Yes.
Perhaps more in these more polarized times than ever before.
But not as a matter of law.
Didn’t everybody have them in advance, kinda? If you know what the subjects are, you pretty much already know what Il Douche is going to say, don’t you?
I didn’t have the emotional strength to watch the debate. Were any questions surprising at all? Didn’t Wallace announce the general topics before the debate? If you’re a professional politician and you know one of the topics is going to be “Debt and Entitlements”, don’t you have a pretty good idea what’s coming? Did Wallace ask about unladen swallows or something?
Like when the prof says what’s going to be on the final?
Somewhere today I was reading that even Trump knows he’s lost and doesn’t care any more. Just getting his based more and more upset seems to be his only goal now.
IIRC, Chris Matthews, er, Wallace mentioned in his opening remarks that both campaigns were not given the questions in advance.
Off the top of my head: Foreign Policy, Immigration, Economy, National Debt, Abortion/Women’s Rights, and each candidate’s respective scandals… so, this debate was clearly biased against Trump.
I don’t think concessions are legally binding.
I do have one question- suppose Trump gets whomped but refuses to concede. Would the Secret Service keep protecting him or would they be told to abandon him?
What a weird article. It’s claiming that Trump didn’t shake Wallace’s hand - he absolutely did, and spent quite a bit talking to him afterwards.
The famous case of Black Knight v. Arthur Rex. The plaintiff refused to concede, but his lawyers advised against bringing the case to court. Because, legally, he hadn’t a leg to stand on.
I’ve seen a lot of reports that he hung back and stood at the podium while Hillary shook hands with Wallace. Perhaps Trump waited until Hillary was done with her thing before he approached Wallace, and most people don’t know this because they weren’t watching beyond that point.
You would think a news organization would know that, though.
Gun rights, abortion, immigration, Russian espionage and Wikileaks, how do your plans grow the economy and create jobs, Obamacare, Trump groping and HRC defending WJC, Clinton Foundation, rigged election and accepting the results, Iraq, ISIS, Syria, the national debt, a grand bargain on entitlements, and why you as the next president.
All great surprises to be asked.
Strange idea I saw elsewhere - he’s deliberately not saying which debate or questions (despite last night be the obvious one), so he can say he’s talking about the primary debate with Sanders.
Tweets Trump: “Why didn’t Hillary Clinton announce that she was inappropriately given the debate questions - she secretly used them! Crooked Hillary.” Shouldn’t that be “Crooked Chris”?
I didn’t see him shake Wallace’s hand, although I could have simply missed it. I saw Trump huddled on the stage with his peeps, and then seemingly bolting while Hillary shook Wallace’s hand, hung around taking selfies and working the crowd.
Picture of Trump Wallace handshake here.
Conceding is a formality. A very important one, for reasons explained for the last several months.
Legally, I don’t think it means anything.
Conceding doesn’t prevent you from later contesting.
Not conceding doesn’t prevent the results from being certified or the winner from taking office.
News organizations probably do but that wouldn’t include Politicususa.
That actually does to be sort of a crap source, so I apologize for linking to it. Trump did make that tweet about Clinton getting the debate questions, so I’m not sure what the hell he is trying to say. If he even knows, since he also claims that he won this debate, just like the other two.
My only concern with him not conceding is how much it riles up his base and in what form is that riling ultimately expressed.
Legally, conceding doesn’t do anything. It’s an act of politics to make clear to the people (especially your supporters) that you recognize the results and will stand aside.
In 2000, the votes were already cast and – as we all now know – they were actually cast for Electors, not actually for Gore. So regardless of what Gore says in November, the electors would still convene and cast their ballots for Gore in December and he would be president assuming he doesn’t outright refuse to serve. But Gore’s concession in November doesn’t invalidate the selection of the electors or their ability to cast their ballots in the electoral college.