Slate helpfully explains that concession speeches are not legally binding.
In the unlikely event that Kerry was to overcome a 136,000 vote deficit in Ohio he would become President.
I think it a safe prediction that if this unlikely event was to transpire George Bush would not take it well.
Now, as it happens I have seen with my own eyes a concession speech on the night followed by a surprise reversal of the results and much petulance.
Way back in 1990 when the Labour Party got swept from office (losing nearly half the seats they held) in New Zealand the incumbent member for Wellington Central was behind by about 400 votes on election night. Historically the "special votes" (absentee and provisional) have skewed to the National Party about 60% to Labour's 40%, especially in well-off districts like that one. And with only about 2000 special votes expected the chances of reversing a sizeable on-the-night-lead were slim.
Amazingly enough, when the final results came out they showed a 700 vote turn-around from the on-the-night results, giving the incumbent the seat by around 300 votes.
A display of petulance and misunderstanding about the political process I have not seen before or since ensued. For years after the challenger would claim that she was "elected on the night," and that she was the member for 10 days. It sounds plausible enough ...
Except that it's like claiming that if you lead from the top of the first to the bottom of the 8th, and then lose it in the 9th, that you won because you lead most of the game.
As the former owner of the Texas Rangers, if Bush should unexpectedly lose in the 9th inning in Ohio I expect he'll take the result gracefully ...
Posted by robe0419 at November 4, 2004 10:07 AM | TrackBack