[Captain Obvious]

The Dem ticket will have a press conference today at 10AM EST.
Should he just acknowledge he lost the election or challenge it?

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Captain Obvious:
The Dem ticket will have a press conference today at 10AM EST.
Should he just acknowledge he lost the election or challenge it?

He should challenge it so the WORLD will see an example of democracy at work, even when it's a heated race.

Also, if the Dems see that everything is fair and square, we'll ALL be better off.

[wataru]

I voted for Kerry, but I think it's pretty clear he has no chance at this point. I think he should just concede.

[CreepingDeth]

Originally posted by wataru:
I voted for Kerry, but I think it's pretty clear he has no chance at this point. I think he should just concede.

None.

[Millennium]

Let him. There's still a nonzero chance that he'll win anyway, and even if he does not, the winner will be much clearer than it was in 2000 or even right now.

[mixin visuals]

too many lawyers for him / them not to fight it

[Randman]

The lead in Ohio is just too large. The provisionals are going to have votes for both candidates, so it's near impossible for Kerry to win some 80% needed.
He should concede and we can get back to unifying the country.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Randman:
He should concede and we can get back to unifying the country.

Unification is crap. The US is a fractious, quarrelsome bunch, we always have been, and in fact we thrive on it. That doesn't mean it can't get out of hand -one need only go back to the Civil War to see a case where it did- but it's not at that stage, and doesn't need to get there.

But this isn't about unification anyway. That's not a goal which needs to be pursued. The only thing that needs to be pursued is civility, a virtue which has been sorely lacking on all sides as of late.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Unification is crap. The US is a fractious, quarrelsome bunch, we always have been, and in fact we thrive on it. That doesn't mean it can't get out of hand -one need only go back to the Civil War to see a case where it did- but it's not at that stage, and doesn't need to get there.

But this isn't about unification anyway. That's not a goal which needs to be pursued. The only thing that needs to be pursued is civility, a virtue which has been sorely lacking on all sides as of late.

AFAIK, when the whistle blows you do anything and everything you can, within the rules, to win. Once the game is over, you act like a human being.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Unification is crap. . . . But this isn't about unification anyway. That's not a goal which needs to be pursued. The only thing that needs to be pursued is civility, a virtue which has been sorely lacking on all sides as of late.

One of Kerry's major campaign themes was Uniting Americans for a Stronger America. Unfortunately, those are just words.

Face it, this is not like Florida 2000. The Ohio vote is really not in the balance, and there is no reasonable scenario where Kerry wins. I know the Democrats nominated Kerry because he has the reputation as a good closer, but the time for closing is gone. Now is the time for closure.

[Randman]

I'd be more impressed with Kerry if he gave in graciously rather than hold onto any mere scrap of hope and hold this entire thing up for any longer than it needs to be.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Face it, this is not like Florida 2000. The Ohio vote is really not in the balance, and there is no reasonable scenario where Kerry wins.

2000's election was far from a "reasonable situation" either; several coincidences came together in what can only be described as a freak outcome (and it would have been a freak outcome even if Gore had taken Florida; we quite literally had the nightmare scenario where ten cities basically controlled the popular vote and the rest of the nation be damned). Given that, I think a little extra caution this time makes sense. Let him have his recount, and if Bush wants another one after that then hell; let him have that one too. I would draw the line at one recount each, but let's get it completely out on the table, down on paper, in no uncertain terms. Part of the problem with the 2000 election was the lingering doubt in pretty much everyone's mind; we would do well to dispel that once and for all. I think you are correct, and that Bush has almost certainly won this election. I only ask to solidify it once and for all, turning "almost certainly" into "definitely". And if it turns out Kerry does take Ohio, then the time taken counting will have prevented a truly colossal error, and so it will be worth it in that case too.

Will it take time? Yes. But there is time. Each candidate should, for now, plan as if he had won outright so that when we do have a clear count as little time as possible will have been wasted. This is what Bush and Gore did in 2000, and it's what Bush and Kerry should do now.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Millennium:
2000's election was far from a "reasonable situation" either; several coincidences came together in what can only be described as a freak outcome (and it would have been a freak outcome even if Gore had taken Florida; we quite literally had the nightmare scenario where ten cities basically controlled the popular vote and the rest of the nation be damned). Given that, I think a little extra caution this time makes sense. Let him have his recount, and if Bush wants another one after that then hell; let him have that one too. I would draw the line at one recount each, but let's get it completely out on the table, down on paper, in no uncertain terms. Part of the problem with the 2000 election was the lingering doubt in pretty much everyone's mind; we would do well to dispel that once and for all. I think you are correct, and that Bush has almost certainly won this election. I only ask to solidify it once and for all, turning "almost certainly" into "definitely". And if it turns out Kerry does take Ohio, then the time taken counting will have prevented a truly colossal error, and so it will be worth it in that case too.

