Stacey Abrams’s Big Lie Has Real Consequences
Following an election in Georgia, the loser was outraged. Despite losing by a wide enough margin to be beyond major dispute, they felt cheated. They blamed laws, election officials, and anything else they could think of, citing them as definitive proof that they had been robbed of a deserved victory. A subsequent media tour led to major figures in their party siding with them, declaring as gospel the loser’s claims to be true.
You might think I’m talking about former President Donald Trump and his infamous “big lie” in the wake of his clear 12,000-vote defeat. But I’m not — I’m talking about Stacey Abrams, the losing candidate for Governor in 2018. Far from being raked over the coals, Abrams has instead been given credibility and credence following her ridiculous claims. Refashioning herself as a voting rights expert, in clear preparation for another go in 2022, she’s been treated glowingly by the national press. But far from a hero, Abrams has become a danger to American politics — one that must be confronted and rejected.
A Failed Candidacy
Donald Trump’s shocking victory in 2016 sent shockwaves throughout the political world. Accelerating trends that had been visible for years, Trump made stunning progress for Republicans in Rust Belt states while declining rapidly in the Sun Belt. No state is perhaps as visible in this category as Georgia. In 2004, George W. Bush won the state by 16%, carrying all of the suburban Atlanta counties with at least 60% of the vote. By 2016, Hillary Clinton had come within 5.1% of carrying the state and had flipped six of the major suburban counties. Deep statistical analysis showed an opening specific to the Atlanta area, but even analysts where initially skeptical Democrats could compete statewide.
To the shock of many, Stacey Abrams emerged onto the scene as a strong candidate. In the closest gubernatorial race in the state since 1994, Republican Brian Kemp pulled out a win of 1.4 percentage points. With 50.2% of the vote, Kemp finished only around 10,000 votes ahead of a runoff, but he also recorded a clear margin of victory of 55,000 votes. Rather than going off gracefully, Abrams instead saw a political opportunity.
A Post-election Embarrassment
Kemp, the Secretary of State of Georgia, had presided over the election; this isn’t actually unprecedented or that unusual. But using this as justification, she claimed he had misused his office to help his campaign. She cited purges of inactive voters as proof the election was rigged, and the vote suppressed. Abrams even compared Kemp’s actions to Jim Crow laws. However, an analysis from the Atlanta-Journal Constitution found no evidence of “systematic malfeasance” or any impact that would come close to flipping the election. Nonetheless, Stacey Abrams simply refused to concede for weeks. Finally, on the 16th, in a ridiculous and embarrassing show, Abrams acknowledged she would not be Governor but refused to concede. Rather than doing the right thing and admitting she lost, used this opportunity to promote her new “voting rights group” Fair Fight. And moreover, she ridiculously claimed that she could “certainly bring a new case to keep this one contest alive,” seemingly claiming that such a lawsuit might overturn the race. Her only reason not to do this was that evidently that she didn’t want to win that way, a ridiculous and insulting claim.
Stacey Abrams’s claims defied the reality on the ground. They were a clear and transparent attempt to create a Big Lie and paint herself as a martyr – and the sad thing is, they worked. Abrams received glowing media profiles regarding her new organization, few of which questioned her refusal to concede. Democratic politicians rushed to join her cause: among the prominent figures declaring her the legitimate winner included Kamala Harris, Hillary Clinton, Pete Buttigieg, Sherrod Brown, Cory Booker, Bernie Sanders, and Amy Klobuchar. In the years following her loss, she claimed that conceding means “condoning systems that are used to oppress us” and an admission that the system was fair. Most egregiously, she said “I did win my election, I just didn’t get to have the job“. This is, of course, baloney. Her refusal to concede, far from a selfless cry to fix a broken system, was instead a cynical (and successful) attempt to keep herself relevant.
