pageok
pageok
pageok
Concession Message on Answering Machine:

Jeremy Wallace at the Herald-Tribune reports:

David Shapiro ... has quietly been refusing to concede in his race for [Florida] State House District 70 since Nov. 7.

On election night, Republican Doug Holder led the contest by just 756 votes. After provisional ballots and overseas ballots were finally tallied last week, Holder still held a 749-vote edge.

Shapiro said he called Holder's campaign office and left a concession message on the answering machine....

OrinKerr:
If you can announce you want a divorce by text message, surely you can concede a political race on an answering machine.
11.21.2006 8:36pm
David Sucher (mail) (www):
It's disgraceful, isn't it, that elected offiicials don't hire real people to answer their phones.
11.21.2006 9:04pm
Minnesota Reader:
11.21.2006 9:34pm
Mike BUSL07 (mail) (www):
You stay classy, state legislature candidate.
11.21.2006 9:58pm
therut:
He takes the job too seriously.
11.21.2006 10:22pm
A. Zarkov (mail):
If you can announce you want a divorce by text message…

Other than avoid confrontation, why do people text message at all? I find it easier to speak than to type. What am I missing? I suppose you might use IM to send numbers, but isn't the usual IM just a few words that could have been spoken.
11.21.2006 10:34pm
Kate1999 (mail):
Sometimes you can't talk; you're in a meeting, a class, a loud bar, etc. Or you don't have time for a full conversation.
11.21.2006 10:52pm
Dave Hardy (mail) (www):
This is a state house race --odds are good that the campaign office only had a paid employee or two to begin with, and with the election over, they've gone their way, and the candidate just checks the voicemail now and then.
11.21.2006 11:25pm
Gabriel Malor (mail):
A. Zarkov, I find that texting is a good way to keep in touch with people I'd rather not talk to. :)
11.21.2006 11:53pm
dafydd (mail) (www):
A Zarkov:

I prefer email to phone because most of what I do is non-urgent, and I don't have to distract the person with whom I'm communicating by calling them.
11.22.2006 12:17am
David M. Nieporent (www):
Other than avoid confrontation, why do people text message at all? I find it easier to speak than to type. What am I missing? I suppose you might use IM to send numbers, but isn't the usual IM just a few words that could have been spoken.
It's asynchronous. The other person doesn't have to answer the phone to get your message. My wife and I text each other all the time when we're each at work. "Don't forget to pick up bread" doesn't really require that one interrupt what one is doing.
11.22.2006 12:49am
A. Zarkov (mail):
"It's asynchronous. The other person doesn't have to answer the phone to get your message."

Good point.

"I prefer email to phone because most of what I do is non-urgent, …"

Yes I agree, and I do use email, but not IM.

"I find that texting is a good way to keep in touch with people I'd rather not talk to. :)"

I like this reason, I'm almost sold.

Nevertheless some people prefer to have extended full-duplex communications by IM instead of a simple phone conversation, and that's what puzzles me.
11.22.2006 3:10am
JohnO (mail):
The other virtue about IM is that when your sister has only one phone line and a dial-up computer, has an answering machine instead of voicemail, and her 11 year-old son is always on line, it allows you to communicate with your nephews instead of always getting a busy signal when you call.
11.22.2006 9:53am
rosignol (mail):
Nevertheless some people prefer to have extended full-duplex communications by IM instead of a simple phone conversation, and that's what puzzles me.

I do that when I need to communicate with someone and do other things at the same time. The other party is usually a co-worker.

The handy thing about IM is that you can set your client software to log the conversation, which makes it easy to review if you don't remember a detail. Very handy when discussing technical matters.
11.22.2006 10:27am
SeaDrive (mail):
The whole election concession phenomenon strikes me as being pretty 3rd grade. As in elemetary school.
11.22.2006 12:20pm
Scott Wood (mail):
In all honesty, I don't get what is supposed to be interesting about this tidbit of information. Is leaving the concession on an answering machine supposed to be un-classy? What was he supposed to do when no one answered?
11.22.2006 12:56pm
WG:
Why are politicians expected to concede when they lose an election? The election administrators should count the votes and announce the winner. At that point, the purported loser can either challenge the results or not. There is no reason to concede, it's meaningless. Do we really think a politician who has conceded won't challenge the results in court if irregularities are discovered later?
11.22.2006 3:33pm
Mr L:
Why are politicians expected to concede when they lose an election? The election administrators should count the votes and announce the winner.


Aw, c'mon -- it's an important signal that you've accepted that you didn't win and aren't going to pursue it further. If Al Gore didn't concede in 2000 we'd still be litigating it.
11.22.2006 3:44pm
lucia (mail) (www):
If Al Gore didn't concede in 2000 we'd still be litigating it.

I'm not sure what you mean. Gore's concession didn't preclude litigation!

At 2:30 am on November 8, 2000, Al Gore phoned Bush to conceed. At 3:30 am, he retracted his concession. Recounts, litigation ensued. Litigation eventually reached the US Supreme Court, which ruled on Dec. 12.

On Dec. 13, when it was clear futher litigation would be futile, Gore conceded again.
11.22.2006 11:44pm