I really want to agree with this, only because the waiting is so tortuous, but I’m gonna let the candidates, who spent the last year of their lives working very hard for this, make that call.
You’ve got to be kidding. *We don’t know* who won yet.
Fine. I concede.
von – do you think that’s going to help matters much? You’ve got a polarised country either way. Even had Kerry won.
With 3 States too close to call? I think not. And thank goodness it tells the world that Bush and his policies were not roundly approved. Try being an American abroad these days, not pretty.
Consession is a betrayal to all those whose votes have not yet been counted. Consession is for losers.
I agree with Tom. Even though it’s extremely highly unlikely that Kerry has carried Ohio, we ought to actually consider that a vote count is what’s fair and just to the Ohio voters.
I’m not sure he should conceed yet, though I haven’t heard all about the provisional situation. It strikes me that if the challenge process really were all just an evil Republican plot, the provisional ballots have an outside chance of being decisive. And we should resolve that issue before moving on.
Try being an American abroad these days, not pretty.
What do looks have to do with it?
Concede? No. If positions were reversed, do you honestly believe that Bush and the rest would concede? Would you urge them to then? If the answer’s no, then there’s really no fairness for calling on kerry to concede. Especially until all the votes are counted.
With 3 States too close to call?
Only one of which matters: Ohio. Where the margin is 130,000 votes.
Bush won the popular vote. It’s time to do the Nixon thing: Take a good look at what’s good for the country, and do what needs to be done. (You know you’ve entered bizarro world when you’re citing Nixon as your value paragon.)
What, you really think a graceful concession speech is going to heal US polity? I see the probability of that about equal with the probability of California seceding from the Union — not zero, but not high.
Take a good look at what’s good for the country, and do what needs to be done.
Von, I repeat – why do you think that’s going to be for the good of the country? Large amounts of the Left are not going to accept Bush. Large amounts of the Right wouldn’t have accepted Kerry. I don’t honestly see how dragging this one out makes matters any worse than they will be for the next four years anyway – and would have been, no matter who won.
Actually, Iowa only has one county that hasn’t fully reported. Bush currently has a 14k vote margin in the state, and that county only registered 4719 total votes for President in 2000, and it’s reported 60% of its precincts already.
Why Iowa hasn’t been called for Bush right now is an utter mystery.
New Mexico also ought to have been called long ago. Not that I care, really; Bush has this all but sewn up.
Kerry’s conceded; good on him. He can always unconcede later on, if it suits.
Kerry’s conceded; good on him. He can always unconcede later on, if it suits.
Now that would be a flip-flop 😉
It’s worth noting that Gore unconceded Florida in 2000, so I think concessions aren’t really all that binding.
How would a quick concession be good for the country? Would it help Bush be a “uniter” again? Is he gonna step up and heal those wounds anytime soon? We’ve a cartoonishly fractured electorate right now. How would cutting the vote short – and essentially implying that a crapload of provisional ballots don’t count – help anything?
nate – “If positions were reversed, do you honestly believe that Bush and the rest would concede?”
Yes I do. Don’t we have enough turmoil without just flat making it up?
I concede. I never really had a chance anyway, and my failure to actively campaign on my own behalf was a major mistake. The American people have spoken: they do not want a pseudonymous liberal blogger as their President. So be it.
Glad to see that Kerry took my advice.
On to Casey’s point: Von, I repeat – why do you think that’s going to be for the good of the country? Large amounts of the Left are not going to accept Bush. Large amounts of the Right wouldn’t have accepted Kerry. I don’t honestly see how dragging this one out makes matters any worse than they will be for the next four years anyway – and would have been, no matter who won.
Don’t conflate disapproval with illegitimacy. Many voters will always disapprove of Bush, but that’s a given in a democracy. What is uncommon and to be avaoid — for it was profoundly damaging the last time around — is the ghost of illegitimacy. Kerry’s concession exorcises that ghost.
Kerry’s concession exorcises that ghost.
I’m now beginning to have some positive regard for this Kerry fellow. Perhaps (and I mean this entirely in good-natured jest) he can perform a similar service in 2008.
Why Iowa hasn’t been called for Bush right now is an utter mystery.
They did the same thing in Wisconsin last night; don’t know why, but I suspect that in Iowa it boiled to them not being sure that all precincts had been reported correctly what with the voting machine breakdowns and all.
Perhaps (and I mean this entirely in good-natured jest) he can perform a similar service in 2008.
I’ll put money that that joke is too soon 😉
My apologies go out to those who didn’t think it was funny. Sometimes the tasteless jokes are the most effective, though.