Trump’s Big Lie
We all know the embarrassing charade that former President Trump engaged in following his defeat. Like a petulant toddler, he threw a temper-tantrum, demanding the state legislatures, and then the courts, and then the Supreme Court, award him a win he had not earned. As the Congress met and the Vice President presided over the ceremonial counting of the electoral votes, an angry mob stoked by the President tried to disrupt the session. In the chaos, five people died — four rioters and one police officer. Trump’s ridiculous actions earned him a second impeachment, and while it failed, it proved to have the most bipartisan impeachment vote in history as seven Republicans voted to convict.
This event cannot be separated from the subsequent voting laws that have emerged, but it isn’t the whole story. Even without the months-long Trump temper-tantrum, Republicans would in all likelihood have made adjustments to the law. Republicans have long been lukewarm at most on mail voting, and early voting has also been a frequent point of contention. There are arguments to be made on both sides, but it’s inarguable why these laws have been considered. However, intent is not what matters in law; rather, what the law actually says is what matters. Sadly, this entire point seems to have been lost. If you want to understand the law better, Grace Panetta of Business Insider put together an excellent piece on the subject.
Stacey Abrams’s Second Big Lie
Two weeks before the law was passed, Stacey Abrams’s organization had already registered the “Jim Crow 2” domain. After it was passed, Democratic activists — including the President, Joe Biden — referred to the law using this terminology. To hear them speak it, this was perhaps the worst law in the history of laws, a bill that is far worse than the original Jim Crow laws that saw the state impose explicit racial segregation as well as the exclusion of black voters from the voting rolls. Activists, backed by Senator Raphael Warnock, originally claimed the bill ended no-excuse absentee voting and restricting early voting on weekends; the bill did neither. Biden falsely claimed the bill reduced voting hours, and his administration has since refused to admit he was wrong. With the conversation being led by activists, however, and the claims of people like Abrams and Biden, the damage would begin.
Major League Baseball, in response to the law, decided to move its All-Star Game. Georgia Democrats almost immediately and uniformly said this was a bad decision; apparently, laws that are literally worse than Jim Crow shouldn’t lead to a boycott. As a result, an estimated $100m in economic activity will be taken from Cobb County. Stacey Abrams has said boycotts are a bad decision, but this simply does not match her rhetoric. If this new law is literally Jim Crow, a boycott is not only justified — it’s the only moral thing to do.
The False Prophet
Stacey Abrams doesn’t seem to realize that her words have consequences, and her claims will be taken seriously outside the political sphere. Rather than treating this law rationally — targeting the bad parts and not making lies or ridiculous claims — Abrams and her allies opted for shock value, presumably hoping this would help her 2022 campaign. And as the self-declared expert on election law and voting rights, people bought her claims hook, line, and sinker.
While this might be helpful for Abrams’s political career, it’s having real consequences for the people of Georgia. It also presents a bad example for future politicians, tempted by the money and fame that a refusal to concede can provide. Former Senator Kelly Loeffler has created her own organization, Greater Georgia, to counter Abrams, and it specifically aims to restore “faith and confidence in our elections” … sound familiar?
The monster Stacey Abrams has created is one where, rather than conceding, candidates claim the system is rigged. It’s one where elections never are accepted and where neither side feels the other has ever won legitimately. Despite her claims to the contrary, this vision is no different than the fantasy world Trump embraced after the election. As Americans, it’s our duty to hold all to account, regardless of party, for the sake of our democracy. And it we fail to do see, there might be even more dire consequences than the capitol riot.
Very interesting piece, thanks for writing it!Report
I expect we’ll see more such claims whenever we have such close elections. I doubt Abrams was the first, I doubt she’ll be the last, as long as it is politically beneficial to make such a claim.Report
Georgia’s electoral history is as ugly as any in the nation. There was no reason for Stacey Abrams to assume an election overseen by her competitor was run fairly or decently, and that’s before engaging with the specifics of the decisions that Brian Kemp was making at the time, nevermind what decisions have been made in the last few weeks. And she still stood down a few weeks later, and certainly didn’t engage in anything remotely similar to what Trump and Trump supporters did and continue to do. Her supporters didn’t kill anybody. Her supporters didn’t riot. And her supporters damned sure didn’t rewrite the electoral rules to keep conservatives from participating.Report
Elections are overseen at the county level in Georgia. From there on, your entire argument falls apart.Report
I always enjoy the whole “Cancel Culture Doesn’t Exist!” discussion.
