"[Stacey] Abrams mulls asking a court to order a second vote in Georgia governor’s race" (WaPo).
[Abrams] would rely on a provision in Georgia law that has never been utilized in such a high-profile contest. It allows losing candidates to challenge results based on “misconduct, fraud or irregularities . . . sufficient to change or place in doubt the results.”...
Unofficial returns show Kemp with about 50.2 percent of the more than 3.9 million votes cast. To avoid a runoff with Abrams, he must win at least 50 percent of the vote. He has about 18,000 more votes than necessary to win outright.
To prevail in a court challenge, Abrams would have to demonstrate that irregularities were widespread enough that at least 18,000 Georgians either had their ballots thrown out or were not allowed to vote.
UPDATE:
Abrams gives up, because "The law currently allows no further viable remedy," but...
“Let’s be clear: This is not a speech of concession because concession means to acknowledge an action is right, true or proper,” Ms. Abrams said amid a blistering attack on Mr. Kemp’s record as the state’s chief elections regulator and on the balloting process in Georgia. “As a woman of conscience and faith, I cannot concede that.”
Posts
113 comments:
Don't worry, it's not like she wants recounts and revotes to go on forever.
Once democracy gets to her destination, she'll get off.
She'd might have better chance having the votes counted in Broward County.
Even Clinton wasn't that brazen.
could it be said that there is tacit approval from a sizeable chunk of the Dem base nationwide re: these shenanigans?
Can she still ask the judge for a recount if it was her own party that committed the irregularities?
Darn, James, you beat me to it.
Hillary Clinton will call on Stacey Adams to accept the election results.
But I’ve been assured of the integrity of the voting process, and that there’s no need even for ID....
There's no fraud, except in Georgia, when Democrats don't win.
Best two out of three elections would be better. You can't just replace one with another one.
re-count and re-do until the desired outcome is achieved.
bullocks.
Abrams thought that the "Oprah factor" would put her over top. That sparkle in her eye was the star power and star money that seemed to come out of nowhere, but now appears to have not had the anticipated effect.
Sorry Stacey, but you got used.
"It's not over till we win!"
-- Famous Democrat
I will be interested to see if they can dig up 18 people who couldn't vote because they don't have some form or ID.
-XC
Expat(ish) said...
I will be interested to see if they can dig up 18 people who couldn't vote because they don't have some form or ID.
In Illinois you don't have to actually dig them up: for voting purposes a death certificate is considered a valid form of ID
HRC haves chimed in because she knows Abrams well and had the election been fair Abrams would have won. There can be no other reason.
Has chimed.
"It allows losing candidates to challenge results based on 'misconduct, fraud or irregularities'"
Reminds me of that line from The Sting, "What was I supposed to do? Call him for cheating better than me?"
I live in the Atlanta metro area and I'm pretty frustrated by this.
Erick Erickson on our local talk radio has had some interesting commentary on this race. Evidently, Abrams and the Dems raised and spent BIG, BIG money on data mining software that was sold as "fool proof" and would not only delivery the Georgia statehouse, but would be the basis of delivering the White House in 2020.
If Abrams loses this race, it damages the credibility of this strategy for 2020 and may cause major donors to doubt their "investments" in Georgia and the national strategy.
These people must never be allowed to have power.
I'm here in Georgia too and can't believe how willing the press is to suspend disbelief when reporting. If this was a Republican, the press would be mocking them endlessly.
Well, if anyone knows from irregularities, it's going to be the Democratic candidate.
But I’ve been assured of the integrity of the voting process
You didn't think left wingers actually believe what they claim did you?
By hook or by crook. Absolute power and we know what that does.
0.2% of 3.9 million works out to 7,800 votes for me.
The Abrams campaign is just trying to get Kemp below the 50.00% threshold - one way or another - so that they can claim a runoff election is required by law(fare).
Democracy will only work if all participants respect the process.
Democrats clearly use democracy and do not respect the institution.
