NY-23: Not over yet?
posted at 12:55 pm on November 12, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
A recanvassing of votes in the NY-23 special Congressional election has turned up a surprise. Bill Owens, the Democrat who won the seat and ended a long period of Republican hegemony, has already been sworn into office, but the vote counts now show Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman much closer than thought on Election Night. Thought to be down over 5300 votes, the final counts in the district show Hoffman trailing by 3,026 — with over 10,000 absentee ballots left to count:
Conservative Doug Hoffman conceded the race in the 23rd Congressional District last week after receiving two pieces of grim news for his campaign: He was down 5,335 votes with 93 percent of the vote counted on election night, and he had barely won his stronghold in Oswego County.
As it turns out, neither was true. …
Democratic Rep. Bill Owens was quickly sworn into office on Friday, a day before the rare weekend vote in the House of Representatives. His support sealed his party’s narrow victory on the health care legislation.
Now a recanvassing in the 11-county district shows that Owens’ lead has narrowed to 3,026 votes over Hoffman, 66,698 to 63,672, according to the latest unofficial results from the state Board of Elections.
Jim Geraghty wonders whether this would could mean that Hoffman might still prevail:
Note that Hoffman conceded the race on Election Night. This may get really interesting, or it may simply reveal that Bill Ownes won with fewer votes than we thought.
It’s almost certainly the latter. It is not outside mathematical possibility that Hoffman could make up the difference, but it’s pushing the limits of probability to the breaking point. Remember that when most of these absentee ballots were cast, Dede Scozzafava was still in the race, with the Republican endorsement. Hoffman didn’t catch up until the last two weeks, and the polling didn’t change until the final week, which finally pushed Scozzafava out of the race.
In order to win the election, Hoffman would have to get 3,027 more ballots than Owens while holding off Scozzafava supporters. That would require him to win more than half of all absentees, mostly cast at a time when Hoffman trailed the other two candidates. He would need to win 6,027 votes while Hoffman got no more than 3,000 and Scozzafava no more than 1200, or something similar. Hoffman would definitely have to win at least a majority in order to gain that 3,027 margin that would allow him to win the race.
Possible? Yes. But very, very, very improbable. It’s much more likely that the three split the remaining absentee ballots equally, or that Hoffman came in second or third among them. The rational potential for gain by Hoffman would be in the low hundreds, not the thousands, in a three-person race.
It does bring up an interesting point. Now that Owens has taken the oath of office, the count of absentee ballots is technically moot. The House would have to reject Owens in a floor challenge in order to seat Hoffman instead. That’s even less likely than Hoffman winning the election with a 3026-vote gap prior to the absentee ballot count.
Update: Hot Air reader Bob S forwards this link:
As it stands now, Bill Owens may be in Washington and voting the Pelosi Party line but when the vote is certified he may be ousted. The state Board of Elections indicated that “…all ballots will be counted, and if the result changes, Owens will have to be removed.” Concession speech or not, if the voters in the 23rd District elected Doug Hoffman and not Bill Owens, then Hoffman will be the Representative.
Concessions hold no legal status. They’re a nicety. One of my left-of-center Twitter friends @Rawls also concurred. However, given the wide gap in ballots and the number remaining to be counted, don’t expect this to be much of an issue.










Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Stranger things have happened.
upinak on November 12, 2009 at 12:57 PM
Just ask Al Franken
Beto Ochoa on November 12, 2009 at 12:59 PM
Gee Ed, did you drink out of Allahpundit’s cup this morning?
anniekc on November 12, 2009 at 12:59 PM
I thought the article said that Pelosi could seat Owens because Hoffman conceded. However, if the final vote shoed Hoffman won, then that would HAVE to change, by state law.
That makes more sense to me that it works that way.
But yeah….long shot here.
Still, it’s fun to contemplate.