Usually it has to do with the first person using a particular definition and the second person using a completely different definition and so the first person sees the All-Star Game moving to a real city, one that isn’t racist, one that isn’t in the craphole Jesusland part of the country and whines “this is cancel culture!” and the second person, using a completely different definition, says “I’m not talking about the thing that you’re talking about but the thing that I refer to when I use that term doesn’t exist!”
Anyway, the whole attitude that some people have toward Freddie? Well, now they get to have it about Georgia.
It doesn’t matter what’s true. The only thing that matters is the crab bucketing over who can have the strongest communicated emotional reaction to What Georgia Did.
Personally, I think that Georgia needs to secede. They can take the rest of the racist states with them!Report
Any thoughts on how to make these conversations less fun and more focused on truth?Report
Quid est veritas?Report
We could start with Abrams and Trump having lost their elections, and go on to look at each aspect of the elections and the impact of proposed changes. There will be room for individual prioritizations of ease of voting versus voting security. I would consider it foundational that those two criteria are the only acceptable ones; that is to say, these decisions shouldn’t be considered with regard to their expected impact on election outcomes.Report
You and a whole lot of other folks would need to explain – in plain English – how the 2020 elections were insecure, and what the Georgia law does to address that. Given that Georgia’s Secretary of State said they were secure, as did Bill Barr and Trump’s head of Cyber security at DHS, I’m waiting . . . . .Report
How Stacey Abrams built her image as an of amalgam of RBG, AOC and Oprah in the eyes of so many influential people is a brilliant story waiting to be written.
You can’t even resent her for the concession gambit, because it only enhanced her legend. The culmination of long-standing partisan trends at just the right time made her the perfect combo: both victim and victor. Her brand is more valuable than it’s ever been.Report
“it’s inarguable why these laws have been considered. However, intent is not what matters in law;”
Well, I guess it is a good thing that this isn’t a court of law, and we aren’t lawyers.
We are citizens observing the behavior of our elected officials, and deciding how to vote.
And in this, intent very much matters.
So as you say, it isn’t arguable why the Republicans are passing these laws- they tell us openly that their intent is to suppress Democratic constituencies from participating in the electoral process, and thereby assure minority rule without the consent of the governed.
So how should American citizens respond to a political party that rejects the fundamental premise of our democracy?Report
I’m sure, given your comments, that you’re 100% opposed to gerrymandering then too right? Because each political side has used that technique to to do exactly what you complain about.Report
You clearly haven’t been paying attention because yes, the liberals on OT are generally against gerrymandering by anyone.Report
I don’t have a spreadsheet where I identify OT names to the positions they’ve taken over the years. I’d rather spend time playing Witcher 3 again.Report
The unwary leftist’s brutish animal instincts sense a trap, but of course the mind dulled by CRT and PC and BLM Antifa Alinksy Cloward-Piven Wokism is far too dim to avoid it, and recklessly declares:
“Why yes! Yes, I am 100% opposed to gerrymandering!”Report
I am opposed to gerrymandering. It makes a mockery of the election process, and prevents jurisdictions from dealing with the economic and demographic shifts that occur within. It was wrong when Democrats used it to preserve white’s only enclaves in the south; its wrong now.Report
What does that even mean? Honest question.
What’s the best way to build districts? Here’s the 538 Tool from 2018.
The fact that the 538 tool hasn’t been updated since 2018 seems to me to be a signal that coming up with an agreed upon framework for *not* gerrymandering is probably not a very high concern for 538 policy influencers.
I kinda like Highly competitive… but we all know that’s a dead-letter since the last thing congress wants is competition.
My second favorite would be Compact (I could go either with or without counties, but would start with counties)
Pretty much ends majority minority districts… unless that’s your specific pick. Then, well, we’re making a particular case in *favor* of gerrymandering.Report
What does it mean, “consent of the governed”?