Every race in the last weeks since the election has closed toward the Democrat candidate. 12 seats have flipped since the election in the house and 2 in the senate.
At some point people will realize that they will have to fight for the republic or we will lose it.
Amazing that these shenanigans weren't successfully forestalled by the Republican candidate, who himself had the office and authority to do so before the election, by making sure the election system wasn't able to be gamed like it has been.
Republicans aren't facing an opponent in each election, they are facing an ideology without morals, ethics, respect for laws, or anything other than a zeal to achieve power. Up your game, Republicans, or lose.
From my calculation based on RCP, Kemp is 21,000 votes over the 50% threshold, but maybe I should look at all the candidates than just the top three. If the 21,000 is correct, then Abrams needs to find 21,000 people who claim they would have voted for someone other than Kemp and were denied the vote. This is a nearly impossible thing to actually get, but we all know the right judge is all you really need.
They're sure to 'find' thousands of Democratic votes.
“misconduct, fraud or irregularities . . . sufficient to change or place in doubt the results.”
Wait, so progs don't believe their own BS?
Ok, 18,000 is the right number based on the total ballots reported on Ballotpedia.
Now Fat Mama Stacey is running an ad urging the recount go on . . . and on, and on . . . presumably until they "find" enough uncounted votes to put her in the governor's mansion. That kind of slick advertising and that amount of air time can't be cheap; but then Darth Soros has deep pockets.
One thing that is striking about this election is that Republicans do a lousy job of getting early voters to vote Republican. In California alone, the early vote has changed the election day count on at least 6 House seats enough to get a Democrat over the hurdle. I don't think all of this can be fraud, but very lousy turnout work.
"Abrams thought that the 'Oprah factor' would put her over top. . . ." Not to mention the Black Panthers marching in support while brandishing the kind of military style firearms she has said she wants to ban.
You see this in Arizona where McSally had a large net win for people who voted at that the polls, but a large net loss in early vote. Again, I don't think this is probably fraud, but rather that the Democrats work harder and better at getting people to fill out early ballots, especially people who wouldn't otherwise vote at all.
You are all racists, if you don't believe Oprah and Hillary. Don't believe me?? Ask them.
I think it's time someone gave her a Big Mac, and showed her the way back to the short bus.
WAIT>>>>I thought there were NO irregularities, voter fraud or anything else....well...except when the Democrats lose that is.
/facepalm
Mail-ins should be $25, ballot made of special mylar with plenty of watermarks for security, include the marker pen, and include a prepaid tracked USPS standard size box for return. And finally they are processed entirely by robots.
at least 18,000
A bit more than that since I suspect even in the most Adams friendly precincts, Kemp won a good percentage of votes. Aside, if 18,000 votes were misplaced in Adams friendly precincts, what does that say the people who support her. 18,000 would need to be a percentage of the number of voters/votes that might have been mishandled. If giving her the benefit of 80% of such votes, you would need closer to 22,500, or 27,000 if giving her 2/3rds benefit.
Abrams would have to demonstrate that irregularities were widespread enough that at least 18,000 Georgians either had their ballots thrown out or were not allowed to vote.
Or find a friendly judge that takes allegation as fact.
Old and busted: It's un-American to refuse to accept the results of an election.
New and hot: There must be more votes for me out there somewhere! We just need to search longer and harder.
The contention is absentee votes which are the easiest ones to manufacture at the last minute from the dead and the missing people. The law only asks for the voters date of birth, address and a signature. Abrams contended that the ones with a missing DOB and without a matching handwriting signature have to count too. A judge agreed. Finally Abrams contends that the unsigned ones should be counted. That was against the Statute and the judge would not re-write it for her.
The idea of vote fraud is a total hoax. But Abrams wants to blame a non-existent KKK for losing.
Burying the lede. This woman came within a whisker of winning.
