Dpareja saying he would not blame Saccone due to how close it was...
...would you also not blame Judge Moore for challenging his results?
I cannot help but feel this arbitrary skepticism is due to Lamb not exactly being the purest of leftists.
I think Moore was right to want a recount, precisely because it was close. (And Jones is nobody's leftist.) (EDIT: Of course, the Alabama special Senate election was nowhere near as close as the one currently under discussion; see below regarding my thoughts on whether a recount should occur.)
Do not think that I would somehow prefer Saccone or Moore to win; that does not mean I cannot also lament that their primary opposition was also not to my personal taste in political philosophy. (Lizard elections, if you will.)
What I want is to be sure that the result is correct, whatever effect that might ultimately have on the outcome. If a recount were to show that, in fact, Saccone had won, then while I would not like that outcome, I would also be content that it was the correct outcome.
Close elections should be subject to automatic recounts; up here, the threshold to trigger a mandatory judicial recount in federal elections is a margin of 0.1% of all votes cast in the riding (federally; the standard varies for provincial elections). Personally, I think that margin is too slim and might prefer 0.5% or even 1%, but I certainly think there should be some margin under which a recount is mandatory. (I will note that there are two counts done in federal elections: a provisional election-night count so that results are largely known by the following morning at the latest, and a second official count conducted over the following week or so before candidates are declared elected. It is on the basis of the latter that judicial recounts are triggered. I would also note that under the three standards I have given--the current 0.1%, and the two more expansive standards of 0.5% or 1%--the number of recounts in the previous federal election were or would have been, respectively, 0, 8, and 12.)
If the margin had been, say, 6,000 votes in favour of Lamb, I would be highly critical of Saccone for not conceding and demanding a recount unless he had very convincing evidence that there was a great deal of fuckery going on, and similarly if the roles were reversed. But since the margin is as small as it is, I think he is well justified in not conceding and considering insisting on a recount.
Now, I would also not blame him if he elected not to insist on a recount, even though the margin is such that under the sort of law governing recounts that I would support, one would be triggered automatically in this case. Given that no such provision exists in Pennsylvania law (to my knowledge, anyway), it is ultimately Saccone's choice whether or not to force a recount, and while in his place I would do so, and would so advise him were I in such a position, I can certainly understand the arguments for not doing so, the one I personally find most persuasive being the expense of a recount.
(Note: Here, the costs of a mandatory recount are borne by the state. However, candidates or voters can request a recount, but they must first convince a judge that there are grounds for doing so--candidates are permitted to have observers at polling stations and at vote counting, partly in order that they could collect evidence of possible malfeasance or misinterpretation of ballots in order to challenge an election--and the candidate or voter making such a challenge must then guarantee the costs incurred by whichever candidate ultimately is declared the winner.)
In short, my support of a recount is borne of my desire to ensure that the democratic process plays out fairly and reaches the proper result given the will of the people expressed by the voters through their ballots. Since it is Saccone who will ultimately choose whether a recount will occur, I would not only not blame him for wanting a recount, but--as I noted--advise him to seek one, and, further, would support changes in the law both to require recounts in close elections and to ensure that recounts can be done fully and comprehensively (such as by requiring hand-marked paper ballots).