Why are folks getting all worked up about someone conceding (or not conceding) an election? Conceding doesn't mean if the numbers change to your favor (because of fraud or cheating) you still wouldn't win the election, would it? It seems to me that conceding (or not) is irrelevant.
Comments (17)
sorted by:
It means that the one who lost concedes not only to the race but, also the validity of the election itself. No audit or investigation will happen. This is why it is such a big deal but, you already know this.
It means you are done....even if something happens to reveal that you actually won...you could concede a battle to win a war... In negotiations and at meditations you may give concessions in order to reach a deal...
Yes, see the recent SCOTUS ruling in regards to Ritter getting fucked in PA:
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/ritter-v-migliori-2/
Wrap your head around this one. Court rules that PA cheated Ritter out of his race. But they render the case moot. Why? Not because PA illegally installed his opponent [official reason given] but because Ritter foolishly conceded.
This.
conceding IS SURRENDER
understand yet?
It means you have no...
https://youtu.be/hjh7tj3f6M8
I think that conceding is a legal issue. If you concede and then you want to dispute the election, the judge will say you already conceded so its "MOOT."
I could be wrong. I am not an attorney. But that was my understanding. It's best to not concede if you think you may plan to dispute. It can never be used against you if you didn't concede. If you do concede it might come back to bite you. With our legal system, I am quite certain they would bite.
Yes. See Ritter v. Migliori.
There are legal ramifications at play when it comes to conceding.
The Demcorats playbook that they war gamed in 2020 was to not concede if their election steal did not work out.
President Trump has not conceded so far. And what will be interesting to see is if President Trump does announce a run for 2024 or not. That would be very telling.
I think conceding implies they're not going to pursue election fraud allegations
Because once you concede it doesnt matter. Some conceded before the totals were completed. If they do an audit and find the wrong person was chosen then it could be corrected still but not if you concede. Thats why people are upset over that. My own opinion anyone that conceded already is not the person you need for that job because they have no fight in them what so ever.
It's called weakness IMHO
Thanks folks - you've educated me. I didn't realize there were legal ramifications to conceding.
But, but...
"Fraud vitiates EVERYTHING"
??
Al Gore conceded the 2000 election to George Bush in a broadcasted phone call. Then took it back when the hanging chads and other election irregularities reared their heads. That election was decided by the Supreme Court. Gore's concession was never an issue.
The concession, in the strictly legal sense, didn't lose the election for Gore. Just because one says "I surrender" that doesn't absolve the opponent of his crime. But that's not how the courts see it... they render the case moot. Yes, it's completely illogical, but alas, the joke that is the "justice" system.
Gore cemented his loss because his public concession put him into a position from which he could never recover, and never win. He becomes the challenger, the claimed victim. Bush holds the high ground and can his supporters can paint Gore as a sore loser. Even if SCOTUS ruled in favor of Gore, half the country would consider the election stolen for Gore and never accept him as the legitimate winner. Bush. Gore. Didn't matter. Same result: a divided America.
What if a different investigation was to bring evidence to light in a race someone conceded? The bad guys couldn't scream election denier when it goes back.
One possibility, you might be on to something.