#BelieveDemocratWomen
Not arguing for a revote, but it was a major dirty trick for Kemp to publish on the sec state website two days before the election that the dems were being criminally investigated for hacking the voting computer system. First of all, my understanding is that there was no such evidence. Second, even if there was a legitimate basis to initiate such an investigation, the investigation should have been confidential at least until after the election, esp given Kemp's conflicted situation. A crummy move by Kemp.
You know I was denied the right to vote in GA. Wait, I am in CO. Does that make a difference?
Is it just me or is Stacey Abrams a dead ringer for Proposition Joe on The Wire?
John Henry
OT but I'm in Costco with my wife at the moment. They were sampling some spinach dip. We tried it and it was pretty good.
Then I remembered something Monica Lewinsky said the other day about the famous stain on the blue dress.
"I thought it was spinach dip at first."
I did not have a second helping. I doubt I will ever be able to eat spinach dip again.
John Henry
Dang the Dems have been pouring money into Georgia races--this one and another one in 2016 where there was an attractive Beto O'Rourke type candidate for some Congressional Rep seat in Georgia. He was a sort of "can't miss" type of candidate. But he missed.
I'm certain that Al Sharpton told Ms. Abrams that those goldanged ignorant Georgia crackers who didn't vote her in just made a mistake.
Game/fight not over 'til they win
Yancy Yard Wrote:
> I don't think all of this can be fraud, but very lousy turnout work.
It seems the Democrats have made major advancements on combining Social Media along with on the ground actions to increase turnout.
Sigh. I thought after Obama's ground breaking advancement in this re-election, the GOP would catch up.
Reference:
Why California Republicans lost it all, even in Orange County (Hint: It's not Trump)
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/why-california-republicans-lost-it-all-even-in-orange-county-hint-its-not-trump
The Abrams campaign invested heavily in advertising on social media before the election, but they haven't let up since. I've been inundated on Facebook and YouTube with ads urging me to contact them if I noticed any irregularities or had trouble voting. Whoever said that the buried lede is that she came within a whisker of winning is right. But based on ads alone, she probably had 10 times as much in her campaign war chest, and a close look at some of the counties in and around Atlanta would probably reveal plenty of "irregularities", in her favor. The election officials in those counties just seem to have the same competence level as those in Broward and Palm Beach counties in Florida, and didn't manufacture quite as many fraudulent votes as they needed to put her over the top or in runoff territory. They more than likely underestimated the fierceness of the opposition to her that drove record turnout in the rest of the state.
Sore losers and ungracious victors. Lots to admire in Democrats.
steve uhr said...
First of all, my understanding is that there was no such evidence.
My understanding is that there is no evidence to support your understanding.
So, my question for you is, why is that your understanding?
A Democrat filing a lawsuit saying voting irregularities exist enough to invalidate an election? WOW!
I have a solution. Election day is Election day- no mail in ballots or early voting, except for limited categories of absentee voters. Mandatory state issued voter ID in order to vote. And voters must be registered no less than 30 days prior to the election.
Seems to me that at one time rules like this existed and there were fewer problems with elections.
Dems have a much better GOTV effort then the Republicans.
The Republicans work on getting out the vote before and during the election.
Dems get out the vote before, during, AND after.
Seems to me that at one time rules like this existed and there were fewer problems with elections
Sure there were. The wrong people were winning ...
Ignorance -- you want me to prove a negative? What is the evidence?
The supposed incriminating emails:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/ajc-isabetai/files/security-emails.pdf
As I said, even if there was a basis to investigate it should have been kept confidential until after the election
As I said, even if there was a basis to investigate it should have been kept confidential until after the election
Like the investigation of Hillary's emails?
“These people must never be allowed to have power.”
Too late. The House is firmly in the hands of Democrats, what you gonna do Captain America?
Of course there were illegalities and fraud in Georgia, on the part of Republicans. Can you say voter suppression tactics?
So, let me get this straight.......If you throw enough chum in the water, then you can ask for a run-off vote??
We failed to forge enough votes the first time, but we'll sure fox them the second time!! Hell, we already know how many votes we need to win!!