Anyone who didn’t find it funny is too drunk to care. I for one am relieved that Kerry is no longer the best choice for President.
Amen, Sidereal. I’ll drink to that.
“exorcises that ghost”
This is merely the sequel to the 2000 “The Exorcist”.
This time I play the priest and I get to vomit the pea soup.
Blogbudsman: Yes I do. Don’t we have enough turmoil without just flat making it up?
Not making it up: after all, when Bush lost in 2000, he didn’t concede.
Not making it up: after all, when Bush lost in 2000, he didn’t concede.
*sniff* *sniff*
Yep, same old pile.
I didn’t see this post until just now, and I’m not sure what the situation was when it was made. But I could just scarcely disagree more with the idea that Kerry should have conceded when there was any reasonable doubt as to the ultimate outcome.
And it’s not just the rights of those Ohio voters who cast provisional ballots, either, although the right to vote has been held by the Supreme Court to be one of the “primary rights” assured by the Constitution, a conclusion that could scarcely be argued with. (And, of course, a right to vote isn’t really a right to vote if it doesn’t also entail a right to have your vote counted.)
But it’s also the rights of the 55 million people that voted for John Kerry yesterday to be given the courtesy of being allowed to create a slight imposition on the rest of the country in order to be sure that democracy actually works and that the President is actually elected in the manner prescribed by law. I don’t think it’s too much to trouble the voting officials of Ohio to do their statutory duty, and to trouble the 59 million who voted for Bush to just have a nice cup of tea and chill a bit while the President, who is after all already in office and has no transition to conduct, continues to go about the business of government while those votes are counted.
What’s the value at stake here, anyway? The time for delay is written right into the Constitution, and I dare say it’s there to account for the possibility of contested elections, which have occurred for as long as there have been elections. The next President will be inaugerated on January 20th–does it take so long to plan the party that we can’t wait until November 13th to make sure it’s the right guy?
Now if Kerry determined today, as I presume he did, that there was no reasonable chance he would prevail, it was appropriate for him to concede and to do so as quickly as reasonably possible. We shouldn’t leave the result hanging 11 days for a 1/1000 chance. But a 5% chance? You bet. What’s the rush?
blogbudsman – “Yes I do. Don’t we have enough turmoil without just flat making it up?”
You have much more faith in the integrity of Bush et. al. than I do, ovbiously. One can only hope you’re right, but I’m not holding my breath. And it’s irrelevant at this point I guess.
I really want to agree with this, only because the waiting is so tortuous, but I’m gonna let the candidates, who spent the last year of their lives working very hard for this, make that call.
You’ve got to be kidding. *We don’t know* who won yet.
Fine. I concede.
von – do you think that’s going to help matters much? You’ve got a polarised country either way. Even had Kerry won.
With 3 States too close to call? I think not. And thank goodness it tells the world that Bush and his policies were not roundly approved. Try being an American abroad these days, not pretty.
Consession is a betrayal to all those whose votes have not yet been counted. Consession is for losers.
I agree with Tom. Even though it’s extremely highly unlikely that Kerry has carried Ohio, we ought to actually consider that a vote count is what’s fair and just to the Ohio voters.
I’m not sure he should conceed yet, though I haven’t heard all about the provisional situation. It strikes me that if the challenge process really were all just an evil Republican plot, the provisional ballots have an outside chance of being decisive. And we should resolve that issue before moving on.
What do looks have to do with it?
Concede? No. If positions were reversed, do you honestly believe that Bush and the rest would concede? Would you urge them to then? If the answer’s no, then there’s really no fairness for calling on kerry to concede. Especially until all the votes are counted.
With 3 States too close to call?
Only one of which matters: Ohio. Where the margin is 130,000 votes.
Bush won the popular vote. It’s time to do the Nixon thing: Take a good look at what’s good for the country, and do what needs to be done. (You know you’ve entered bizarro world when you’re citing Nixon as your value paragon.)
What, you really think a graceful concession speech is going to heal US polity? I see the probability of that about equal with the probability of California seceding from the Union — not zero, but not high.
AP: Kerry called Bush to concede
Why?
Take a good look at what’s good for the country, and do what needs to be done.
Von, I repeat – why do you think that’s going to be for the good of the country? Large amounts of the Left are not going to accept Bush. Large amounts of the Right wouldn’t have accepted Kerry. I don’t honestly see how dragging this one out makes matters any worse than they will be for the next four years anyway – and would have been, no matter who won.
Actually, Iowa only has one county that hasn’t fully reported. Bush currently has a 14k vote margin in the state, and that county only registered 4719 total votes for President in 2000, and it’s reported 60% of its precincts already.
Why Iowa hasn’t been called for Bush right now is an utter mystery.
