[Political Junkie Too]

I was going to post the same thing that TexasGurl24 said, which you did not address.

Concessions do matter.

If "concessions do matter," then why was Al Gore allowed to retract his concession. Shouldn't it have been "game over" once he conceded, and no amount of retraction would have mattered once he conceded?

-PJ

[Avalon Memories]

For the last time, concessions are PRECEDENT. In our country, they go back to what might be called the proto-concession when Jefferson conceded his likely loss to Adams. The first modern presidential concession occurred in 1896. Concessions are voluntary, but expected of a losing candidate. (Remember when the media was hyperventilating that Trump might refuse to concede if he lost?) So no one could "allow" Gore to withdraw his. His withdrawal was and remains unprecedented in presidential elections.

But again...the original point to which I responded is the claim that one possible outcome of the Bush v. Gore dustup is that Cheney could have become president. Not true under any circumstances except one. If something happens so a president-elect could not be inaugurated on Jan. 20, the vice president-elect becomes acting president.