The incentives are all wrong.
WAIT>>>>I thought there were NO irregularities, voter fraud or anything else....well...except when the Democrats lose that is.
No. Both parties assert irregularities, but do so in their own interests.
Democrats assert that efforts to clean up voter rolls inevitably remove valid names in the process. The numbers are minor, but well documented.
Republicans assert that without efforts to clean up voter rolls, people vote illegally. They point to a smorgasbord of problems with voter registration drives and a smattering of actual prosecutions.
Of course there were illegalities and fraud in Georgia, on the part of Republicans.
It's revealing the person who claims voting fraud is a conspiracy theories are deranged nutjobs makes unsupported accusations of voter fraud.
It shows that sometimes even she is right.
And I wonder, still I wonder, what happened in Wisconsin. Was it suburban women? or Wisconsin leads the way again by pioneering a very sophisticated system of distributed cheating that does not depend on the Milwaukee / Madison city vote?
The House is firmly in the hands of Democrats, what you gonna do Captain America?
Exercise his veto power, that's what.
You see this in Arizona where McSally had a large net win for people who voted at that the polls, but a large net loss in early vote. Again, I don't think this is probably fraud, but rather that the Democrats work harder and better at getting people to fill out early ballots, especially people who wouldn't otherwise vote at all.
When a party basically does all the work in acquiring the ballots -- for people who do not vote -- and then sticks the ballots in front of the putative "voter" and tells him or her to fill them out a certain way, and then takes the ballots and does the work of submitting them, what do you call that if not fraud?
You are absolutely wrong Inga. Completely and totally wrong. Of course.
It is exactly the opposite. Of course.
tcrosse said...
The House is firmly in the hands of Democrats, what you gonna do Captain America?
Exercise his veto power, that's what.
****************************************************
And watch McConnell gum up any crazy House bills when they hit the Senate, that's what.
If routinely ballot boxes are suddenly "discovered" in some closet or some dark room or someone's trunk -- what do you call that if not fraud?
If ballots are reviewed by hand before counting and new ballots are created by the election "officials" for those ballots that are deemed to be improperly filled out -- what do you call that if not fraud?
“Exercise his veto power, that's what.”
Yes he should do that often. It’ll help with bringing out even more liberals and left leaning independents, suburban women, minorities, etc in 2020, if he lasts that long. Blue Wave in 2018, Blue Tsunami in 2020.
Inga...Allie Oop said...
“Exercise his veto power, that's what.”
Yes he should do that often. It’ll help with bringing out even more liberals and left leaning independents, suburban women, minorities, etc in 2020, if he lasts that long. Blue Wave in 2018, Blue Tsunami in 2020.
************************************
You don't realize what you've just said:
* on the one hand, Trump is impotent in face of a Dem majority House
* on the other, Trump should thwart the House Dems in order to guarantee a Blue Wave
I'd say, make up yer friggin' mind, but we all know it's too late for that.
“You don't realize what you've just said”
I know exactly what I said, not my fault that you can’t grok it.
"First of all, my understanding is that there was no such evidence. Second, even if there was a legitimate basis to initiate such an investigation, the investigation should have been confidential at least until after the election, esp given Kemp's conflicted situation."
-- If there was a real investigation, politics ain't bean bag. Sorry; those are the rules we live under now. Remember McCain's surprise affair; Bush's National Guard Records -- Christine O'Donnell being a witch? Sudden, last minute curveballs -- commonly known as an October Surprise -- are part of how both sides play the game. I wish it weren't so, but, hey, I rarely get what I want.
Yancey Ward said...
You see this in Arizona where McSally had a large net win for people who voted at that the polls, but a large net loss in early vote.
I think this a rather dramatic mischaracterization of Arizona voting. 75% of the votes are cast by mail. Is that what you mean by "early vote"? I suspect that the people that vote in person are older and have more free time.