AnninCA on November 12, 2009 at 12:59 PM
However, for those that voted by absentee for Dede but would have voted for Doug if they had known she was going to drop out, are there civil rights violated for not being allowed to vote for the candidate of their choice?
ConservativePartyNow on November 12, 2009 at 1:00 PM
The scenario where Hoffmann wins and the House has the “wrong guy” would just be hilarious to watch play out.
WashJeff on November 12, 2009 at 1:00 PM
I’d love to put Nancy Pelosi and the House in this predicament!
HondaV65 on November 12, 2009 at 1:00 PM
Maybe he shouldn’t have conceeded on election night.
forest on November 12, 2009 at 1:01 PM
The absentee votes may make it close enough to warrant a recount. If that recount shows Hoffman actually won, and Owens doesn’t voluntarily resign to allow Hoffman to be seated, he won’t stand a chance of winning election in a year.
And the Dem house members that stubbornly refuse to unseat Owens and seat Hoffman instead would risk going with him.
The Monster on November 12, 2009 at 1:02 PM
Man-O-Man I would love for this to work out for Hoffman! That would make my year!!!!!!!
joedoe on November 12, 2009 at 1:02 PM
Anything to see another picture of Jeri Thompson… bring on the challenges!
mankai on November 12, 2009 at 1:02 PM
So… if it turns out Hoffman won? What’s this? I found 10,000 uncounted ballots in my a-hole! And they’re all for Owens! Now, how did they get there?
Daggett on November 12, 2009 at 1:03 PM
If nothing else it bodes well for next year, especially after Owens gave a lot of his voters the big middle finger.
jjshaka on November 12, 2009 at 1:03 PM
And we go to foreign countries to monitor elections. What up with that.
rjoco1 on November 12, 2009 at 1:04 PM
If Hoffman were to win, they would just pull some more votes out of a trunk of a car.
nazo311 on November 12, 2009 at 1:04 PM
But check out Jim’s follow up post: In 3 different polling places, Hoffman got ZERO votes. Hmmmmm.
clorensen on November 12, 2009 at 1:04 PM
I’m keeping my fingers crossed. But if both camps knew, or should have known, that absentee ballots had not been counted, how could Hoffman had conceded, the fascit liar have accepted, and Queen Pelosi been so quick to swear in the “winner”?
This all stinks to high heaven.
madmonkphotog on November 12, 2009 at 1:04 PM
I’m still stinging from Al Franken whining his way into the Senate. That set an unusual precedent. Perhaps God meant that for good not evil. In any event, if Owens is unseated, does that invalidate his voting record?
Tommy_G on November 12, 2009 at 1:06 PM
Isn’t her vote count irrelevant?
lorien1973 on November 12, 2009 at 1:07 PM
Hoffman has conceded. I think that closes the door on recount.
AnninCA on November 12, 2009 at 1:07 PM
Lizard people votes count, too!!!
atlgal on November 12, 2009 at 1:08 PM
Hoffman is a conservative…does anyone really think he will pull a Gore and whine after conceding? He is not a democrat. Unless the final vote is overwhelming in his favor, he would be wise to simply note the result and then make Owens a half term congressman next year.
JIMV on November 12, 2009 at 1:08 PM
RE:
So… if it turns out Hoffman won? What’s this? I found 10,000 uncounted ballots in my a-hole! And they’re all for Owens! Now, how did they get there?
Daggett on November 12, 2009 at 1:03 PM
LOL!! Why can’t this ever truly happen for conservatives? Every recount, that isn’t stopped by a court, plays out this way.
milemarker2020 on November 12, 2009 at 1:10 PM
Are you sure about this? I don’t think NY has certified him yet. Besides it would be political suicide to keep someone who lost an election seated, were that to be the case. I could see that causing MAJOR MAJOR problems in the country. Think about that.
clement on November 12, 2009 at 1:11 PM
After living through the Franken/Coleman debacle here in Minny last year I just don’t understand why any conservative and/or Republican would concede anything to anyone anywhere until every last vote has been counted/recounted.
