Asymmetrical Information

Pressure Allen to concede. Show America that your party cares enough about the country not to put it through a gruelling and pointless legal battle. The comparison to Gore's 2000 campaign will serve you well in 2008.

No, it won't. The GOP can play nice now all it wants, but their charity will be greeted by the Dems in '08 with a kick in the teeth -- as well it should be, since they'd do the same if the situation was reversed.

Look for plenty of legal challenges, not just in this election, but in every important election, forever. Once the lawyers are in the room, there's no way to get them out. No close election will ever be completely over ever again.

Counting on the other side to be nice to you tomorrow because you're nice to them today is like expecting a bull not to charge because you're a vegetarian.

I wouldn't expect you to count on the charity of the Democratic party. I was referring to the moderates, who I think were sickened by the spectacle of 2006. Let Allen concede generously, "For the good of America"; have every Republican who can get camera time congratulate him on his magnanimous decision to put patriotism before politics or personal political gain. It's electoral gold, my friend.

You're forgetting absentee ballots, which aren't usually counted unless they might make a difference. With all the military in Virginia, I would be surprised if Allen still couldn't pull out a win.

Allen shouldn't concede. We have lots of time to figure out who won. Under Viginia law victories with 1% or less get a state paid recount. Let the re-count happen. I thought the calls for Gore to concede were foolish as well. Presidential elections are held in November - he doesn't take off until January which is plenty of time to figure things out. I never understood the need to know immediately. Count the votes and if it's too close - recount them. It the way democracy works.

Jane,

So what you're saying is that republicans should reward democrats for filing legal challenges?

Why not have the democrat concede the election "for the good of the country", if not having recounts is so damn important.

Wishful thinking on Allen winning. Webb's going to do a lot better with military votes than most Democrats do because he's a Marine, and former Reagan administration official and not all that liberal. Plus its not at all clear that they havent' counted absentee ballots yet, given the closness of this race. Allen ran such a god awful race that I doubt the absentee ballots, even if there are techinically enough oustanding, will change the race.

I have no strong preference between Allen and Webb, but usually lean Republican--but I do not think Allen should concede until absentee votes are counted, because VA has so many, and so heavily Republican, absentees. (Due to all the military bases.) And further, there will be a recount EVEN IF Allen concedes.

I think it funny that you can immediately think the absentee ballots are going Allen's way. Webb was a Marine and a former REAGAN administration official. He's not liberal at all. I can easily see him out polling Allen (I wear cowboy boots in Virginia! I must be real! I like the Confederacy in High School in Southern California!). No offense but it's good for the GOP to find out that Allen would have so many unforced errors before 2008.

Gotta disagree, Jane.

I don't want to see Allen put up a fight, either, but I have never heard a swing voter mention that they weren't voting for X because of the way James Carville or Lee Atwater ran campaigns years ago.

I'm not saying those people don't exist, I'm saying they don't add up to a whole lot.

The cleanest campaign I can recall is the 84 election ("Morning in America"). And to be honest, (my comment name not withstanding) 'The Ronz' was so far ahead of Mondale that he could afford to run a clean campaign.

For Allen to concede now would be like a football team conceding when they are 1 point down, have the ball, with two minutes to play.

The count hasn't even finished. As I understand it, there are still a significant number of absentee ballots to be counted -- and those often are cast differently from other ballots. I can not understand why you do not want to wait for a full count, given how close the race is.

And we do not know whether there was fraud in Virginia; or rather we do not know whether there was enough fraud to tip the balance. There ie always a certain number of fraudulent votes in any large election. And it generally benefits Democrats.

(Fraudulent ballots certainly tipped the balance in the 2004 gubernatorial race here in 2004 and probably tipped the balance in the 2000 Washington senatorial race)

I can not understand why you are unwilling to wait for a complete count of the ballots, given how close the margin is.

Jane, the recount is automatically permitted by law and is simply a ministerial checking of the numbers. There are no lawyers and no challenges to particular ballots. A legal challenge would happen after the recount, and will not happen if Webb is ahead.

