Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

No Concession In Georgia Governor Race - Did You Know?


Did you know the challenger in the 2018 GA Governor Election Refused To Concede?  

47 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

I'm learning a lot today. We have a thread here about Hillary Clinton's advice to Biden.

I had not heard that. 

As I was talking to my friends about Trump dragging this out and the Georgia Senate race one said, "maybe it's a Georgia thing?"

I asked what they meant. 

They said the 2018 Governor election ended with the loser refusing to concede. From NPR.

Quote

 

A refusal to concede isn't a new concept to Georgia. The 2018 Democratic candidate for governor, Stacey Abrams, also refused to concede to her Republican opponent, Brian Kemp.

LIVE UPDATES: PRESIDENTIAL TRANSITION

Legal Avenues Closing As Trump Lawsuits Meet With Defeat Or Dead Ends

Abrams had stayed quiet for 10 days after the election while her campaign focused on getting more absentee and provisional ballots counted. Then she called a press conference at which she made a careful statement: "I acknowledge that former Secretary of State Brian Kemp will be certified as the victor in the 2018 gubernatorial election."

However, she declared, this was "not a speech of concession."

Kemp's duties at the time included overseeing the election. Abrams had been loudly critical of his policies and doubled down on those criticisms in the speech.

"You see, I'm supposed to say nice things and accept my fate. They will complain that I should not use this moment to recap what was done wrong or to demand a remedy," she said. "And I will not concede because the erosion of our democracy is not right."

At the time, Kemp's communications director, Ryan Mahoney called the nonconcession a "disgrace to democracy." Mahoney remains a senior strategist for now-Gov. Kemp.

"I think the one thing that was very clear, which is different than I think what we're seeing now, is that the numbers were undeniable," Mahoney said.

Abrams lost by nearly 55,000 votes and never did concede.

 

Clearly, this is not the same as an incumbent president refusing to concede. The rest of the article goes on to describe more. I just had no idea the candidate refused to concede. I'm not saying it was wrong for her to do this. I'm saying I didn't know she refused to concede the election. I guess I should get out more. 

Did you know that? 

Edited by Joe Bryant
Link to post
Share on other sites

Joe, this is your second "did you know" thread today and yes, this is something repeated often in pro Trump circles and pro Trump news.

Right wing sources are often pushed aside as fake news and bias. Can you at least see now that the heralded MSM only reports what they want you to know?

While we're at it, have you seen the cctv video from the All-State arena on election night?

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Max Power said:

Joe, this is your second "did you know" thread today and yes, this is something repeated often in pro Trump circles and pro Trump news.

Right wing sources are often pushed aside as fake news and bias. Can you at least see now that the heralded MSM only reports what they want you to know?

While we're at it, have you seen the cctv video from the All-State arena on election night?

I know! I'm reminded today (and most every day) of how much I don't know. I asked in polls though as I'm interested in how many other people are like me and didn't know. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

And to add, @Max Power - I think you're exactly right. My bias for news inputs is showing here. 

 

I'd like to say we should all do better with this, but I think we really need to start holding all media more accountable for their bias. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Stacey Abrams should have conceded right after she lost. Very bad form. 

2. Hillary Clinton should never have told Biden not to concede if he lost. Stupid thing to say and she’s not a stupid woman. 
 

3. What President Trump is doing is far worse than Abrams or Hillary because he is the President, and has greater responsibility to the integrity of the political system. What they did doesn’t justify his behavior in any way. Nor does it provide a double standard or hypocrisy situation. 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I had heard about this. It was mentioned in this forum on several occasions (e.g.,  here, here, here, here).

I don't have a problem with a candidate declining to utter the word "concede." As long as they comply with the law and do not attempt to unethically abuse their position to overturn the election, then the issue is mostly just one of semantics.

Edited by Sea Duck
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, timschochet said:

1. Stacey Abrams should have conceded right after she lost. Very bad form. 

2. Hillary Clinton should never have told Biden not to concede if he lost. Stupid thing to say and she’s not a stupid woman. 
 

3. What President Trump is doing is far worse than Abrams or Hillary because he is the President, and has greater responsibility to the integrity of the political system. What they did doesn’t justify his behavior in any way. Nor does it provide a double standard or hypocrisy situation. 

I don't think that's what she was saying in the clip Joe posted in the other thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Juxtatarot said:

There is a difference when an incumbent refuses to concede and when a challenger refuses to concede without trying to take power.   How that difference is weighed is up to you.

For sure. I mentioned that in the OP. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Sea Duck said:

Yes, I had heard about this. It was mentioned in this forum on several occasions (e.g.,  here, here, here, here).