Reverse-flow ballot fraud works by extracting republican votes, stuffing them in a ballot box in someone's car trunk and sending them to Broward County, where they will never be seen again. Then, recount.
to the collective left: Halting fraud = voter suppression.
Mulling over Althouse's title and the ultimate subject of this piece, Stacey Abrams - I am puzzled.
'Muller," according to Merriam Webster, is "a stone or piece of wood, metal, or glass used as a pestle for pounding or grinding." Abrams is far too large to be a pestle but I do find her to be a bit of a grinder - probably because she is plump like a hoagie.
She only needs to find an Obama appointed US District judge.
TOTAL BULLSHIT follows "To prevail in a court challenge, Abrams would have to demonstrate that irregularities were widespread enough that at least 18,000 Georgians either had their ballots thrown out or were not allowed to vote."
Abrams concedes.
The victimhood show was broadcast nationally with tear jerking passion perfect for her 2020 Senate run against David Perdue. For all Yankees who knee jerk presume that she was cheated, you are totally wrong.
Florida - the vote won't change. After all the stunts by the cheat fraudsters, too many eyeballs. Thanks for putting everyone thru this. We will remember.
Carter Wood: she didn't really concede.
Inga...Allie Oop said...
“You don't realize what you've just said”
I know exactly what I said, not my fault that you can’t grok it.
*******************
Well, why don't you just "grok it" for me, addled hippie chick?
Dig?
Snort.
After the big kerfuffle about Trump saying he might not accept the election results, it completely escapes me how any upstanding Democrat can act like that :) Sounds like it was all election bullshit.
Sour grapes, nothing more or less. She lost and, like Hillary, can't fathom or accept it was because of her candidacy. The voters, in a small margin, rejected her. Admittedly that is tough to acknowledge and accept.
I have a solution. Election day is Election day- no mail in ballots or early voting, except for limited categories of absentee voters. Mandatory state issued voter ID in order to vote. And voters must be registered no less than 30 days prior to the election
You mean the way we do it in Puerto Rico?
Almost 50 years here and have never heard jokes about the dead voting, vote early vote often and so on.
Never a problrm with fraud or perception of fraud or accusations of fraud.
Difficult as we make it we always get 70%+ turnout.
Not just registered voters. 70%+ of voting age population.
You left out that we dip our fingers in infrared dye.
Doesn't get us any better pols. Ours are probaly more corrupt than Chicago but we elect them honestly
John Henry
It was racism, straight up. Just ask Freder or Crack.
I have had blogger give me a double post before, but a 6X post? Strange. Apologies to everyone.
I understand there is a new book coming out. What The F Happened.
steve uhr said...
Ignorance -- you want me to prove a negative?
I'm not asking you to prove anything. I'm wondering why you came to a particular conclusion. I've seen that talking point repeated ad nauseum, that the referral was made without evidence. Yet nobody ever provides any basis for that claim.
So again, I ask you, how did you come to that understanding?
What is the evidence?
I don't know. I don't know if there is or isn't any. Why do you think you know?
The supposed incriminating emails:
Why do you suppose those emails are what was incriminating?
steve uhr-
My guess ( not my understanding, just a guess ) is that someone noticed a vulnerability on the voter info database, and let the Democrats know about it. Someone in the Democrat party tried it out to see if it really was an issue, while also passing the info on to the state to push them to fix it. When the state went to investigate, they checked access logs, and found illegal access from a Democrat party IP address ( due to them checking the existence of the vulnerability ).
Of course, "checking for a vulnerability" is not a legal excuse for illegally accessing a website.
But all that is just a guess.
"Abrams concedes"
It's only been 10 days since the election. Why the rush to concede?
Abrams never stood a chance of catching up to Kemp's vote total. What they wanted was a do-over by forcing a mandatory runoff if they somehow could get Kemp's total one vote below the magic 50% mark.
I can tell you this: Miss Stacy will never got my 10 votes again! Harrumpf!
Hillary makes it all about Hillary and calls Abrams her good surrogate.