I agree that things like poll monitors and legal challenges of elections are terrible things, but this isn't that. I don't see the big deal about having the Virginia secretary of state's office check its arithmetic as allowed under statute.

But the fundamental fact is that Webb is now a Democrat, so despite what he personally believes in, or what his past history has shown, he will vote the democratic party line. Look what happened to Lieberman in the presidential election race--he was a moderate democrat before he got the nomination for VP, but as soon as he was the candidate, he had to repudiate all of his moderate positions in favor of the far left.

I think that the military voters are smart enough to know that the democrats vote in lockstep more than the republicans and therefore choose who to vote for accordingly.

Jane-

Allen should let the recount proceed, but I agree with you that if he still several thousand votes behind, he should not take it to court.

Virginia is pretty accurate, so I would expect a swing of only 500 votes max anyway.

Jay

You forget that Gore did concede at some point. There is always a next step that can be taken, which you can see from the Mexican election. Gore persisted because of pressure from his party and finally conceded in spite of it.

It wasn't that Gore didn't concede.

It was that he conceded and then called 'DO OVER!'.

It wasn't the recount.

It was 'COUNT ALL THE VOTES!(unless they might favor the Republicans, or come from Republican-dominated counties, or can't be manhandled by Democrat election officals first)'.

Gore lost in the highest court in the land. What further steps were there, besides armed insurrection? And we know which party has the military . . .

Give it up on Allen folks. One, there isn't a huge pile of absentee ballots out there. They started counting them last night and Webb's lead INCREASED. And there' very little reason to believe that Allen will do significantly better when they count what ballots remain, if any. The absentee ballots were likely cast in the past couple of weeks, when Allen lost it in the polls. Plus, You can't discount the fact that Webb isn't your typical Democrat. The mere fact that he is a Marine will get him more votes from military absentee votes than your average Democrat will. Allen looks like toast.

It seems like a double-standard.

Gore's party insisted on three recounts; tried to prevent military
absentee ballots from being counted; tried to bar republican poll
watchers from witnessing the recounts; came up with various ingenious
schemes to alter the count by invalidating Bush ballots and creating
Gore ballots by assuming ambiguous ballots were intended for Gore.

In their attempt to win the recounts they increased racial divisions
(not that this feature hadn't already present in Gore's campaign).

And last but not least, Florida's Supreme Court, overwhelmingly
of the Democratic persuasion, distinguished itself with a transparent
farce of a judgement that contradicted its own prior rulings, not to
mention logic and any sense of morality.

I think what happened six years ago should be remembered and not glossed
over.

Mark,

And Allen's party was busy chanting "Get over it" and "Get out of Cheney's House" and waiving Sore Loserman signs when Gore appeared to have lost a much more important election by a much smaller margin. Double standard indeed.

The Gore and Allen situations are not very similar since the margins of defeat are not very similar (they are a magnitude different).

Allen should concede. The overseas absentees are not going to be numerous enough to overcome Webb's edge.

Allen's political career is now at an end, and this is a good thing for the Republican Party.

Eamon,

Do you really think I objected to Gore asking for a recount?

The point is that's not what Gore did.

"but as soon as he was the candidate, he had to repudiate all of his moderate positions in favor of the far left."

Exactly how did he do this? Lieberman is one the most consistent guys you are going to find in politics. Name one position where he repudiated his moderate positions in favor of the far left. Also please define "far left" for me as I want to make sure we have the same understanding of the term.

Brian Despain is correct-Lieberman is one of the few politicians without his finger in the wind. Ironically, it is exactly this consistency, and refusal to back down that allowed him to win yesterday.

Mark - and the Brooks brothers riots were all peaches and cream. No offense but Gore wasn't elected president.

"And last but not least, Florida's Supreme Court, overwhelmingly
of the Democratic persuasion, distinguished itself with a transparent
farce of a judgement that contradicted its own prior rulings, not to
mention logic and any sense of morality."

And so the Supreme Court stepped in and issued a far more asinine ruling. Please how about a few facts here instead of Al Gore was trying to steal the election nonsense we have heard from the far right.

