An election in Virginia was tied so the results was decided by drawing lots from a bowl (BBC video). The loser behaved very poorly.
I just see her walking out, clearly upset, but not actually doing anything. I was expecting worse from your description of “behaved very poorly.”
She wasn’t particularly gracious, but I’m not sure I’d say she behaved “very poorly”. Meh. Why does her 5 seconds of being pissed merit our attention?
It was a totally fugly bowl. Really, it looked like a chamber pot.
I agree, she doesn’t seem to have behaved very badly.
But to be honest I think the process was not well done. We don’t have continuous video, but the names should have been put into the canisters out of sight of the one drawing. You can’t tell for sure that he couldn’t keep an eye on them the whole time. Even the hand mixing might be only apparent, as he could already have one gripped in his hand. I’m not saying the drawing wasn’t fair, I’m saying from what we can see, they did a poor job of making sure it was obviously fair. A simple coin flip would have done that.
Because people on the left are just awful, awful people, as demonstrated by her failure to react with visible pleasure at the lot-drawing result.
Agree.
What? Did she slug a reporter or something?
Perhaps Quartz thinks the loser should have congratulated the winner before leaving. However, that would have been impossible in this case because while the loser was present, the winner didn’t even show up.
Let me see if I can guess your party affiliation.
Seriously? Yeah, that would make it kinda tough to shake hands with him. I guess she could have thanked the guy drawing names or something.
After the hard fought recount battle, being a little peeved that the drawing didn’t go your way is pretty understandable. And, anyway, not everyone can be as gracious and tactful as, for example, the President.
She showed more class in an incredibly close election than Roy Moore did after getting clearly beaten. From the video evidence supplied in the OP, she has got a lot to learn about being a sore loser.
He’s a Scottish liberal sort, but has these strange streaks of propriety in politics. Like, he generally thinks Trump is treated unfairly.
It is also worth noting that Simonds actually won the recount by one vote, and it was then decided to count a ballot which had both candidates marked on it for Yancey, creating the tie. I cannot imagine anyone being happy about losing an arbitrary draw after legally winning the election, and Simonds took the loss with better grace than some notable people have behaved about winning an election, i.e. not levying a single complaint about rigged counts or fantasy illegal voters.
The o.p. apparently just wants to manufacture controversy ascribing purported bad behavior to anyone who is not of politically conservative bent, and will no doubt act shocked and hurt that anyone would think it so despite a pervasive pattern of similar behavior.
Stranger
I would’ve been pretty pissed, too. As soon as I heard that the ruined ballot would be accepted (which changed Simond’s win to a tie) and, as a result, a random draw would decide the winner, I just freakin’ *knew *that she had already lost. There was no way in hell the GOP would let the Dems break their stranglehold.
The old rule in boxing is, if the title match ends in a draw, the champion keeps his belt. I just assume that’s probably the way it works in politics as well.
You have the right to be wrong.
How did the loser “behave poorly”, OP?
There’s also the problem that the “loser” actually won by one vote, and that the election was only tied because they chose to double-count one vote that had already been counted.
I’ve seen the double-counting allegation raised before, but not with any cites. It doesn’t seem plausible, either - if you’re going to slip one ballot back into the pile, why not a few more to avoid the risk of losing a drawing?