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.)

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.

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.

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?

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.

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 ?

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

“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.

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.