Stacey Abrams's non-concession speech is heartfelt -- and weak

Stacey Abrams, though clearly beaten in the Georgia governor's race after numerous recounts, is not only not admitting to defeat, she ain't fergittin.' Kind of reminds me of the Old South response seen in the Confederate defeat of 1865. After all, it was a Democrat show that time, too.

So here she goes:

"Let me be clear: This is not a speech of concession. Because 'concession' is to acknowledge an act is right, true, or proper. As a woman of conscience and faith, I cannot concede that. But my assessment is that the law currently allows no further, viable, remedy."

NBC has the video here:

 

It's quite a long speech and it has its heartfelt moments condemning various unremarkable instances of incompetence among poll workers -- not enough ballots, signature police making bad calls, poll stations not open, lines too long, which she seems to think affected exclusively pro-Abrams Democratic voters in blue districts. Odd, given that Democrats run the show in those precincts, and funny she didn't mention it, but let that be. As Republicans who have suffered from similar and even worse Democrat incompetence in deep blue states, we can relate. She actually makes a good case for electoral officials to get their acts together, and announces she will be forming a new group to ensure it, which, if sincere, is probably something good for everyone.

But she falls flat on two fronts: Why does she think she won? In her speech she said good things about the importance of the integrity of elections, but she never proved she was cheated of victory with anything specific.

Worse still, she projected a sort of underlying arrogance in thinking there was no possible way she could lose. Why would voters in a fairly successful state such as Georgia suddenly think changing over to her socialist regime would be good for them? And as she talked of "the people," those people somehow never seemed to include Republicans. There was one Republican she mentioned, State Sen. Dan Gasaway, who got a recount earlier due to proven irregularities, and since he was useful to mention for her own failed campaign to get a recount, well, he got mentioned. But unless they are politically useful to her, Republicans do not exist because by her logic, there is no way anyone could not vote for her.

Sorry, this isn't helpful. Losing by a close margin is painful, but it happens. Refusing to concede is bad stuff, however, because it keeps the political civil war going. And it's embarrassing. Is that what she wants? Beneath her smooth, well-spoken words, it sure looks like it.

 

Stacey Abrams, though clearly beaten in the Georgia governor's race after numerous recounts, is not only not admitting to defeat, she ain't fergittin.' Kind of reminds me of the Old South response seen in the Confederate defeat of 1865. After all, it was a Democrat show that time, too.

So here she goes:

"Let me be clear: This is not a speech of concession. Because 'concession' is to acknowledge an act is right, true, or proper. As a woman of conscience and faith, I cannot concede that. But my assessment is that the law currently allows no further, viable, remedy."

NBC has the video here:

 

It's quite a long speech and it has its heartfelt moments condemning various unremarkable instances of incompetence among poll workers -- not enough ballots, signature police making bad calls, poll stations not open, lines too long, which she seems to think affected exclusively pro-Abrams Democratic voters in blue districts. Odd, given that Democrats run the show in those precincts, and funny she didn't mention it, but let that be. As Republicans who have suffered from similar and even worse Democrat incompetence in deep blue states, we can relate. She actually makes a good case for electoral officials to get their acts together, and announces she will be forming a new group to ensure it, which, if sincere, is probably something good for everyone.

But she falls flat on two fronts: Why does she think she won? In her speech she said good things about the importance of the integrity of elections, but she never proved she was cheated of victory with anything specific.

Worse still, she projected a sort of underlying arrogance in thinking there was no possible way she could lose. Why would voters in a fairly successful state such as Georgia suddenly think changing over to her socialist regime would be good for them? And as she talked of "the people," those people somehow never seemed to include Republicans. There was one Republican she mentioned, State Sen. Dan Gasaway, who got a recount earlier due to proven irregularities, and since he was useful to mention for her own failed campaign to get a recount, well, he got mentioned. But unless they are politically useful to her, Republicans do not exist because by her logic, there is no way anyone could not vote for her.

Sorry, this isn't helpful. Losing by a close margin is painful, but it happens. Refusing to concede is bad stuff, however, because it keeps the political civil war going. And it's embarrassing. Is that what she wants? Beneath her smooth, well-spoken words, it sure looks like it.