1. He wasn't attempting to "prevent tried to prevent military
absentee ballots from being counted." That's not true at all. They were areguing that ballots that didn't bear a postmark or were postmarked by the wrong date shouldn't be counted. No offense but if you forget to vote and then request a ballot after the election, you aren't going to get to vote.

"I think what happened six years ago should be remembered and not glossed
over."

Well as I remember we never got a full recount in Florida and the Supreme COurt installed George Bush as president.

As a reminder - Al Gore had about a million vote lead over George Bush in the popular vote, remember? Demanding recounts in Democratic strongholds was a mistake. He should have demanded an immediate state wide recount. As you may remember neither party did that and Katherine Harris (whom the GOP has now certified as a loon) call the election for Bush. Florida had a lot of things wrong with it on both sides of the aisle.

BrianOh Brian,

You're so human. How do I deal with you?

You think labeling someone "far right" is an argument?

Plainly you do. It's how you think. You think that's
a profound statement. And this is how you reason;
There isn't any more complexity to it.

To you I am the enemy; I am evil.

That is your thinking, that is what's in your heart.

I'm the enemy tribe and you can't hear what I'm saying.

You can't imagine there be anything there. And if there
was you sure don't want to know.

Arguments require substantiation and facts. You said this,

"And last but not least, Florida's Supreme Court, overwhelmingly
of the Democratic persuasion, distinguished itself with a transparent
farce of a judgement that contradicted its own prior rulings, not to
mention logic and any sense of morality.""

without a single substantiating fact or even a suppporting ruling. Did I call you evil? Let me see. Nope.

When one party make wild claims like that - namely you, the oneous is on you to support the claim.

"You think labeling someone "far right" is an argument?

Plainly you do. It's how you think. You think that's
a profound statement. And this is how you reason;
There isn't any more complexity to it. "

I assume your continued personal attacks are because you are unable to find any supporting documentation. Here's what I said, "election nonsense we have heard from the far right."

I didn't call you far right but the argument is from the far right and something you might read in Free Republic.

I reason fairly well and when I make a point I try to support it with facts or at least supporting contentions.

The BrianOhBrian is oh so condescending. Silly Brian you are just irrational.

When people make arguments like you have without any supporting factual data exactly what am I supposed to listen to? Your opinion?

I gather you didn't like the Florida ruling although you don't actually state the legal foundations for your argument. Well Bush V. Gore was unbelievably poorly reasoned legal decision as well and one of the more tortured equal protection arguments I have ever read. That said, the decision stands and President Bush was elected. Four years later the Democrats decided to run Senator Mushmouth.

Mark you cannot recyled things from LFG or Free Republic and expect them to get a free pass here. The discourse tends to run at a higher level here.

Yancy, the main thing that enabled Lieberman to win was the lack of a credible republican candidate. If the GOP nominee were capable of getting about 20% of the vote, we would be congratulating Senator-Elect Lamont this morning.

Brian,

So I'm supposed to remember details from six years ago? What I remember are impressions, such as being disappointed that Lieberman changed his position on various items after being nominated, and I remember telling my wife that. But I don't remember the details.

As for the Florida ruling, I read the entire case, and it sure seemed to me that the Florida judges were pulling the decision out of a hat. The dissent's position made sense, both logically and legally, while the majority's position did not. The Supreme Court's decision (Bush v. Gore) was not the worst Supreme Court decision I've read, nor was it the best. It certainly didn't meet your description of being poorly reasoned or a tortured argument. What I found significant was that 7 justices felt that equal protection had been violated, but only 5 of the 7 could agree on a remedy. Opinions that are decided 7-2 give a much stronger sense that there really was something to the argument after all than do 5-4 opinions, which that one wasn't.

Lieberman is moderately left; Gore is far left. Is that enough of a definition for you?

Oh, and on the absentee ballot thing. The Democrats insisted on invalidating military absentee ballots for lack of technical compliance with postmarks, even though the ballots had already been received BEFORE election day.

I do like these press releases though:

Burns press release, 11/28/2000:

On November 28, 2000, when the Florida election results were certified, Conrad Burns said Gore "appears more and more like a man who wants to win at any cost." Burns added, "It is time, as some have said, for Vice President Gore to stop being a litigant and start being a Patriot. The good of our nation is greater than any one man, and it is time for Mr. Gore to end these challenges and bow out gracefully."