What is it going to take for the Brain Trust of the Right (oxymoron alert) to understand that they are never , never, never ever going to get a break in the counting of votes or in the reporting of the counting of votes.
Just like the Left is willfully ignorant of the Jihadists, the Right seems to be willfully ignorant of the Donks vote theft/fraud infrastructure.
Sheesh.
Bruno Strozek on November 12, 2009 at 1:11 PM
Its improbable…but not impossible. And if you read the article, Hoffman\’s people are looking a bit up, because they felt that going into the vote, the only way Hoffman could win was IF it was a 3-way vote-off. They think that Hoffman could possibly get a good size chunk of the extra votes, so I say…let\’s just wait and see. :)
Highlar on November 12, 2009 at 1:11 PM
Concession is a nicety; it has no legal force. You can concede one day and then contest the election on the next day.
PackerBronco on November 12, 2009 at 1:12 PM
You are batting a thousand today Ed. You really think that if Hoffman is eventually certified as the winner, virtually no shot I agree, that the Repubs in the House would just fold?
A guy is certified as the winner and nobody does crap? The public would go ballistic and the Repubs would ride it for all it’s worth. Hoffman would get in.
Rocks on November 12, 2009 at 1:12 PM
Pelosi: Owens, we’ll need your vote for the health care bill. If we get you those needed votes, can we count on your votes, and for you to keep your mouth shut about this conversation, and the promised votes?
Owens. Make me a congressman, young lady! ;)
Eeeeeeewwwww I made myself ill.
capejasmine on November 12, 2009 at 1:13 PM
If Hoffman wins can the results be reversed? He conceeded.
Mr. Joe on November 12, 2009 at 1:13 PM
It’s interesting to think about but the odds are significantly less if the absentee ballots returned was a lot less than the 10,000 sent out.
aikidoka on November 12, 2009 at 1:14 PM
Actually, its the district that is doing the count. And its not a recount…because the district hasn’t finished counting yet. The article even goes on to say that NY-23 reported that there WAS no official winner yet, but because Owen’s was ahead he could be confirmed…for now. If it comes out that Hoffman actually had the most votes, per the article, then HE would be the one declared the winner, not Owens. Likes Owens was possibly temporarily sworn in if Hoffman comes out on top.
Highlar on November 12, 2009 at 1:14 PM
Any votes for her can’t end up in his column, closing the gap. If there are 10,000 absentee ballots and she gets 1,000 of them, it increase the percentage Hoffmann needs to win of the remaining 9,000 to close the gap.
Overall- unlikely Hoffman will win. This year.
cs89 on November 12, 2009 at 1:14 PM
Don’t make me laugh, we all know how those recounts work.
/// and more sarc.
Knucklehead on November 12, 2009 at 1:14 PM
All conservatives take notice – never concede. Anything.
lawtwin on November 12, 2009 at 1:14 PM
Interesting. I just remember in MN the big focus was on concession. I guess that really had more to do with seating the person in the House than with the legality of recounting, etc.
AnninCA on November 12, 2009 at 1:14 PM
If Hoffman gets in before the next vote on Healthcare, are the 39 no votes still no votes, or can they wiggle out and vote yes? They are committed now, so that leaves Nancy’s margin even closer. Hee Hee.
txmomof6 on November 12, 2009 at 1:14 PM
How many of the dead voted in this one (probably not enough to make the difference)?
michaelo on November 12, 2009 at 1:15 PM
Remember, the Constitution gives the Congress the final decision on who they seat…does anyone believe the Pelosi mob would reverse the decision regardless of how the vote comes out?
JIMV on November 12, 2009 at 1:15 PM
I’m aware of that. You picked up a quote from a different slant on the topic.
AnninCA on November 12, 2009 at 1:15 PM
Why are Congressmen sworn into office before all the votes are counted? This seems really stupid.
