A question about “conceding”. There’s a lot of discussion most years over whether the loser should have conceded or not.
Gore conceded, but then changed his mind and it was a big deal.
Obama told PIAPS to concede, and everyone waited for that.
Didn’t Nixon concede to Kennedy, even though he knew there was fraud?
Now PIAPS is telling Traitor Joe not to concede under any circumstances.
Is a loser’s concession required by law to make a winner official? Can’t the obvious winner just say, “Screw you. I won. Concede if you want, but I don’t care.”?
Stacy Abrams never conceded her race in GA. It just made her look ridiculous.
No.
They can squall and kick and tantrum like a small child, it makes no difference.
“Didn’t Nixon concede to Kennedy, even though he knew there was fraud?”
There was a question of fraud in Illinois but Kennedy won the EC vote by a substantial margin so even if a recount in Illinois gave Nixon that State it would have made no difference.
It's not what the candidate says, it's what the Electoral College says.
-PJ
Neither. A candidate admitting he/she lost and a candidate claiming victory on Election Night means nothing. The decision is officially rendered on December 14th when the electors meet in each state and vote.
The reason candidates give concession speeches is to be gracious to the apparent victor but really, the losing candidate normally just wants to get the hell out of there and take a long beach vacation.