More Burns in the 11/30/2000 Great Falls Tribune:

At the end of November 2000, Conrad Burns said he would like to see an end to Gore's legal efforts in Florida. Burns said, "Mr. Gore should step aside and let the Bush team begin its orderly transition to the presidency."

And Allen on the Today show 11/8/2000:

The morning after Election Day 2000, when Florida was counting absentee ballots, George Allen said, "we'll need to move America forward as soon as those votes are cast."

On the other hand, if the elections was this close and I were either Burns or Allan (Hey! Burns and Allan! I just got that!) I probably would contest the election as well. And for Allan at least it's free...not to the taxpayers or anything, but still, free for him.

Brian:

My recollection is that there was a mandatory (by Florida statute) statewide recount in Florida in the first couple of days. That recount reduced the margin, and that was what encouraged Gore to start requesting cherry-picked recounts.

But 6 years ago was a long time, so I may be misremembering.

Personally, I've got no problem with following the various procedures called for by statute. If that includes recounts, then go ahead but once you've exhausted the statutory process, it's decidedly damaging to start requesting judges to define a new process.

Eamon,

And if the Democrats had put up a strong candidate, Lieberman would not have taken about 30% of the Democratic vote. Without his steadfastness, Lieberman wouldn't have pulled much of the Republican vote from the candidate who, this morning, said they "tossed me under the bus". Republicans here in CT don't support the war in Iraq either.

I'm a liberal, and still annoyed (no longer angry) about how Bush won in 2000. Nevertheless, Allen should not concede until it is clear that he has lost. I don't see the logic to this notion that elections, whether in Florida or in Virginia, should be determined by something other than the votes. I don't care whether a network "calls" a winner or which candidate concedes first. All that matters is the vote count. If there is the slimmest possiblity that Allen could eke-out a one-vote victory, he should hang in there.

But I still want him to lose.

Yancy,

The only reason Lieberman got that much of the GOP vote was because their candidate was so pathetic that the national and state parties didn't even give him token support. Most major paraty candidates can muster at least 25% of the vote simply by not being the other guy. Lieberman's past GOP foes had been able to do this.

I'll say the same thing here as I said about Florida in 2000 - in a tight race like this, the proper procedure is to have ONE recount. No more, no less. Crack all the ballot boxes in the state, and have them gone over with a fine-tooth comb. Will it change anything? Probably not - it usually doesn't. But it needs to be done nontheless. And then both sides need to accept that result, whatever it shows. And 7000 votes out of over 2 million votes cast is certainly close enough for a recount.

There are no grounds for legal challenges, as far as I know, but when it's that close Allen--and the people who voted for him--are entitled to a recount. It's like going to instant replay on a close call in a game, just in case the officials missed something.

Yancey - 57% of Connecticut voters voted for pro-war candidates. Republicans voted for Lieberman rather than their man because they knew there was no chance their guy would win, and having a pro-war liberal was better than an anti-war leftist.

Al Gore far left? Rex - Answar is far left. Al Gore is a moderate LOC by most everyone else's definition. His wife helped institute the music lyrics rating system!

SG - I agree going to the courts is always a bad idea in a democracy for settling elections. It always leave bad blood for someone.

Rex - A Ballot without a postmark? No offense but where did it come from? The provence of such ballot would be called into question to my mind.
"Brian,

So I'm supposed to remember details from six years ago? What I remember are impressions, such as being disappointed that Lieberman changed his position on various items after being nominated, and I remember telling my wife that. But I don't remember the details. "

Well you are when you point is that he has changed his positions. Joe Lieberman has been one of the steadiest Senators in terms of values. He has a consistent ste of values so his positions don't change in the political wind. This cost him the Democratic nomination but assured his final victory yesterday. I am a big Joe Lieberman fan.

As my first comment said - Allen should hang in and get a re-count. It's far too close not to recount. These elections are held in fall for a reason so these issues can be sorted out. Plenty of time to re-count and even re-count again. BTW I am hoping that Allen will lose but there is no need to call for concessions right now. If he decides to go to the courts in two weeks I will sing a different tune.