New Mexico also ought to have been called long ago. Not that I care, really; Bush has this all but sewn up.
Kerry’s conceded; good on him. He can always unconcede later on, if it suits.
Kerry’s conceded; good on him. He can always unconcede later on, if it suits.
Now that would be a flip-flop 😉
It’s worth noting that Gore unconceded Florida in 2000, so I think concessions aren’t really all that binding.
How would a quick concession be good for the country? Would it help Bush be a “uniter” again? Is he gonna step up and heal those wounds anytime soon? We’ve a cartoonishly fractured electorate right now. How would cutting the vote short – and essentially implying that a crapload of provisional ballots don’t count – help anything?
nate – “If positions were reversed, do you honestly believe that Bush and the rest would concede?”
Yes I do. Don’t we have enough turmoil without just flat making it up?
I concede. I never really had a chance anyway, and my failure to actively campaign on my own behalf was a major mistake. The American people have spoken: they do not want a pseudonymous liberal blogger as their President. So be it.
Glad to see that Kerry took my advice.
On to Casey’s point:
Von, I repeat – why do you think that’s going to be for the good of the country? Large amounts of the Left are not going to accept Bush. Large amounts of the Right wouldn’t have accepted Kerry. I don’t honestly see how dragging this one out makes matters any worse than they will be for the next four years anyway – and would have been, no matter who won.
Don’t conflate disapproval with illegitimacy. Many voters will always disapprove of Bush, but that’s a given in a democracy. What is uncommon and to be avaoid — for it was profoundly damaging the last time around — is the ghost of illegitimacy. Kerry’s concession exorcises that ghost.
I’m now beginning to have some positive regard for this Kerry fellow. Perhaps (and I mean this entirely in good-natured jest) he can perform a similar service in 2008.
Why Iowa hasn’t been called for Bush right now is an utter mystery.
They did the same thing in Wisconsin last night; don’t know why, but I suspect that in Iowa it boiled to them not being sure that all precincts had been reported correctly what with the voting machine breakdowns and all.
Perhaps (and I mean this entirely in good-natured jest) he can perform a similar service in 2008.
I’ll put money that that joke is too soon 😉
My apologies go out to those who didn’t think it was funny. Sometimes the tasteless jokes are the most effective, though.
Anyone who didn’t find it funny is too drunk to care. I for one am relieved that Kerry is no longer the best choice for President.
Amen, Sidereal. I’ll drink to that.
“exorcises that ghost”
This is merely the sequel to the 2000 “The Exorcist”.
This time I play the priest and I get to vomit the pea soup.
Blogbudsman: Yes I do. Don’t we have enough turmoil without just flat making it up?
Not making it up: after all, when Bush lost in 2000, he didn’t concede.
*sniff* *sniff*
Yep, same old pile.
I didn’t see this post until just now, and I’m not sure what the situation was when it was made. But I could just scarcely disagree more with the idea that Kerry should have conceded when there was any reasonable doubt as to the ultimate outcome.
And it’s not just the rights of those Ohio voters who cast provisional ballots, either, although the right to vote has been held by the Supreme Court to be one of the “primary rights” assured by the Constitution, a conclusion that could scarcely be argued with. (And, of course, a right to vote isn’t really a right to vote if it doesn’t also entail a right to have your vote counted.)
But it’s also the rights of the 55 million people that voted for John Kerry yesterday to be given the courtesy of being allowed to create a slight imposition on the rest of the country in order to be sure that democracy actually works and that the President is actually elected in the manner prescribed by law. I don’t think it’s too much to trouble the voting officials of Ohio to do their statutory duty, and to trouble the 59 million who voted for Bush to just have a nice cup of tea and chill a bit while the President, who is after all already in office and has no transition to conduct, continues to go about the business of government while those votes are counted.
What’s the value at stake here, anyway? The time for delay is written right into the Constitution, and I dare say it’s there to account for the possibility of contested elections, which have occurred for as long as there have been elections. The next President will be inaugerated on January 20th–does it take so long to plan the party that we can’t wait until November 13th to make sure it’s the right guy?
Now if Kerry determined today, as I presume he did, that there was no reasonable chance he would prevail, it was appropriate for him to concede and to do so as quickly as reasonably possible. We shouldn’t leave the result hanging 11 days for a 1/1000 chance. But a 5% chance? You bet. What’s the rush?
blogbudsman – “Yes I do. Don’t we have enough turmoil without just flat making it up?”
You have much more faith in the integrity of Bush et. al. than I do, ovbiously. One can only hope you’re right, but I’m not holding my breath. And it’s irrelevant at this point I guess.