acknowledgement the count is unlikely to turn in your favor. You can choose to wait until every vote is counted if you like but most people prefer to get the unpleasantness of the losing speech out of the way and move on with their life.
What makes less sense is that Owens was sworn in before the vote was certified. I have doubts that is legal.
I don’t expect Hoffman to win. Most of the absentees were probably sent before he became a viable alternative. It’s possible they could have been sent late, mine always are. I don’t think most follow my pattern.
I did not say it. The Hoff campaign spokesman is quoted as saying this "For Doug to win, we needed a three-way race," Ryan said
I interpret this comment to mean that in a two way race, Doug loses which means he does not represent his district.
Even the New York Times has said that the Dems were out to create mischief in the 23rd from the get-go, with the selection of McHugh as Army Secretary.
“comes in second in a two-way race” I meant to say.
What? Are you calling me a democrat because I went to law school and understand how the law works?
________________________________________
Wow! You have got to be one of the most arrogant posters I have ever seen on this board!
Is there ever a thread where you don't give out your “HUGE” (your estimation) RESUME to throw your weight around here.
I mean really. I go away for a few days, and come back and click on some random thread and there of course is “Ye Old Deck Swami” bullying people around with his “big ‘ol resume”.
Give it a rest. Is that all you know how to do! I hate to break it to ya, but the fact that you are/were/morphed into a lawyer doesn't add much to your posts. (just in your own mind)
This would be thrice sweet for this year’s election night if this is true!
I’m sorry. I should have pinged you in the thread above.
#185 where I used your words to “ol deck lawyer” earlier in the thread.
(shhhh....I don’t want anyone else to overhear, but I think that demo-rat label might be right)
I know you’re referring to the rules of each house as to seating in the Constitution, but I believe the one SCOTUS precedent actually forced the House to admit Adam Clayton Powell. I can’t remember all of the reasoning. I think the Court said the governance of the house granted by the Constitution was not a plenary power that could be exercised in defiance of the will of the electorate. Burris actually cited the precedent when he threatened Senate Dems with a lawsuit earlier in this Congress.
In that district you must be very careful how you respond to the immigration question, because in many parts of the US there is nothing but illegal help in milking parlors — unless you’re Amish. That is prime NY dairy country and all the candidates probably took a very weaselly position. Sad, but true.
See, Bush v. Gore in 2000, for example.
I’m not going to put any blame on him for conceding early. There is something highly fishy going on in this race. Have you ever heard of a candidate “accidently” receiving zero votes in a district? That fact alone deserves an investigation.
I think "eligible" would make Obama's case different.
Watch it .. I think if you scratch Mojave deep enough you’re going to find a RON PAUL SUPPORTER..
Same goes with that other GOP FIRSTER flitting around here.
My thoughts exactly. I believe the days of honest and fair elections in this country are over
Why do you think the 'Rats are so fearless about ramming their fascist agenda down our throats? They know they now have enough election fraud machinery in place to guarantee their continued majority no matter what they do.
Oh sure, they'll let some of the "blue dogs" take one for the team for the sake of appearances, but overall, their agenda will not be stopped.
If the DemocRats snub the military yet again with blatant disregard, the Dems are all the more lost come 2010. They should know this - not every one of them is a mind-numbed Øbamabot.
>>> He can take back his concession. See Bush v. Gore...
Ahhh..... yes... that’s right... But what a sniveling little weasel that made of Gore.
Technically allowed, ethical bad form.
Everyone needs to stop being so defeatist, even if Hoffman doesn’t catch Owens in the recanvass.
1. The tightening of the vote will send chills down the spines of many nervous RATS
2. these same RATS will be less likely to vote for the health care monstrosity if a conference report ever takes shape
3. it makes the media look like fools and strengthens the talking points of the GOP and conservatives from coast to coast
4. Should there be a floor fight over unseating Owens, how do you think that will play in NY-23? If Pelosi refuses to seat the winner, Owens is toast next November. It’s a no-win for Owens, especially since he broke his pledge and voted for Pelosi-care. It also would give us a continued talking point on Democratic corruption.
5. It’s a distraction to Pelosi, Reid, the MSM. Every day that goes by with no cap-and-tax and no health care reform is a good day... gets us closer to 2010 midterms.
A change in the outcome is still unlikely.
However, I think that one county royally screwed up....and frankly I am concerned that it was so close there compared to the polls. That might mean the polls were putting him too far ahead compared to reality....or yet all the votes in that one county need to be counted again.
mw, you are making too much sense. Keep it up.
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.