Speedwagon82 on November 12, 2009 at 1:15 PM
Concession means little. It allows Owens to be sworn in because Hoffman is essentially saying he will not contest the certified winner and in all likelihood that is Owens. But the whole thing changes if Hoffman is the one certified as the winner. At that point it is Owens who would need to contest the election.
Rocks on November 12, 2009 at 1:17 PM
So basically, per NY-23, Pelosi was able to “temporarily” instate Owens just in time to grab his vote on the health care bill, and that vote would still stand, but Hoffman may come in and take the seat after the vote. Its highly unlikely, but still…like has been said…not impossible. Let EVERY vote be counted first!
Highlar on November 12, 2009 at 1:17 PM
I wondered why Hoffman didn’t wait. Owens wouldn’t have been a vote on the Pelosi bill had he waited.
AnninCA on November 12, 2009 at 1:17 PM
Hoffman ought to hire Al Franken’s ballot counting team. They’d be able to create out of thin air more than enough votes to put him over the top.
bannedbyhuffpo on November 12, 2009 at 1:18 PM
Exactly. Bad move. Being a “nice” person doesn’t cut it in politics. Play to win, or don’t play at all. I hate the democrats, but at least they play to win.
SouthernGent on November 12, 2009 at 1:18 PM
Isn’t it mandatory that you mention the Civil War somewhere in that sentence?
Cindy Munford on November 12, 2009 at 1:18 PM
Owens is already running campaign advertisments in the district. I’d love to see Doug Hoffman send him packing back to Plattsburgh.
joe btfsplk on November 12, 2009 at 1:18 PM
Dude. Nancy needed his vote, plain and simple. She wasn’t sure she could get Cao, so that left her with 217.
txmomof6 on November 12, 2009 at 1:18 PM
Ewwwww.
Oh.
Ronnie on November 12, 2009 at 1:19 PM
You see right here manifest evidence of the difference between Democrats and Republicans.
If Hoffman in this case were a Democrat, there would be a legion of lawyers descending on NY-23 at this moment prepared to blatantly create enough votes to steal the election.
Republicans? Well, take a look. Ed is sucking his thumb. Geraghty is “wondering”.
Isn’t that special.
Don’t any of you want to win elections?
pabarge on November 12, 2009 at 1:19 PM
No, here in Minnesota neither candidate conceded. Coleman asked Franken to concede based on the vote totals immediately after Election Day, but he knew there wasn’t a chance Franken would.
And remember, Gore conceded for about 5 minutes in 2000 before he took it back and snippily told Bush not to get snippy about it.
Mr. D on November 12, 2009 at 1:20 PM
Umm, what? The state has not yet certified the election results. In the highly unlikely event of Hoffman’s winning (which makes the concession irrelevant), it would be almost impossible for the Dems to actually keep Owens seated. I say almost because I put nothing untoward or illegal past the Pelosi-critters.
Physics Geek on November 12, 2009 at 1:21 PM
Yet again, GOP bungling, backstabbing and overall incompetence has won the day for the Democrats.
Not a penny, GOP. Not a damned penny ever again.
spmat on November 12, 2009 at 1:21 PM
Maybe becaue he was a normal guy who just wanted to do the right thing. Its not like he has been a politician before or anything.
txmomof6 on November 12, 2009 at 1:21 PM
Hoffman already knew the absentee ballots were out there to be counted. He likely understood where the splits in the counts will fall and made his concession. He wouldn’t have given up if there was a chance he was still going to win.
There is another election in a year. Does Hoffman throw up a big challenge and whine? Or, does he let Owens get dragged into the swamp with Pelosi and friends and challenge for the seat next year? Hoffman knows what he is doing.
Mallard T. Drake on November 12, 2009 at 1:23 PM
Yep. And Owens is already out in the swamp.
Mr. D on November 12, 2009 at 1:24 PM
And so I scrunch up into a little ball, shut my eyes, clench my fists, pinch up my butt cheeks, and think real hard that 2+2=5! And if I think it… believe it… FEEL it! THEN IT IS!!!
alexwest on November 12, 2009 at 1:26 PM
I trust that the explanation of the vote mistakes in the one area was, in fact, why he conceded. That’s his explanation, anyway.
