(10:45 ET) Kerry Needs to Concede

[russ_watters]

...before he ruins what's left of his career. The election was decided by midnight, but I could see waiting until this morning to do a concession speech (and just in case there is a major error discovered). But now its mid-morning and the Kerry camp has said little. What is he trying to accomplish?

Basically, Kerry has 3 options:

1. Concede and be dignified in defeat (not to mention, preserve the integrity of the electoral process).

2. Challenge Ohio - a difficult (impossible) task considering the margin is 140,000 votes (a lot more than Bush's ~1,000 vote margin in Florida in 2000).

3. Challenge several smaller states. The other states some people haven't called yet are New Mexico and Iowa. They look like they are going to go for Bush. Throw in Nevada and if Kerry challenged all 3 and won all 3, he'd win the election.

By not conceding, Kerry is being a sore loser and makes himself look bad. If he takes it further and challenges the election, he'll set a dangerous precedent. Gore had a legitimate basis for a challenge in 2000 - a 1,000 vote margin out of 5 million or so voters is .02%: a statistically insignificant margin. By challenging the outcome when he lost by a full 3 percent (140,000 out of 5.4 million votes) in Ohio, he'd be challenging not just the particulars of partially-punched paper ballots, but the democratic process itself. What separates western democracies from everyone else is a peaceful and orderly election process: Losers of elections accept it and step aside. If he doesn't concede soon, he'll be spitting on that process.

 

[Gokul43201]

I too think Kerry should call it a day, but it looks like Dems across the country are egging him on, lest he give up too soon "like Gore did" .

 

[russ_watters]

11:15 - Kerry has now apparently called Bush to concede. Formal speech at 1:00. I'm very interested to hear what he'll have to say...

 

[russ_watters]

I too think Kerry should call it a day, but it looks like Dems across the country are egging him on, lest he give up too soon "like Gore did" .

Maybe. I don't have that high of an opinion of Kerry though. I pictured him sitting in a meeting for the past 4 hours or so trying to figure out how to challenge the election and finally realizing he couldn't.

I don't have any ill-feelings for what Gore did in 2000. It was close enough to justify a challenge.

 

[Gokul43201]

What I heard on CNN was that (at about 3 in the morning ?) Kerry was ready to give his concession speech, but was convinced by others (especially folks like Bill Richardson, who thougtht Kerry had a chance in NM, NV) to hang on. So, instead, Edwards came out and gave the "hanging on" speech.

 

[russ_watters]

I may need to start a new thread on this, but I just heard something rather disturbing: Dan Rather said last night that the media outlets got together and decided prior to the election not to call it - meaning they'd wait until someone conceded before reporting who won. In fact, USA Today's website just 5 minutes ago (12:20pm) changed Ohio from gray (undecided) to red (Bush). Only NBC and Fox gave Ohio to Bush, at about 1:00 last night.

I can accept that this probably wasn't a liberal media bias issue (its still possible, I'll get to that...), but even if its just the media no wanting to look bad, its cowardly and wrong. Bush's margin in Ohio has been secure since midnight and the media's first and only duty is to reporting facts. At the very least, they were worried about how reporting the facts would make them look.

The cynic in me says there could be a more sinister reason: by not calling the election at midnight last night, the media gave the American people the impression it was closer than it really was, keeping Kerry's support up. They could have been preparing the way for a challenge to the election. Had they reported that it was decided, the public would have viewed Kerry as trying to challenge an already decided election - and the public would not have been behind him. It almost looks like the media was following Kerry's lead - ie, 'we'll spin this however you need us to to help you.'

 

[Gokul43201]

I think it's more about the media trying to make an extra buck. But if media companies "got together" to make a joint decision, wouldn't that be a violation of some watchamacallit FCC regulation in addition to some "fair trade" kind of law ??

 

[check]

*sigh* They're both losers.

 

[BobG]

You notice the two stations that did call Ohio for Bush were careful not to call Nevada or New Mexico for Bush, though. It was pretty obvious the stations were not going to put either candidate over the top if the contest was even remotely close.

 

[Gokul43201]

You notice the two stations that did call Ohio for Bush were careful not to call Nevada or New Mexico for Bush, though. It was pretty obvious the stations were not going to put either candidate over the top if the contest was even remotely close.

So what did Edwards just say ? I'm curious !

 

[BobG]

First line of his concession reiterated what he said early this morning. They were going to make sure every vote was counted. Then went on to say that even though this campaign was over, it didn't mean he was through fighting. He basically built on his two Americas speech that he'd be right by the side of Americans trying to reach the goal of one America. I'm not sure he even mentioned conceding this election. He pretty much left that to Kerry, who did make a decent concession speech (he did acknowledge Edwards by saying that he would try to ensure every vote was counted, but also said that there was no chance that the provisional ballots would overturn the results).