When Will Liberals Call Out Stacey Abrams for Sowing Doubts About Election?

Hey, anyone else remember back in 2016, when Democrats were shocked and appalled at Donald Trump, who said he would determine after Election Day whether or not he would accept the results?

“I will tell you at the time,” Trump told debate moderator Chris Wallace. “I’ll keep you in suspense, okay?”

To which Hillary Clinton deadpanned: “That’s horrifying.”

Horrifying. Horrifying to imagine someone running for office who would cast doubts as to the integrity of our democracy. Horrifying to think that someone could have such contempt for our electoral system that they might not even accept the results of the election. Horrifying to think that this evil dictator-in-the-making could lose the election and then tell his supporters that, well, the whole thing was rigged and, actually, he won. It was all just so terrible and frightening and awful.

So where are all of these horrified Democrats now? Why aren’t they speaking out against Stacey Abrams who, nearly six months after her loss in the Georgia governor’s race, still refuses to concede to her opponent, Brian Kemp?

In an interview with The New York Times Magazine this weekend, Abrams continued to deny the results of the election, which she lost by more than 55,000 votes. Asked in the interview what made her refusal to accept the election results any different than Trump’s claims of voter fraud, Abrams gave this answer:

“Trump offers no empirical evidence to meet his claims,” she said. “I make my claims based on empirical evidence, on a demonstrated pattern of behavior that began with the fact that the person I was dealing with was running the election. If you look at my immediate reaction after the election, I refused to concede. It was largely because I could not prove what had happened, but I knew from the calls that we got that something happened.”

Sentence One: I make my claims based on empirical evidence.

Sentence Three: I could not prove what had happened (but people are saying…)

Abrams went on: “I won because we transformed the electorate, we turned out people who had never voted, we outmatched every Democrat in Georgia history. But voter suppression is endemic, and it’s having a corrosive effect. If we do not resolve this problem, it will harm us all. I do not concede that the process was proper, nor do I condone that process.”

Sentence One: We outmatched every Democrat in Georgia history.

Sentence Two: Voter suppression is endemic.

Finally, later in the interview, Abrams admitted flat-out that she had “no empirical evidence that I would have achieved a higher number of votes.”


Maybe it’s not that she’s actively trying to hurt democracy. Maybe she’s…just not that bright?

Comments are closed.