AnninCA on November 12, 2009 at 1:26 PM
Per the article, he was also surprised that his stronghold in Oswego came in with fewer votes for him than anticipated (apparently- now we know that wasn’t true), and the initial totals were 5,000 rather than the 3,000 that he is now behind.
He made the best decision he could with the information he had. In hindsight, he probably should have held out longer.
cs89 on November 12, 2009 at 1:27 PM
I had forgotten that.
Well, anyway. Pelosi would have had her 218, either way. It’s still fun to imagine that it reverses.
AnninCA on November 12, 2009 at 1:28 PM
One does not ‘win’ elections by stealing them or through fraud. Democrats ‘win’ that way. Americans do not.
JIMV on November 12, 2009 at 1:29 PM
Just ask Al Gore.
alliebobbitt on November 12, 2009 at 1:29 PM
Didn’t read everything said here, so if it’s been said, excuse me, but we must all remember Al Gore conceded and un-conceded.
sandee on November 12, 2009 at 1:30 PM
Really? I wonder who would have gone on record as the vote that pushed it over without Owens and the other newbie from Cali.
alliebobbitt on November 12, 2009 at 1:30 PM
I’m hoping for a tie.
Abby Adams on November 12, 2009 at 1:31 PM
How fun will it be, if Hoffman wins after all and we can rub liberal noses in Al Gore’s 2000 defeat AND take away their historic healthcare bill AND Bill Owens?
alliebobbitt on November 12, 2009 at 1:32 PM
After all that talk about “angry only gets you 45%”? Where’s Michael Steele?
alliebobbitt on November 12, 2009 at 1:33 PM
Hoffman conceded based on faulty information that showed he was way too far behind to ever close the gap, and that also wrongly showed him underperforming in his strongest districts. But the concession was based on totals that turned out to be badly wrong, and the election totals have never been certified. While it’s a long shot, and I hope nobody gets their hopes up too much, it’s really not over yet.
I did a little math with the latest posted totals, and it shows Owens with 48.7% of the vote, Hoffman with 46.5%, and Scozzafava with 4.7%. I don’t know if Hoffman can actually pull it out, but all the posturing from the Democrats about how significant it was that they won this race is clearly bogus. While the Democrats will probably keep the win, the margin is probably going to shrink to a percentage point, or even less. Hardly a mandate.
Sometimes, I think it’s a shame we don’t have a margin of error on elections like we have in polls. There certainly do seem to be a lot of errors.
Most of which favored the Democrat, incidentally.
tom on November 12, 2009 at 1:33 PM
Why the heck would you concede before every vote has been counted? Were they that inexperienced not to know that?… I knew they had problems at certain precincts so just figured we would not know for awhile and then I was surprised to see Hoff. concede.
ohiobabe on November 12, 2009 at 1:35 PM
Since he plans on running in 2010, appearing ungracious would cost him votes and damage his candidacy.
alliebobbitt on November 12, 2009 at 1:36 PM
So you plan on supporting the Democrats and give your pennies to them?
The GOP and the Conservatives learned a lot from NY-23; however if the result is that the GOP (Republicans) and Conservatives branch apart, count on a lot of Democrats re-elected! To use Obama’s rhetoric, NY-23 was a teachable moment – the GOP should never have put Dede Scozzafava forward: she was clearly no Republican. Conservatives were right to oppose Scozzafava but need to do so less publicly so no schism between Conservatives and Republicans can be played up by Democrats (who in this case won NY-23)! And while Conservative candidate Doug Hoffman was admirable, he was introduced too late in the process to gain a clear lead! NY-23 will arise again and the opportunity for the GOP to reclaim the seat will be offered. Let us hope conservatives and the GOP work in unity for that race, and all others…
IntheNet on November 12, 2009 at 1:36 PM
Plus, I think the Republican leadership stiffed him on lawyers, etc. since they want to forget all about this election and their horrible screw-up.
alliebobbitt on November 12, 2009 at 1:37 PM
I would understand if a guy was like 10,000 votes ahead and there were only 3,000 left to count, but as long as it is theoretically possible for the underdog to win, the leader in votes shouldn’t be sworn in yet. If it was a Republican doing this, the Dims would call it a Civil Rights issue.
