Hoffman “Unconceeds” In NY 23 Race As Loss Margin Narrows
You’ve heard of a concession speech? Now there’s an unconcession:
Doug Hoffman, the Conservative Party candidate in the special NY 23 election, has withdrawn his concession.
Hoffman, who jumped in the race in response to the “liberal” positions of the Republican Party candidate, state Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava — a decision that ultimately forced Scozzafava out of the race — conceded to Democrat Bill Owens on election night. At the time, Hoffman trailed Owens by about 5,000 votes. (Owens was quickly sworn in, as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi dearly needed his presence for the Nov. 7 vote on health care.)
By winning the seat vacated by now-Army Secretary John McHugh, Owens became the first Democrat to represent the area in upstate New York in more than 100 years.
End of story? Hardly. After some tabulating errors were discovered, Owens’ lead over Hoffman shrunk to 3,026 votes. But there are as many as 10,000 oustanding absentee and paper ballots that only today will begin to be counted. (And that number could be far less; 10,000 absentee ballots were requested … we don’t know exactly how many were returned.) Hoffman “unconceded” today on Glenn Beck’s national radio show.
And so yet another race will end (or go on and on?) in acrimony. And another major political news story has the name “Glenn Beck” in it. CNN reports that Hoffman’s aides are downplaying the “unconcession”:
But a spokesman for Hoffman downplayed the conservative’s “un-concession” Tuesday. “All that really matters is the actual count which is ongoing,” said
In the interview with Beck, Hoffman acknowledged he would have to win more than 65 percent of the uncounted absentees to make up the difference – a hurdle that is unlikely to be cleared given most of those ballots were cast before the Republican in the race, Dede Scozzafava, withdrew.
The review of roughly 7,400 remaining absentee ballots is slated to begin Tuesday.
27 Responses to “Hoffman “Unconceeds” In NY 23 Race As Loss Margin Narrows”
Hoffman does an Al Gore, and un-concedes. OK, then what is next? Will there be a round-table, media-complicit low-IQ “conference call” for PR and image control, while trying to steal what was lost, again, too?
From the NPR piece: After some tabulating errors were discovered, Owens’ lead over Hoffman shrunk to 3,026 votes. But there are as many as 10,000 oustanding absentee and paper ballots that only today will begin to be counted.
Hoffman may well need 65% of these votes to overcome his deficit, but this is irrelevant. Every vote should be counted. I would expect anyone in a race this close would want a recount, regardless of which party they belong to.
This is just hypothetical, but what would happen to Owens' vote on healthcare should this recount go against him? I honestly don't think Hoffman will get enough of the votes, but are there any legal issues to be resolved if a vote turned out to be cast by someone who didn't really win?
Further PROOF that righties “flip-flop” ALL the time. </snark>
I thought (assumed, I guess) that the Secretary of State for NY (or some other office) would need to certify the results before a candidate could be sworn in.
Which leads me to ask what effect a “concession” has…. In reading this it strikes me that this concession was Hoffman conceding defeat and admitting Owens won, clearing the way for Owens to be sworn in.
In presidential elections the electoral college decides the winner, not the individual voters. Of course the other big difference between the NY23 concession by Hoffman and Gore's concession is that Gore immediately “unconceded”, while the votes were still being counted in the general election. Gore did not wait until after the process had played out culminating in Bush being sworn into office before contesting the outcome.
The way I see it…. If Hoffman conceded with the belief that his concession would enable Owens to be seated as the Congressman from NY23, then he can't now, weeks later, change his mind. I think we've all made decisions at some point or another that we wish we could take back, but we live with them.
I don't think the Democrats made Hoffman make the decision to concede. Too bad Hoffman has poor judgement, but he made the decision and he made it knowing the results. The lesson for candidates is to make sure all votes are counted (or at least know that you don't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning) before conceding and giving the go-ahead for your opponent to be sworn into office.
Even if a recount shows Hoffman won, then I think Owens should remain in his seat. Hoffman did concede knowing Owens would be sworn into office. I don't think there was anything wrong with the process, which from what I know was done according to the law.
What if I had applied for a job, then withdrew my application for whatever reason. The company then offered someone else the position which they started. Then a couple weeks later I found out that I was the most qualified and was going to be offered the job…. Should I then expect the company to fire that other person just because I had made a poor decision and now wanted the job, even though the process was done correctly and followed the law?
To me it's not a question about votes not being counted, or a recount being required. I believe each candidate has the right to request a recount… until they admit defeat and concede the race, allowing their opponent sworn in. It's a question about Hoffman's judgement. If I were Hoffman I wouldn't advertise that I had made such a serious mistake.
George, “I imagine the Glenn Beck people will feel entitled to two complaints: Democrats steal elections!”
Yes, no doubt you are right but unfortunately the Republicans won't bother with the truth which is that Hoffman admitted defeat and allowed the process to continue which put Owens in office.
