Thursday, November 12, 2009

Did Hoffman Concede to Soon?

Several blogs are reporting that Conservative Doug Hoffman may have conceded the race in the 23rd Congressional District last week too soon!

Nice Deb reports:

The race will be decided by the 10,200 absentee ballots that were distributed, including thousands of military and overseas ballots.

As Jim Geraghty has noted, “it would be really tough to make up a 3,000-vote margin in a three-way race among 10,000 absentee ballots”.

But not impossible. Stay tuned.

My question. Why did Mr. Hoffman concede before all the ballots were counted? Was it because of inexperience in the political world?

Michelle Malkin weighs in:
…let it be a lesson to conservative challengers not to concede until the last ballot is counted.
The nation’s health may depend on it.

Hat Tips to all links above.

Article: Recanvassing shows NY-23 race tightens even as Rep. Bill Owens is sworn into House seat


GMpilot said...

This from the woman who scoffed at Al Gore's supporters eight years ago about the same thing?

What a difference an election makes!

Christinewjc said...

Sooooo...GM. Does this mean that you will vote for my site in the Weblog Awards? ;-)

What's that I hear over the blogosphere vibes?

yeah...when hell freezes over!

heh heh heh


It's funny that you mentioned Al Gore's supporters (it was 9 years ago, btw). Even with your new guy in office your lib loonies STILL can't get over the 2000 election!

The Dems hurried to swear in their guy Owens on Capital Hill. Maybe they knew all the votes weren't counted yet?


Kevin said...

Hi Christine--you state "Even with your new guy in office your lib loonies STILL can't get over the 2000 election!" I am not a 'lib looney' but maybe that is because the effects of that 'election' are still being felt today with two wars going on and a collapsed economy...He created quite the mess that is going to take years to clean up.

Christinewjc said...

Running out the door to attend an event. Will be back later to comment.

But Kevin - what you said about it being Bush's fault is incorrect.

Gary Baker said...

Hi Christine,

I agree with Kevin. The effects of the 2000 election are still being felt, or at least they were. The US military morale was improving until the PO decided that they weren't worth the effort it would take to make a decision to support them. And we were still a nation that had not had another Muslim terrorist attack on US soil, until the PO and his PC buddies made it clear that no criticism of Islam would be tolerated, even if the adherents were contacting terrorist organizations while wearing the uniform of the US armed forces. And the economy had remained reasonably stable despite the Dems best effort to undermine sound economic practices, at least until the PO had tripled the debt and introduced the concept of a no-stimulus stimulus.

Keep 'em coming Kevin and GM. I can keep this up as long as you can plus one entry more.

Keep up the good fight Christine.

Kevin said...

Hi Gary,
Christine just asked why we can't get over the election (which he didn't even carry the majority vote) and I answered. You don't like the answer, and that is o.k.

If you are referring to the recent murder as a terrorist attack, then I await to hear of all the planning that went into this 'terrorist' attack. You can't seriously compare what happened on 9/11 with a single guy murdering those people (it is horrible, but it wasn't the mass killing of thousands).
I won't comment too much on the economy. It was collapsing when Bush was in power. That wasn't Obama's fault. It is plain and simple.

By the way, neither one of us like having the second-to-the-last comment (in case you haven't noticed!). Going round and round on something is pointless, so I am happy giving you the last word--unless I want to respond (I hope you see the humor in the message I am sending you...).