Speedwagon82 on November 12, 2009 at 1:38 PM
Hoffman had a uphill battle as it was, since people not paying attention, wouldn’t know he was representing Republicans in the district. He came close, and could have come closer and probably won had the election been a few more weeks further out.
I’m not from that area but, if I were, I’d be upset by that picture. The Republicans better not get cocky before 2010 or they’ll lose that election. There is nothing worse than Conservatives sitting down looking smug for something they’ve accomplished (and I’m a Conservative).
Just stick to the issues, Obama’s done so much damage to the country there’s no sense in looking smug, look serious and tell people what your solution to the problems is going to be. If you do that, the Dems are toast, if you don’t and just try to get votes because you’re not them, you may win but you’ll never take over.
bflat879 on November 12, 2009 at 1:38 PM
Since these absentee ballots were cast before Scozzafava dropped out, there is a slim chance maybe.
alliebobbitt on November 12, 2009 at 1:39 PM
Not that I think there’s any chance Hoffman will win, but this story is interesting in itself. I guess absentee ballots never really do matter, do they? Has any major election ever been decided by them, or even waited for them to be counted?
joe_doufu on November 12, 2009 at 1:41 PM
On Election Day in 2000, Al Gore telephoned George W. Bush to concede the election, then decided to contest the election while in the car toward his concession speech (when some late votes from Palm Beach County seriously reduced Bush’s lead), and we all know how long THAT lasted.
It’s definitely possible to unconcede an election.
Let’s count those absentee ballots, many of which came from the Fort Drum military base, which would probably break heavily for Hoffman. If absentee ballots could be postmarked up until November 2, some of them could have been cast after Scozzafava dropped out. There are already over 130,000 votes for Owens and Hoffman (plus some for Scozzafava), and 10,000 absentee ballots would bring the vote total over 140,000. If Hoffman can close the gap to within 1,000 or so (<1%) with the absentee ballots, he might have legal recourse to a recount.
No guarantees, of course, but it IS possible.
Does anyone here know New York State law on the percentage difference below which a second-place candidate can demand a recount?
Steve Z on November 12, 2009 at 1:42 PM
Yup.
Bruno Strozek on November 12, 2009 at 1:42 PM
Indeed, concession means nothing. If you remember correctly, Al Gore first called Bush to concede in 2000. And then an hour later he called back and said screw you, we’re going to challenge.
Enoxo on November 12, 2009 at 1:42 PM
I have to wonder if any of the Democrats who voted for the healthcare bill would have backed out if they knew that in addition to losing Virginia and New Jersey, NY-23 was still too close to call.
We know Pelosi had a hard time getting her 220 votes. This might have made the difference.
tom on November 12, 2009 at 1:45 PM
So we automatically disenfranchise those who vote by absentee ballot? Only if the win goes into the D column.
TrickyDick on November 12, 2009 at 1:48 PM
i do believe that the best R operative would be out done by the worst Dem operative in a chess game. This is a pattern, R operative lose to D operatives.
we just don’t have the best and brightest.
r keller on November 12, 2009 at 1:48 PM
During the 2000 Presidential recount in Florida, Bush’s lead was down to 300 votes before military absentee ballots were counted, but after they were counted (and 1,400 of them were rejected by Democrat lawyers), Bush’s lead was back up to 987 votes. The later recounts in Broward and Palm Beach Counties reduced Bush’s lead to 567 votes before the Supreme Court put an end to the recounts. Without those military absentee ballots, Al Gore would have been President during 9/11.