So really… since it was Hoffman's actions that allowed Owens to be seated, wouldn't it be truer to say that “Republicans steal elections”? Or how about, “Republicans steal elections for Democrats”?
Stockboy, the article specifically states that tabulating errors were found in the original count, and that the concession was of the type of Gore's phone call to Bush (without any legal meaning to it.)
I think in some states the candidate who is behind has to announce whether or not he wants to pursue a recount while in other states recounts are automatic when the count is close. Either way it has to be certified, I believe, and it seems highly irregular that the Sec of State would have done so so quickly. At the time I remember thinking how strange it was that Hoffman was sworn in within three days of the election to vote on the healthcare bill- I wonder if there was some shenanigans there?
StockBoy: Even if a recount shows Hoffman won, then I think Owens should remain in his seat.
I'm with you on most of you're comment SB, but this is where we disagree. If a recount shows Hoffman won, then he should assume the seat. I'll agree with you on the way he has handled this but if the winner didn't actually get the most votes, what's the point of voting anyway?
I think this whole circus is meaningless anyway because I find it very unlikely that Hoffman can erase his deficit. On the bright side (at least for him), his name stays out there and he gets more attention from Beck and all of his followers. Not too bad if he's considering another run for office in a couple years.
“I wonder if there was some shenanigans there?”
There doesn't even have to be a shred of evidence for any “shenanigans”–just having an opportunity to make a vague allegation is completely sufficient.
CStanley and jchem, I do not know the process for certifying the results and swearing in the person to the seat. Because Hoffman conceded and Owens was sworn into office, without Hoffman making any attempts to block the action, I can only assume that everyone, including Hoffman was fine with the process and agreed that Owens could be sworn in.
After the “loser” concedes defeat and agrees that his opponent can be seated, just how much time has to pass before any claim can be made to that seat? All I'm saying is that Hoffman was on board with the plan and allowed Owens to be declared the winner, and Hoffman even allowed Owens to be sworn in before Hoffman decided to change his mind. Absolutely nothing prevented Hoffman from conceding until all the votes were counted.
As far as I'm concern Hoffman conceded, gave the contest to Owens, allowed Owens to be seated and gave up his right for a recount and gave up his right to claim the seat.
Seriously, what more is expected if someone says, “I lost, you won, go ahead be sworn in and take the seat”? Why would Owens want to wait any longer, especially if he was seated within the process and within the law? What exactly did Owens or the Democrats do that was wrong? It was Hoffman who conceded and allowed Owens to be seated.
The question is, “At what point in time does one's decision become permanent?” Everything Hoffman did, and the ensuing results make his decision permanent. If someone tells us something we just can't (and don't) sit around for weeks or months doing nothing, waiting to see if they change their mind, for whatever reason. Decisions are made, life goes on and if it turns out we made a bad decision, we live with it. If it turns out we made a good decision, that's great and we celebrate! So what should hte Democrats have done in this case? Just sit around and wait to see if Hoffman would change his mind? Is that how we should treat the results of all elections?
As far as being sworn in a few days after being declared the winner…. I don't see anything wrong with that and apparently neither did Hoffman or else he (or Palin) would have held up the swearing in… the easiest way of course being not to concede in the first place. It was a special election and everyone agreed that Owens should take the seat, so why wait? The seat was vacant, unlike a “regular” election where there is someone in office.
I thought (assumed, I guess) that the Secretary of State for NY (or some other office) would need to certify the results before a candidate could be sworn in.
Which leads me to ask what effect a “concession” has…. In reading this it strikes me that this concession was Hoffman conceding defeat and admitting Owens won, clearing the way for Owens to be sworn in.”
The concession did allow Owens to be sworn in. In effect it was saying that Owens would end up winning. That makes the swearing in legal and votes taken would stand. If the final count and certification goes to Hoffman then he would be sworn in and take over the office. This also instinct just about a job it's about the people and their votes. The idea because Hoffman was told bad info and conceded should prevent the peoples will being followed. This legally would be no different than Gore because the count was never certified by the State.
My guess/assumption/thought is that in about one quarter the time it took you to write your treatise you could have googled up some actual facts……..
John Conklin, the communications director for the New York State Board of Elections says that 10,200 were distributed prior to the election, which includes military and overseas ballots.
Conklin sent a letter to the House Clerk last week, stating that there was no certified winner. But because Owens still had a lead and Hoffman was not challenging the results, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi went ahead and had Owens sworn in. (Another special election winner from last week, California Democrat John Garamendi, was also sworn in in advance of the health-care vote.)
And while there's no way of knowing whether the absentee ballots could reverse the result, there is nonetheless that possibility … as Conklin told the Post-Standard:
We sent a letter to the clerk laying out the totals. The key is that Hoffman conceded, which means the race is not contested. However, all ballots will be counted, and if the result changes, Owens will have to be removed.