Brian: I'm a little late to the party, but one of the positions Lieberman consistently held as Senator and then repudiated when Gore picked him was support for low-income school voucher programs.

I darn near threw up when I saw a speech (or was it debate?) and Lieberman denounced school vouchers. In fact, that switch was what made me pull the lever for Bush in 2000. I couldn't stomach the fact that Lieberman did that.

I, too, thought he was a stand-up guy. And perhaps he is. But not so much that he wouldn't back Gore's policies 100% on the stump so he had a shot at being Veep. I know it's the reality of modern Dem politics that the line has to be toed with the appropriate amount of fanaticism, but sheesh - he was running for Veep!

I'll see if I can dig up an old link somewhere.

As for concessions for the good of America: Please recall that Nixon conceded to Kennedy when there was good reason for him to not. That was the model everyone on the Right was expecting Gore to follow in 2000. He obviously didn't. So, the precedent has been set, and the country can now reap what has been sown.

It may also be good to remember the ranting on the Left side of American politics about how the last election was stolen, the Rethuglicans were going to steal this one, etc. etc. etc. It's a little late to be asking Allen to graciously END his political career (as much as he deserves to be sidelined) when the Left has set up this environment.

Interestingly, I don't hear anyone on the Left complaining that the machines unfairly gave them the election. With all those close results and the problems with machines in Pennsylvania, I wonder why not?

There's a tremendous gap between waiting for the (FIRST!) count of absentee ballots to come in, and doing what Gore did from November of 2000 until November of 2004. Allen isn't demanding that ballots be inspected by party volunteers or precincts recounted selectively...he isn't even demanding a recount at all, although apparently one will happen automatically under VA election law.

The absentee ballots are, in a rare circumstance of history, enough to swing the election. It is thus entirely right and proper to not call it until they've been counted...especially when there's substantial cause to believe that they will be disproportionately weighted to one side...as is the case when there are lots of servicemen stationed overseas, like now.

Since nobody else has asked: You say you have family reasons, Jane, for wanting a Democratic Senate? And they would be ... ?

Another Leiberman switch was on affirmative action: kowtowing to Maxine Waters, "Mend it, but please, don't end it!"

"Aww, geez, not this sh*t again!"

Steven,

Nixon's reason for conceding had nothing to do with honor. The man was devoid of it. It was because his side has its own illegalities in other parts of Illinois that would have been uncovered and would have ruined his career. Also, winning Illinois would not have won the presidency for Nixon. Its one of the biggest urban legands out there, politics wise. Republicans weren't expecting Gore to follow any model. They just wanted it over when it was pretty clear that Bush was not actually the victor.

"They just wanted it over when it was pretty clear that Bush was not actually the victor."

Except that Bush was the actual victor, as found by the independent audits done by the newpaper consortium after the dust had settled.

BTW, that's a quaint re-reading of the history of Nixon's concession.

Gore, like Nixon, is singularly lacking in honor. He and his lefty advisors put their desire for power over the good of the country. And why would anyone view this as being unusual? Undermining democratic processes has been part of the left's play book for years. So America reaps what the left has sown.

It was well documented that a number of smaller ships did not have true postal facilities, so mail often entered the Fleet Post Office system without being postmarked. The thinking at the time was that most absentee ballots would be from servicemen, so those were the ballots that the Dems wanted to toss out. Later studies have shown that absentee ballots, in general, pretty well reflect the percentages of the rest of the voting population.

Bush and Pelosi Sell-Out Middle Clasc
By Krissah Williams
Washington Post Staff Writer

Immigrant workers are sending more money than ever to their families in Latin America, but two new studies show that only a small portion of the billions of dollars directed there has gone to economic development.

A report released yesterday by the Inter-American Development Bank estimates that immigrants living in the United States will send $45 billion to family members this year, representing a steady increase from about $2 billion in 1980.

Are we not draining our economy with illegal immigrants and work visa programs that promote the sucking sound of U.S. dollars to Mexico and Latin America? Are we not enabling the ruling class of Countries like Mexico to abuse their people by promoting unregulated cheap labor to flow in our Country, while they send the money back home?