Gerrymandering is like that, in that at some point a district becomes drawn in such a way that it can’t claim to legitimately represent the people, and the elections can’t truly be said to have the consent of the governed.
I can’t provide a simple formula for when and how that happens, or a way to prevent it.
But any approach could work, provided both parties were committed to the idea of equal representation.
But we don’t have that, now do we?Report
So it’s possible to not be represented by a government that you live under? Because the other people who live in that democracy are so very different from you?
Golly!Report
Cards on the table, I’m in favor of redistricting changes… preferably starting with the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929… but ultimately we have to build consensus around one particular algorithmic standard that is applied consistently… not the “its not gerrymandering if we have a select committee gerrymander one way in this state, but another way in that state.”Report
Honestly, I’d go for the brute force approach – use proportional representation by state for the House. No congressional districts means no gerrymandering.Report
Sure, I could be persuaded to support proportional at the state level… especially with appropriate openings for lower threshold third parties.
A possible downside I’d consider real would be disassociating representatives from any particular constituency (other than state)… possibly a hybrid geography plus at large (for smoothing and 3rd parties — for states with enough districts) might assuage my concerns.
But my point remains that ‘bespoke’ gerrymandering by commission is still gerrymandering (who picks the pickers?)… it’s the rules, the algorithm, that needs general agreement. Which is why I keep linking to 538 because it visually illustrates that the order of our preference for the rules will determine the outcome.Report
Having 7,000 Congressional districts would make gerrymandering impossible.Report
It would make it harder, sure. 🙂
But my starting point would be lowest populated State as the baseline… so ~500k for Wyoming is the district sizing metric.
Approx 650 congressional districts plus 100 Sentate… so 750 (or 753 if we deal with DC as now).
377 to win is the new Presidential slogan.Report
Explain how gerrymandering works in state-wide elections…Report
It doesn’t. But most elections aren’t state wide.Report
The 2020 Georgia election was stolen by Evian.Report
Also, there was no unfortunate symbolism in Kemp’s signing this bill surrounded by a group of white men, while a black legislator was arrested for … knocking on his office door.Report
“Nonetheless, Stacey Abrams simply refused to concede for weeks. Finally, on the 16th, in a ridiculous and embarrassing show, Abrams acknowledged she would not be Governor but refused to concede.”
The election was on the 6th. The article you linked to in the above quote was dated November 17th. I mean, 11 days is more than A week but does it really qualify as “weeks”?
Yea, yea, nitpicking a turn of phrase. But if you need to manipulate simple basic facts to make a comparison work, maybe just maybe the comparison doesn’t work.Report
But Abrams did incite a riot, and even though she’d sent a violent mob after the legislature, they gave her a Champion for Freedom award.Report
An election overseen by one of the competitors is ridiculous and should not occur. Kemp should have stepped down and the law changed to prevent that. Just to promote election integrity that could of thing should be avoided.
You are soft pedaling the issues with the new Georgia law. The entire exercise is in reaction to trumps coup attempt. Who are they or any of the conservo election law changes trying to make feel more secure. Just R voters who think to many Ds voted. The G leg now has the power to take away authority from local voting boards. What would have happened in 20 if the leg didn’t like the Atlanta vote totals, they have taken counting away from them and done it themselves.Report
Hmm, the state legislature declaring that the vote count is invalid and choosing a different winner seems to ring a bell. Who was demanding that, again?Report
If both sides aren’t the same, then I might have to make difficult choices.
Best if both sides are always the same. Then nothing matters and I can do whatever I want.Report
Which of the two sides is being hurt more by MLB going to a real city that isn’t anywhere near as systematically racist as Atlanta is?Report
The Atlanta Braves don’t play in or near Atlanta though. It is fun to research why exactly that is.Report
Then I don’t know what Georgia is complaining about. The game is barely even there!Report
Truist Park is 15 minutes from Atlanta. And one of the major reasons the Braves moved from the city is because Atlanta democrat politicians absolutely refused to rezone the area around Turner Field for businesses to open up. Getting to Turner Field was a nightmare and once you were there, there was nothing else to do. No shops, no dining options, heck, even the parking was ridiculous.Report
Atlanta democrat politicians
I hate Atlanta democrat politiciansReport
MLB moved the game after being pressured by corporate sponsors.
