Why is Coakley CONCEDING before 930 and before all of the urban areas are in?

[ProgressiveEconomist]

are in?

I cannot fathom this.

[Joe the Revelator]

1. Because she's a terrible candidate.

[LLStarks]

2. 100,000 vote deficit

[ProgressiveEconomist]

6. True, 100,000 would be hard to make up with the last third of a projected 2 million vote.

But why CONCEDE so early?

Have you ever heard of a candidate losing by single digits conceding so early?

[treestar]

11. Maybe she really didn't want the job?

I'm beginning to think so.

[jpak]

7. yup

:(

[ProgressiveEconomist]

22. A little after 930 Coakely could anticipate tens of thousands of net votes from Boston

and a few lesser cities, out of 351 jurisdictions:

From http://www.boston.com/news/special/politics/2010/senate/results.html :

Boston____ 207 of 254 35,748 80,105
Cambridge_ 001 of 33 139 1,067
Lowell____ 003 of 33 418 850
Worcester_ 035 of 50 9,779 12,098

[frazzled]

3. For the same reason she ...

(a) took two ballots and tried to turn it into a conspiracy and
(b) started finger pointing before it was even over to everyone else but herself

because she knew she had blown it.

[RBInMaine]

4. If she has real character, and I think she does, tomorrow she will admit she BLEW IT.

[Hippo_Tron]

5. Because she lost

It might be by 3 points rather than 6 but Brown's lead is basically insurmountable at this point.

[Xenotime]

8. Recount!! Don't concede

[RBInMaine]

13. Come down to earth. Recount what? A shitty campaign?

[Codeine]

20. You think the numbers will change that much?

We're not talking a couple thousand votes here. That's just nuts. She lost.

[napi21]

9. Her people know which spots to look for. If they saw the results of those

key areas and they were bad, or not enough to make it close, they already know what the final results would be. Why prolong the agony?

[Statistical]

10. How about down 5% with only 25% vote out.

She would need to be up 15-18% on the remaining votes (42-58) to pull ahead. Virtually impossible. Also there are more rural areas than urban ones left. Entirely possible that the lead will grow not shrink as the last rural areas report.

[theothersnippywshrub]

12. Because even if she carried all of the outstanding precincts by record breaking margins

it still would not be enough to win. Sorry to be so pedantic.

[Codeine]

14. Because the numbers don't add up.

She'd have to win enormous majorities to make up the deficit. People forget conservatives live in cities too.

[WillyT]

15. Because She Has Her Own Pollsters, And They Knew It Was Over

when they saw the results coming in.

:shrug:

[Dr.Phool]

16. She's leaving to go on vacation?

[msongs]

17. she's doing a john kerry nt

[WeDidIt]

18. Because hse has to win ALL OF them huger than she's won any precinct yet

to catch Brown.

It's over.

She got fucking trounced.

[BunkerHill24]

19. Coakley was a bad candidate, and should never have been running for this historic seat

...that said, let us re-group and learn from this....onward to 2010!


'Nuff said.

[demodonkey]

21. No candidate, no matter how far down, should EVER concede an election til all the votes are counted.

If for no other reason, out of respect for the voters who were not counted yet.

There's no reason to concede, and every reason to make sure every vote is counted before elections are called.

Rushing to finalize elections in the first few minutes after the polls close leads to a world of trouble. Maybe not this time but it has in the past and it will in the future. MARK MY WORDS.

[Sebastian Doyle]

23. Following that fine tradition of weak candidates from MA?

Dukakis......Kerry.....Coakley........

Or maybe it's just past her bedtime?