Oh there are but the thing with the left wing is that they seem to
have hundreds of talking points while the right wing tends to focus on
a few points over and over again.
>> She conceded the race
>Eventually, but not before threatening our democracy by claiming to be
>the real governor for extended period of time.
You mean conceding that year wasn't good enough for you?
I don't know if she conceded that night or week or the next week but
clearly by the 18th of November 2018 she had conceded. Hence the
article from NPR:
Stacey Abrams has ended her bid to be Georgia's next governor. She
would have been the first black woman ever elected governor in U.S.
history. She fought a contentious race against Republican Brian Kemp.
Speaking to supporters today, Abrams says she saw no viable way to win
and spoke passionately about how the race played out.
>> but did claim that Kemp made efforts to change the results of the
>> "The issues that I raised in 2018 were not grounded in making me the
>> governor," Abrams told The 19th’s Editor-at-Large Errin Haines at a
>> Monday event. "Not a single lawsuit filed would have reversed or
>> changed the outcome of the election. My point was that the access to
>> the election was flawed, and I refuse to concede a system that permits
>> citizens to be denied access. That is very different than someone
>> claiming fraudulent outcome."
>Sounds like a lot of post-hoc rationalization to me to justify why "it
>was different" when she did it.
No, the points she raised at the time were being raised before the
election. Being in Georgia I got to see it all first hand and the
issues kept being raised in local and statewide elections by many
people. It's some of the same issues that were being raised in other
So this is really the typical political nit pick that both sides do
where they take what someone has said and focus on one point and
ignore the main point being made. In this case her statement that she
wouldn't say that she conceded (after the election was over) because
conceding means that it was a fair election and she felt that things
that were done weren't fair. However she did say that he won and there
weren't going to be any legal battles over the election.
So she didn't agree with the barriers put in the way of voters before
the election and thought that made the election unfair. Not an illegal
election or one that deserved to be contested with constant audits as
some others have done, but one where the system needs to be changed so
that everyone has the opportunity to vote. Something that I think we
are approaching as it is still easy enough to request a mail-in
ballot. So anyone who is registered to vote can vote regardless of if
they have the time to go to the polls on election day. Of course that
means there are bound to be claims of voter fraud much like Trump did
(we've already seen a few people start the discussion ) because
Republicans tend to vote on the day and Democrats do more early
voting. (I have no idea how Libertarians, Independents and others
trend in their voting habits.)