A prepared Stacey Abrams did not allow This Week host to create a false equivalence between her Georgia election and Trump’s.
Stacey Abrams sets the record straight
There is absolutely no similarity between Donald Trump’s refusal to concede his loss to Stacey Abrams delay in accepting her “defeat” for Georgia governor. It is a false equivalence. The bottom line is that Abrams was real voter suppression. Trump is fighting for voter fraud against him that did not occur.
However, poetic justice; the voter fraud found thus far was by the Pennsylvania Lieutenant Governor who found three cases of people attempting to vote for Donald Trump more than once.
The Atlantic described Stacey’s loss as follows.
The Democrat Stacey Abrams, a black woman, made a valiant effort to win the governor’s race in Georgia, one of the original 13 states, whose commitment to human bondage ensured that the U.S. Constitution would treat slavery with kid gloves. A state that was part of the Confederacy. A state scorched by Union General William Tecumseh Sherman in the Civil War. A state that refused to accept the outcome of that war, treating its black residents as second-class citizens—if that—until the federal government forced its hand, a century later, with the Voting Rights Act. She tried to write a new narrative for this state.
Although Abrams has not yet conceded, citing uncounted ballots, it looks as though the other side has won, and the narrative is the same as ever. Abrams didn’t have to fight just an electoral campaign; she had to fight a civil-rights campaign against the forces of voter suppression.
Indeed, I can’t quite bring myself to say that Abrams “lost,” because there’s an asterisk next to her Republican opponent’s victory.
Brian Kemp, who billed himself as a “Trump conservative,” refused to step aside as Georgia’s secretary of state; he ran for governor of a state while overseeing the elections in that state. Former President Jimmy Carter, a Georgian with much experience monitoring elections abroad, stressed that this conflict of interest ran “counter to the most fundamental principle of democratic elections—that the electoral process be managed by an independent and impartial election authority.”
Now that is the proper context. There is no comparison.