“The question is, “At what point in time does one's decision become permanent?” Everything Hoffman did, and the ensuing results make his decision permanent. If someone tells us something we just can't (and don't) sit around for weeks or months doing nothing, waiting to see if they change their mind, for whatever reason. Decisions are made, life goes on and if it turns out we made a bad decision, we live with it. If it turns out we made a good decision, that's great and we celebrate! So what should the Democrats have done in this case? Just sit around and wait to see if Hoffman would change his mind? Is that how we should treat the results of all elections? “
Here's an idea. It's when the State certifies the election that it becomes final. Go ahead and seat if there are no changes, that's legal and above board. Hell are you not glad that Owens is there working? Don't you prefer that to the endless BS that came with the recent recounts on the Franken election. This way the people get represented and if later it is found out there was a mistake then it is corrected. The most important thing should be the expressed will of the people.
And lefties Al Gore…… and Al Franken……
Seriously….. This kind of crap bothers me no matter which party it comes from. Why waste the time and resources on this crap. It's a done deal. No matter what happens, he's sworn in and should be left there.
It's this kind of stuff that has given politics a bad name, right?
(along with bribery, corruption, extortion, lying, stealing, etc)
I agree, Stockboy.
Even if the outcome “magically” changes for Hoffman, Owens should keep his seat.
1. Because Hoffman officially conceded.
2. Because Owens has already sworn in.
My whole point is once someone makes a decision it should stand, though I understand and appreciate the argument that an “uncontested” candidate could be seated with the proviso that he be “unseated” if the other candidate receives more votes. But the law should be CLEAR on such matters…. None of this “loophole” stuff, which is what gets everyone into problems.
JD, thanks.
Actually there is precedent for people being sworn in to office because they appeared to have won and then when the final count showed otherwise they were replaced.
I mean are we really saying that if the final count shows Hoffman ahead by say 500 or 1,000 votes that he should not be sworn in ?
435 House seats, elected every two years, for the past many decades…something like this *must* have happened before. Is there any precedence for how this might have been handled in a previous example?
“But the law should be CLEAR on such matters”
It is clear. Conceding has no legal connotation. It's just admitting that the person thinks “Hey you are going to win” it is not the same as withdrawing.
Apparently there was a previous example with the parties reversed (for some odd reason the media and even the greater blogosphere doesn't appear to have picked up on it.) It was the special election to replace Duke Cunningham in '06.
Here's a summation, and another here, and here's the predictable partisan response to the situation from a diarist on Daily Kos.
For those who think that Owens should keep his seat even if the final count has Hoffman ahead say that you would have read those accounts of the CA election and felt that it was correct for Bilbray to have been seated before the election was certified? Would that have been 'no harm, no foul'? Particularly since there was apparently no recourse afterward because the courts ruled that the House has the right to seat members as it sees fit?
This goes beyond partisan concerns- and yes, for the record, if the facts as I'm reading them are correct in the Billbray/Busby election, that was an example of GOP shenanigans and we need to call out both parties for this. Elected officials should not be allowed to be sworn in until after elections are certified- otherwise what is the point?
“I thought (assumed, I guess) that the Secretary of State for NY (or some other office) would need to certify the results before a candidate could be sworn in.”
Nothing to worry about. Easy, cheap, well-earned humor at the expense of the Dems and their likenesses on this site notwithstanding, the best analogy to consider here is probably Minnesota.
Thanks, CStanley, EEllis, casual observer, jchem and Patrick- just so we're clear on my position, since it's changed…. (in re-reading my last comment my position wasn't clear). Yes, if the law is clear, as has been pointed out on this issue, then Hoffman could be seated.
DLS, LOL! I suppose all posts regarding politics are at the expense of one group of people and their supporters.
Glad to hear it, Stockboy. I had thought about pointing out the most obvious argument against the idea of a concession being legally binding- Al Gore, which has already been mentioned in this thread. I don't think anyone of any political stripe would have said that his phone call to GWB meant that he couldn't later change his mind. His political opponents may have felt that it made him look a bit silly, but no one argued that he no longer had any recourse to wait for recounts.
“I suppose all posts regarding politics are at the expense of one group of people and their supporters.”
No. Politics is not a zero-sum game any more than economics is. (Power and offices that may be held or lost is something else — just ask the Dems and the GOP.)
However, when the humor (be it at someone else's expense or not) is easy and cheap, I'd view it as likelier.
“I had thought about pointing out the most obvious argument against the idea of a concession being legally binding- Al Gore, which has already been mentioned in this thread.”
What's interesting in this case is that the “invasion” of the “national” partisan apparatchiks (at least in this case, on the GOP side) and ideological marauders (at least on the Right) preceded the election.
(It was like Toomey, Club for Growth, and Specter — involved an intervention-endorsement by the President to settle it.)