"I think this a rather dramatic mischaracterization of Arizona voting. 75% of the votes are cast by mail. Is that what you mean by "early vote"? I suspect that the people that vote in person are older and have more free time."
In what way is it a mischaracterization, Henry? By "early vote", I mean people who vote before election day, in the case of Arizona, mail-in ballots. On election day, McSally was well behind in the initial early vote counts that went up just minutes after the polls closed- these were the early/mail in votes that were collected prior to election day. As Arizona counted the election day vote, she took the lead in the state, and actually caught Sinema in Maricopa County until they started counting the backlog of early votes, where, again, Sinema's advantage showed itself. In short, the Democrat won by a large margin the mail in vote, and McSally won by a large margin the election day vote at the polls. Republicans need to figure out a way to do better, and to address Mark above, perhaps the Republicans should learn from the Democrats how to handle mail-in voting. If they don't, they will continue to slide.
I am concerned that mail-in voting -- without any demonstrable inability to vote in person on Election Day -- is just an easy avenue for Democratic Party election fraud. I would rather have absentee voting only in cases where the voter will attest to being unable to vote on Election Day, and making Election Day a Saturday, so voting in person is easier.
Australian Voting
Time for regular cleaning of the voter rolls. Every state needs to require proper ID to vote. And its a must to go back to paper ballots.
It's like we don't actually want these elections to be on the up and up. If we can't clean this up, we don't deserve a republic.
Abrams might well have won, but the juxtaposition of Abrams coming out for banning AR-type rifles while Black Panthers matched in her support sporting semi-automatic long guns. Not AR-15s — one of the Panthers has an FN SCAR, which is chambered in the .30 caliber NATO round. It is capable of punching right through a policeman’s “bulletproof” vest. There’s also a semiautomatic 12 gauge shotgun, and an AK-47 in the hands of the marchers.
Mulled whine
Being sore losers has never hurt Democrats in subsequent elections, so why be gracious in defeat?
Abrams gives up
The wind done gone.
At least Abrams was sober throughout the losing process. Unlike Hillary.
J Roberts stated...."...BIG money on data mining software that was sold as "fool proof"..."
Well only fools believe "data mining....is fool proof..." At the end of the day, you can contact every voter who is on your side, but unless they vote, and facts show, most don't vote, it is a waste of "BIG money".
California has the largest number of illegal immigrants in the United States, with an estimated 2.4 million unauthorized immigrants making up about 6.3 percent of the state’s total population, according to the Pew Research Center. Given the size of the Illegal population, fraud is quite easy. As a country it is our fault! We've allowed scum politicians to control this system.
When I voted I wasn't even asked for an ID? I used to remember back in the '70s being asked for an ID, absent one, was not allowed to vote. Today, don't trust any politician Right or Left, especially lawyers.
On Instapundit, there's a quote from Fat Mama Stacey: "I'm not conceding, but I recognize him [Brian Kamp] as the victor." I used to refer to her as "Fat, stupid-looking gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams," but if the quote is accurate, she ain'r just stupid-LOOKING, if you catch my drift. Yale, her alma mater, must have an affirmative action program.
By the way, a lot of the anti-Kemp tv ads that the Soros Gang inundated Georgia television with focused on one of Kemp's early ads showing him grilling a young guy purportedly dating one of Kemp's daughters. Kemp is holding a double-barreled shotgun pointed in the guy's generak direction, but not aimed directly at him. (You can tell because the twin muzzles are visible, which they would not be if pointed directly at the young man.) It was a mildly humorous riff on the traditional shotgun-wielding protective dad theme, but "liberals" apparently went bonkers over it (or at least, as I suspect, pretended to). One outraged woman in the anti-Kemp ad says, "He pointed a gun at a teenager. Who DOES that???"
"Liberals" angry that someone is (allegedly) pointing a gun at someone else. Priceless.
High profile Dem women like Abrams and HRC refuse to concede election - yet we are told it is Trump breaking norms.
Post a Comment