Reply #41: Why would he unconcede?

[Imajika]

The provisional and absentee ballots did not give him anything close to the numbers necessary to shrink the gap between he and Bush, which might have made a recount meaningful in regards to whom the ultimate winner is. Said recount is not finding much difference from the original count to date. Arnebeck's lawsuit has been tossed, and if refiled it will surely be dismissed for lack of evidence (especially considering the makeup of the Ohio Supreme Court). Kerry would be a fool to unconcede without any reason to believe that such a step had any chance whatever of resulting in victory.

I fail to see why Kerry should embarass himself, wreck his future political viability, and generally be shredded by the media for what is almost certainly a futile effort. Would it make Kerry a hero for some on DU? I am sure it would. But the result would still be the same, and Kerry would destroyed as a serious politician with real influence and power both inside and outside the Democratic Party.

If there had been a reasonable chance he could win, Kerry wouldn't have conceded in the first place. So far, his campaign team have been right on the money. There simply were not enough votes in Ohio, or anywhere else, for Kerry to win.

With some real evidence, and I do mean real evidence, that massive election fraud occured, and tens of thousands of votes were really switched from Kerry to Bush, I am sure Kerry would be the first one leading the charge to fight it. If such real evidence existed I don't have much doubt Kerry would unconcede, but at this time there simply is no evidence to support these massive Ohio and nationwide conspiracies.

Imajika