Will it take time? Yes. But there is time. Each candidate should, for now, plan as if he had won outright so that when we do have a clear count as little time as possible will have been wasted. This is what Bush and Gore did in 2000, and it's what Bush and Kerry should do now.

Kerry isn't doing a recount. It isn't close enough for that. He's waiting for provisional ballots to be counted. But that's a ridiculous long shot. A good chunk of those provisional ballots are provisional because the "voter" simply wasn't properly registered, or showed up in the wrong place. So those votes won't count.

Right now, Bush has a lead of about 140,000 in Ohio. The only way for Kerry to overcome that is for basically all the ballots to be deemed to be valid (unlikely) AND for basically all of them to be votes for Kerry, and not Bush. That's absurd. A lot of those ballots when counted will add to Bush's margin and there aren't enough of them to stand a reasonable chance of overcoming Bush's 3% lead in Ohio.

It's over, and it is pointless pretending otherwise.

[Joshua]

With 100% of the precincts reporting in, Bush leads Kerry in Ohio 2,794,346 to 2,658,125, a difference of 136,221. Assuming the Kerry campaign is correct and there are 250,000 provisional ballots, and assuming all of those ballots are legitimate (that's a big if), then Kerry has to get 193,111 of those provisional ballots, while Bush takes only 56,889, if he wants to win by 1 vote. In other words, Kerry would have to get 77.2% of the provisional ballots.

In his strongest county in Ohio -- Cuyahoga -- he only had 67% of the vote.

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Kerry isn't doing a recount. It isn't close enough for that. He's waiting for provisional ballots to be counted. But that's a ridiculous long shot. A good chunk of those provisional ballots are provisional because the "voter" simply wasn't properly registered, or showed up in the wrong place. So those votes won't count.

Right now, Bush has a lead of about 140,000 in Ohio. The only way for Kerry to overcome that is for basically all the ballots to be deemed to be valid (unlikely) AND for basically all of them to be votes for Kerry, and not Bush. That's absurd. A lot of those ballots when counted will add to Bush's margin and there aren't enough of them to stand a reasonable chance of overcoming Bush's 3% lead in Ohio.

It's over, and it is pointless pretending otherwise.

What about the absentee ballots? I know people from Ohio that only received their ballots on Monday. Have these been taken into account yet? Not that it's likely there are 100,000 Iowans overseas!

[Joshua]

Originally posted by Troll:
What about the absentee ballots? I know people from Ohio that only received their ballots on Monday. Have these been taken into account yet? Not that it's likely there are 100,000 Iowans overseas!

I believe Ohio's Secretary of State said that the absentee ballots had already been counted, but I haven't read anything that supports that claim.

[mitchell_pgh]

The reality is... those absentee ballots are for people that showed up for the wrong location or didn't register to vote... or are nut jobs from BOTH sides trying to sign up for the 2nd, 3rd or Nth time...

I guess Kerry has the right to wait until it's impossible. Who knows, perhaps 6 out of 7 of those provisional ballots will be accepted... and 6 out of 7 of those will end up going for Kerry.

P.S. Have they counted the absentee ballots?

[Joshua]

You can see the official number of outstanding provisional ballots in Ohio here. Right now the number (including Cuyahoga) is 135,149.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally posted by Troll:
What about the absentee ballots? I know people from Ohio that only received their ballots on Monday. Have these been taken into account yet? Not that it's likely there are 100,000 Iowans overseas!

There are a bunch in the military... and we know how they usually vote...

[GORDYmac]

He should concede.

[wataru]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
The reality is... those absentee ballots are for people that showed up for the wrong location or didn't register to vote... or are nut jobs from BOTH sides trying to sign up for the 2nd, 3rd or Nth time...

Absentee ballot != provisional ballot. I don't know what the official story is about the absentee ballots.

[Dakar]

I don't think Kerry should concede, not because I think he can win, but because I think its important that those who support him see that he lost legitimately and decisively. I think the United States can shoulder the burden of this inconvenience in the name of democracy.

[koogz]

Statistically Kery has lost; he is conceded, and should concede.

[OreoCookie]

Like in every election, he should wait till the official result is out, not earlier, not later.

[GORDYmac]

Originally posted by Dakar:
I think the United States can shoulder the burden of this inconvenience in the name of democracy.

But should Wall Street? Dragging this along uneccessarily will hurt the markets, according to yesterday's reports.

[lil'babykitten]

I'd say that it's pretty important to ensure all the votes are counted before anyone claims or concedes victory.

[Dakar]

Originally posted by GORDYmac:
But should Wall Street? Dragging this along uneccessarily will hurt the markets, according to yesterday's reports.

I would think they'll bounce back.

Is money more important than the perceived legitamacy of this election, especially after the hard feelings the last one gave us?

[wataru]

Originally posted by GORDYmac:
But should Wall Street? Dragging this along uneccessarily will hurt the markets, according to yesterday's reports.

W will make it up to the corporations. Don't worry.

Frankly, I think having a legitimate democracy is more important than making sure CEOs get a couple more bucks. Not that I think Kerry has a chance of winning or that he should drag this out; I just think The Market is not a good enough reason to concede.

[Randman]

Originally posted by Dakar:
Is money more important than the perceived legitamacy of this election, especially after the hard feelings the last one gave us?

Is clutching at straws going to mitigate the hard feelings from the last election? Kerry, like it or not, has lost. The popular vote is not even close in this case and the claims for provisional or recounts is illegal.

[Dakar]

Originally posted by Randman:
Is clutching at straws going to mitigate the hard feelings from the last election? Kerry, like it or not, has lost. The popular vote is not even close in this case and the claims for provisional or recounts is illegal.

You're missing my point. I don't see it as clutching at straws. It's seeing the process through. I'm not looking to change results. I'm looking to change minds.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Dakar:
I would think they'll bounce back.

Is money more important than the perceived legitamacy of this election, especially after the hard feelings the last one gave us?

This is going to be a decision that will be taken from Kerry if he waits. Conceding is a gracious move by a loser who can see the writing on the wall. The loser then concedes as a way of signalling to his supporters that it is time to bring closure to the election.

But certification is the formal step that the state takes. If the provisional ballots can decide the issue, then Ohio state law says they won't be counted for 11 days. But if the number of provisional ballots is smaller than the winning margin, the state can, and probably will, certify the winner as statistically certain. And they will do that whether the other candidate likes it or not. The problem is that if the candidate who cannot win keeps insisting for day after day after the election that he can win, the sudden and unwilling reversal can create unnecessary anger in his supporters. A responsible candidate has an obligation to be candid with his supporters and tell them when their chances are hopeless and it is time to move on.

[Mrjinglesusa]

It's over. Kerry should concede and I should change my sig. I am actually very surprised at the margin Bush won by. Apparently he was able to delude a lot of people he was good for this country.

[Dakar]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
This is going to be a decision that will be taken from Kerry if he waits. Conceding is a gracious move by a loser who can see the writing on the wall. The loser then concedes as a way of signalling to his supporters that it is time to bring closure to the election.

That would be very nice. I've had a thought rolling around in my head for a few days now, about a possible new topic, but I need to say what the next few days bring before I start it.

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
But certification is the formal step that the state takes. If the provisional ballots can decide the issue, then Ohio state law says they won't be counted for 11 days. But if the number of provisional ballots is smaller than the winning margin, the state can, and probably will, certify the winner as statistically certain. And they will do that whether the other candidate likes it or not.

I'd hope the candidate would acept it for what it is -- a legitimate ending to the process.

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The problem is that if the candidate who cannot win keeps insisting for day after day after the election that he can win, the sudden and unwilling reversal can create unnecessary anger in his supporters. A responsible candidate has an obligation to be candid with his supporters and tell them when their chances are hopeless and it is time to move on.

Its unfortunate politics has lost its code of ethics and conduct in the face of we must win and win at all costs tactics.

[Randman]

Originally posted by Dakar:
You're missing my point. I don't see it as clutching at straws. It's seeing the process through. I'm not looking to change results. I'm looking to change minds.

Then the mindset that you can sue to get what you want should be changed. There's no reasonable way Kerry can win. He should concede.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Dakar:
Its unfortunate politics has lost its code of ethics and conduct in the face of we must win and win at all costs tactics.

Yes, I have always believed that the soul of democracy is about losing elections, not about winning them.

If we forget that, it all begins to unravel.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Randman:
Is clutching at straws going to mitigate the hard feelings from the last election?

Actually, I think it'll go quite a ways towards doing exactly that. One of the most divisive things about Bush was perceived uncertainty about his election, and therefore legitimacy. That rift can be healed -even if just partially- by settling it this time, once and for all, in no uncertain terms. But this is the only chance we have to do that; he can't run a third time, so if it's not resolved now it never will be. Yes, it's time consuming, but it will be worth it.

[freakboy2]

why not double count everything.. are we in that much of a rush to get closure on the election? what difference does a week make?

double count everything and then the whole world will know that america really does support bush.

Why we support him is another question. Thank god at least in NY we are still rational.

fb

[ebuddy]

Ya know, I actually voted for Kerry to concede, but some really good points are being made for him to continue on a little here. We can in fact afford a couple of days. WallStreet has already acknowledged the winner, we need not be concerned about the markets. If this continuance helps the Democrat feel everything is on the up and up, I'm now in favor of dragging it out a little.

[Dakar]

Originally posted by Randman:
Then the mindset that you can sue to get what you want should be changed. There's no reasonable way Kerry can win. He should concede.

Again, you're not understanding me. By process, I don't mean suing. I mean waiting for all the votes to be counted (i.e., the provisionals).

Sheesh, I don't need generalizations this early after the election.

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Yes, I have always believed that the soul of democracy is about losing elections, not about winning them.

If we forget that, it all begins to unravel.

I think what you're basically pointing to is the lack of character. Very few politicians have it nowadays. Its usually a breath of fresh air when it does surface, however seldom it happens.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Dakar:
I think what you're basically pointing to is the lack of character. Very few politicians have it nowadays. Its usually a breath of fresh air when it does surface, however seldom it happens.

I was commenting more broadly than any individual candidate. I'm just saying that what makes democracy kind of magical is that people go into the elections with their passions aroused, a vote is held, and then the losers step aside and hands power over to people they just spent months demonizing. That all this takes place without violence is truly remarkable.

The problem is that is all held up by a myth in the power of an election. 2000 was something close to a myth-destroying disaster. I think we all have a responsibilty to make that the exception, not the norm. We need to restore the power of the myth.

[Dakar]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I'm just saying that what makes democracy kind of magical is that people go into the elections with their passions aroused, a vote is held, and then the losers step aside and hands power over to people they just spent months demonizing. That all this takes place without violence is truly remarkable.

It's probably my age, but I have trouble remembering whether that actually occurred in the past or if it was just my youthful perceptions.

Edit: I mean the magic aura thing.

[boots]

Originally posted by Dakar:

I think what you're basically pointing to is the lack of character. Very few politicians have it nowadays. Its usually a breath of fresh air when it does surface, however seldom it happens.

Probably because very few candidates can afford it. Only in a virtually uncontested race can the candidates afford to be human anymore. The win at all costs mentality is as close as I can come to isolating the biggest problem in politics now. It covers the money issues, the negative ads (smear ads, not ads that criticize voting record), all of it.



Kerry should concede. It's pretty clear that he won't win even when the process is formally done. If y'all are concerned about demonstrating the process, why don't you complain about all the other races that have been called with only 99% of precincts reporting? The process only matters when you have a vested interest in it?

[Dakar]

Originally posted by boots:
Probably because very few candidates can afford it. Only in a virtually uncontested race can the candidates afford to be human anymore. The win at all costs mentality is as close as I can come to isolating the biggest problem in politics now. It covers the money issues, the negative ads (smear ads, not ads that criticize voting record), all of it.

Yup.

Originally posted by boots:
Kerry should concede. It's pretty clear that he won't win even when the process is formally done. If y'all are concerned about demonstrating the process, why don't you complain about all the other races that have been called with only 99% of precincts reporting? The process only matters when you have a vested interest in it?

Let's be realistic. The concern is over the Presidential race, and the concern is over the very close states. Thats why the attention is there, and thats where the most care should be taken to show our system works. Fairly.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by boots:
Probably because very few candidates can afford it. Only in a virtually uncontested race can the candidates afford to be human anymore.

I wonder about that, actually.

Bush started the mudslinging this time around. It didn't really matter much by the end, because Kerry rose to the bait, but that's the timeline for you. Kerry seems to have tried to stay above that mess, but he got desperate and jumped in, more's the pity.

What would happen, I wonder, if a candidate actually stuck it out all the way through an election without slinging mud? While there would certainly be an initial drop in approval, perhaps eventually the integrity would kick in and drive a boost?

[Dakar]

Originally posted by Millennium:
I wonder about that, actually.

Bush started the mudslinging this time around. It didn't really matter much by the end, because Kerry rose to the bait, but that's the timeline for you. Kerry seems to have tried to stay above that mess, but he got desperate and jumped in, more's the pity.

What would happen, I wonder, if a candidate actually stuck it out all the way through an election without slinging mud? While there would certainly be an initial drop in approval, perhaps eventually the integrity would kick in and drive a boost?

I don't think so. If there's anything we've seen is that if you repeat something often enough, some people start to buy into it.

[boots]

Originally posted by Millennium:
I wonder about that, actually.

Bush started the mudslinging this time around. It didn't really matter much by the end, because Kerry rose to the bait, but that's the timeline for you. Kerry seems to have tried to stay above that mess, but he got desperate and jumped in, more's the pity.

What would happen, I wonder, if a candidate actually stuck it out all the way through an election without slinging mud? While there would certainly be an initial drop in approval, perhaps eventually the integrity would kick in and drive a boost?

One word: Mondale

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by Mrjinglesusa:
It's over. Kerry should concede and I should change my sig. I am actually very surprised at the margin Bush won by. Apparently he was able to delude a lot of people he was good for this country.

hello Mrjingle

my paypal account is> [email protected]