When Congress and the President talk about Immigration reform, what about the trade deals that destroy working class people in all the Countries and create this race to the bottom? If we merely legalize cheap labor ( work visa program) through Immigration reform that Bush and Pelosi are working on together, this will be one more nail in the coffin for workers and small business.

Well Jane, it looks as if you got your wish. Congrats.

Jane-

You called it- good job!

Steven,

The Consortium did NOT find that Bush was the winner. It actually found that depending on what standard was applied, either Gore or Bush would have won.

Please recall that Nixon conceded to Kennedy when there was good reason for him to not.

Urban legend. Nixon was itching to keep fighting the battle. And even if he'd won in Illinois, which is doubtful, he still lacked the EV to become President.

Senator Macaca has gone back to the plantation.

Now that Allen has conceded, can we put to rest the silly notion that Republicans would be just as bad at accepting a close electoral loss as the Democrats if the tables were reversed?

I'm not a Republican, but you'd have to blind not to have noticed the profound difference between the way Republicans and Democrats (candidates and partisans alike) lose. No lawyers challenging ballots, demands for selective recounts, or breathless articles about vote fraud. No decrying the ignorance of the American public, no shallow threats to flee the country.

It is refreshing. I hope the Dems learn a lesson.

So the Republican party didn't have lawyers in Florida in 2000? Which Democratic politician threatened to leave the country? No Brooks Brothers riot?

I think everyone learned something from Florida, namely the country's democracy couldn't take such jarring and partisan activism on either side of the aisle. I will grant you many Democrats who were upset over George W. Bush victory certainly pouted. After this loss we see a different sort of lamenting on the right. More importantly you also see some introspection on the right that you didn't see on the left, namely what did we do wrong?

If the Democrats did more of that - they would win more elections.

Brian:

I'm unsure, are you agreeing or disagreeing with me?

Lawyers in Florida: It was the Dems that initiated legal proceeding, the Reps were content to follow the process (since it favored them). But if the other side brings in lawyers, you've got to follow suit. Could George Allen have brought in the lawyers to challenge some Democratic precincts? Undoubtedly, but he didn't. And that's my point.

Of course, if Allen did send in the lawyers the Dems would (rightly) respond with their own.

I'm unaware of any Dem politicians threatening to leave the country, but I included partisans in my comments. And since I personally know people who "looked into" emmigrating to New Zealand after the 2004 election, I'm not backing down from my claim. (BTW: They're still here).

Brooks Brothers riot: That's not an example of how Reps handle loss, is it? It's more of an example of how Reps handle an attempt by Dems to overturn a loss through abuse of the electoral process. Not a pretty sight, but not directly applicable.

Nor did the Dems learn something from Florida. I point you to the numerous conspiracy theories over Ohio '04. John Kerry himself has suggested that the election was stolen from him. The margin wasn't close enough to bring legal action, but I'm confident it was seriously considered. It's only that the increased margin that saved us from another crisis in 2004.

Now, if the positions in Virginia or Montana were reversed, and control of the Senate hung in the balance, do you think that Dems wouldn't have initiated legal proceedings? I certainly do. And I'm confident we'd be also be hearing all sorts of claims about bad voting machines and bad ballots and all sorts of chaff intended to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the election.

So yes, I wish that in loss Dems would show some grace and some introspection. Not only would they win more elections that way, they'd deserve to.

Family reasons? That's thinking corruptly.

Sg,
You really think Republicans don't contest close elections? Seriously, dude where have you been over the past ten years or so? Republicans contested the election of Mary Landrieu and Loretta Sanchez in 96, Sam Gedjedenson and Jane Harmon in 94, and filed numerous legal challenges against Christine Gregoire's victory in Washington in 04. In fact, the GOP run senate refused to seat Landrieu without prejudice for more than ten months.

Word around here is that Allen conceded so early (with out a fight) because the Republicans could not afford the scrutiny a recount would have involved. Too many dirty secrets would have been dug up. I wondered why he gave up so quickly. Please investigate....

Comments are Closed.