The stakes are lower in NY-23, but those absentee ballots deserve to be counted.
Steve Z on November 12, 2009 at 1:51 PM
Owens took the office with the wrong vote count. You elect people with votes, if the votes were mis handled, it doesn’t mean he gets to keep the office…the problem would be from the lawsuits to keep from counting the votes…but it will be moot, but would be fun.
right2bright on November 12, 2009 at 1:52 PM
–Ed, my understanding is that 10,000 absentee ballots were requested, but only about 5400 have been returned. That makes it even more unlikely that Hoffman will win. See the update at http://www.politico.com/blogs/scorecard/1109/Hoffman_ally_Owens_victory_still_looks_inevitable.html.
Jimbo3 on November 12, 2009 at 1:52 PM
This is kind of a curious thing. The night of the election it was being reported that there had been a problem at some of the polling places. And, that a hand count would have to be done, but couldn’t be touched until after the absentee ballots were all accounted for. I remember being very surprised when Hoffman conceded a short time later.
joedoe on November 12, 2009 at 1:53 PM
Concede or not, like it cards, the cards (in this case the votes) speak for themselves.
right2bright on November 12, 2009 at 1:53 PM
Hoffmann did the right thing in conceding on election night. Rather than let this play out through one ugly challenge after another, it brings class to Hoffmann, and gives him good standing to launch a better campaign in 2012 as the Republican candidate. Drawing out a longshot recount would simply hurt his chances in 2012.
Nethicus on November 12, 2009 at 1:53 PM
I think you mean Owens here, not Hoffman, right?
Advocate For Change on November 12, 2009 at 1:57 PM
This would be a very interesting story if uncounted absentee ballots show up or ACORN helped Owens with his win. mmm mmm mmm
yoda on November 12, 2009 at 1:58 PM
Wait, what? NY can’t recall Owens without approval of the Congress, that don’t jive.
NickelAndDime on November 12, 2009 at 2:12 PM
A Hail Mary is in the air!
hawkman on November 12, 2009 at 2:13 PM
Too bad Hoffman didn’t refuse to concede until all the votes were counted and irregularities resoved…that’s what Franken did. It would have caused enough of a delay where Owens wouldn’t have been sworn in and Pelosi might not have had her 220. I know she only needed 218, but Cao’s vote was # 219, and he might not have cast the decider, and if he didn’t, maybe the last dem wouldn’t have either. But it would have just delayed the inevitable. Nancy would have gotten her 218 by twisting somebody else’s arm.
JustTruth101 on November 12, 2009 at 2:15 PM
That’s the democrat way. Fight to a close race, contest every result and throw doubt into anything close, declare yourself the winner. It’s the Gore2K way…
ted c on November 12, 2009 at 2:16 PM
I don’t understand, or accept, the argument that because Hoffman conceded its over. It isn’t over until the state Secretary of State certifies the election and he/she cannot legally certify the election for someone who did not win.
If Hoffman ends up with more votes, admittedly a long shot but not impossible, I would think that legally, morally and ethically the New York State government would have no choice but to decertify Owens and certify Hoffman; and because states control the elections the House would have no choice but to accept the outcome. Of course this all goes out the window because Democrats are supposed to win.
johnsteele on November 12, 2009 at 2:32 PM
I think it’s absurd that a member could be sworn in before the votes are counted and the election is certified. That shouldn’t be allowed.
CP on November 12, 2009 at 2:37 PM
Owens was never certified the winner.
Rocks on November 12, 2009 at 2:52 PM
And they haven’t arrested anyone for the obvious fraud yet? I’m sure the Founders would have assumed this type of thing would always be a hanging offense.
Owens not suspending his office while this fraud is being uncovered is unconscionable and makes him an accomplice rather than an innocent person who benefitted from a crime carried out on his behalf.
Buddahpundit on November 12, 2009 at 3:02 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »