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.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (17)
sorted by:
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.