We should keep corporations out of big business.Report
Hey, the All-Star Game is coming to *MY* state.
We also have legal recreational weed which Georgia doesn’t have!
I’m guessing it’s here to stay!
(Also, Coors Field has thinner air than Georgia so we’ll have more dingers than Georgia could have hoped to have!)Report
This is like a master class in why Tod says debate is pointless.Report
Greg, I’m one of the people who benefits from MLB’s move.
I’m not understanding why people think it’s bad.
Do *YOU* think that the All-Star Game moving is bad?Report
I feel somewhat badly for Atlanta.
Twenty years ago, the Colorado legislature and Governor Woody were perfectly capable of passing bad bills on a subject that had become suddenly fashionable. No member from the City of Denver would have voted for them. I would be surprised if there are many members of the Georgia legislature from Atlanta that voted for the bills. So Denver is going to get some number of travelers and some amount of free publicity at the expense of Atlanta.
On a largely different topic, in Georgia the bills passed and are (so far as I know) in effect. If they had passed in Colorado 20 years ago, it is very likely they would be in their 90-day waiting period, signatures would be being collected, and they would wind up on the ballot and (at least some of them) would be rejected by the voters in November and would never be in effect. This is why I bitch and moan about East Coast pundits who equate Georgia and Arizona. Arizona is a veto referendum state and I, at least, believe that Arizona voters won’t stand for the legislature’s shenanigans. These are the same voters that took redistricting power away from the legislature years ago.Report
It’s not about Atlanta, not really.
If it reminds me of anything, it reminds me of the Outsourcing Megatrend of the Oughts.
If you weren’t outsourcing to Singapore, your major shareholders would ask “why aren’t you outsourcing to Singapore?” and that had diminishing returns after a year or so, then Malaysia, then India… whatever. It wasn’t about whether there was a benefit to it, it was that Everyone Knew that there was a benefit to it and it became something to question why in the world we weren’t doing it too!?!?!?
The pendulum swung back pretty hard.
Yesterday I saw that Will Smith had removed his movie from Georgia due to its Jim Crowish Election Laws.
So they’re shooting in Louisiana instead.
Which, apparently, has worse laws.
It’s not about what the numbers actually are.
It’s just that there are a bunch of shareholders who are looking at the Megatrend instead of the numbers.Report
We should keep corporations out of big business.
Look, the business of America *IS* business. Corporations need to just stay out of it.Report
The key issue, I think, in both the voter purge of 2018 and the 2021 election law, is timing.
Candidate Kemp, who was GA Secretary of State at the time, directed the purge of the rolls at a time that was suspiciously close to an election he had a personal interest in. Legal, yes, but if you were looking for a conflict of interest, there’s a big one staring you right in the face.
Next, we have a revamp of election law coming hard on the heels of Trump’s spurious claims of fraud. Curiously, the bill’s title is the Election Integrity Act of 2021. Following an election in which the Republican Secretary of State declared no fraud took place, one has to wonder just how much more integrity can be introduced into the process.
The OP may wish to tar Ms. Abrams with a Trumpian brush, but I think he’s trying too hard.Report
These types of posts are always disorienting to me. For over a decade state level GOP has passed voting restrictions intentionally targeting Dem-voting demographics yet a popular Dem calling out that observable fact is viewed as the REAL problem wrt election integrity.Report
In fact, tampering with election laws to screw Democrats is what they plea-bargain down to when accused of screwing minorities. Then, if someone brings up the ethics of disenfranchising people, out come the deep thoughts about whether too much democracy is wise. It’s laughably transparent.Report
It’s not about being right or wrong or DOING right or wrong. It is about WHO is the right kinda person and who is the wrong kinda person.
Trump? Kemp? Right kinda people!
Abrams? Wrong kinda person!
Why you ask? Well, if you HAVE to ask…Report