I don't have a problem with a candidate declining the utter the word "concede." As long as they comply with the law and do not attempt to unethically abuse their position to overturn the election, then the issue is mostly just one of semantics.

Yup.  I don't care if Teump never concedes.  What matters is if Biden is afforded a transition and that process has started.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, moleculo said:

Yup.  I don't care if Teump never concedes.  What matters is if Biden is afforded a transition and that process has started.

Pretty much feeel the same way.  Concession for the most part is just showing class.  And that quality is lacking from both sides these days,.

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Juxtatarot said:

There is a difference when an incumbent refuses to concede and when a challenger refuses to concede without trying to take power.   How that difference is weighed is up to you.

Yeah huge difference as if you are a challenger who loses you just kind of disappear. Do the Libertarian and Green Party candidates concede every election formally? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, timschochet said:

3. What President Trump is doing is far worse than Abrams or Hillary because he is the President, and has greater responsibility to the integrity of the political system. What they did doesn’t justify his behavior in any way. Nor does it provide a double standard or hypocrisy situation. 

This.

 

Also, I’m incredulous anyone in this forum would be unaware of the 2018 gubernatorial race or who Staceh Abrams is, or how visible she has been for the last two plus years. Average Joe on the street, sure, I get that people are not engaged and probably want to be left alone more than anything else. I was under the impression PSF regulars are more aware of current events.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Gr00vus said:
5 hours ago, timschochet said:

2. Hillary Clinton should never have told Biden not to concede if he lost. Stupid thing to say and she’s not a stupid woman.  

I don't think that's what she was saying in the clip Joe posted in the other thread.

That's what she said.

“Joe Biden should not concede under any circumstances"

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, NorvilleBarnes said:

That's what she said.

“Joe Biden should not concede under any circumstances"

The entire context of the conversation was one of Trump attempting to invalidate mail in ballots. It seems clear to me that she's saying not to concede if/when Trump tries to go that route. Not that Biden should not concede if all the ballots are counted and they indicate Trump won. Taking things out of context like what you're trying to do here is about as bad as the baseless speculation @Joe Bryant has implored us to avoid engaging in.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Gr00vus said:
26 minutes ago, NorvilleBarnes said:

That's what she said.

“Joe Biden should not concede under any circumstances"

The entire context of the conversation was one of Trump attempting to invalidate mail in ballots. It seems clear to me that she's saying not to concede if/when Trump tries to go that route. Not that Biden should not concede if all the ballots are counted and they indicate Trump won. Taking things out of context like what you're trying to do here is about as bad as the baseless speculation @Joe Bryant has implored us to avoid engaging in.

This is entirely incorrect. Also I provided several links to the actual interview for context. It's neither baseless nor speculation. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, NorvilleBarnes said:
33 minutes ago, Gr00vus said:
39 minutes ago, NorvilleBarnes said:

That's what she said.

“Joe Biden should not concede under any circumstances"

The entire context of the conversation was one of Trump attempting to invalidate mail in ballots. It seems clear to me that she's saying not to concede if/when Trump tries to go that route. Not that Biden should not concede if all the ballots are counted and they indicate Trump won. Taking things out of context like what you're trying to do here is about as bad as the baseless speculation @Joe Bryant has implored us to avoid engaging in.

This is entirely incorrect. Also I provided several links to the actual interview for context. It's neither baseless nor speculation. 

My interpretation of the full interview is that Hillary was referring to late-arriving ballots and slow ballot tabulations. If there's a specific quote in the full interview which contradicts that assessment, please point it out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Sea Duck said:
1 hour ago, NorvilleBarnes said:
1 hour ago, Gr00vus said:
1 hour ago, NorvilleBarnes said:

That's what she said.

“Joe Biden should not concede under any circumstances"

The entire context of the conversation was one of Trump attempting to invalidate mail in ballots. It seems clear to me that she's saying not to concede if/when Trump tries to go that route. Not that Biden should not concede if all the ballots are counted and they indicate Trump won. Taking things out of context like what you're trying to do here is about as bad as the baseless speculation @Joe Bryant has implored us to avoid engaging in.

This is entirely incorrect. Also I provided several links to the actual interview for context. It's neither baseless nor speculation. 

My interpretation of the full interview is that Hillary was referring to late-arriving ballots and slow ballot tabulations. If there's a specific quote in the full interview which contradicts that assessment, please point it out.

My interpretation of the full interview is that Hillary was saying “Joe Biden should not concede under any circumstances". If there's a specific quote in the full interview which contradicts that assessment, please point it out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, NorvilleBarnes said:

My interpretation of the full interview is that Hillary was saying “Joe Biden should not concede under any circumstances". If there's a specific quote in the full interview which contradicts that assessment, please point it out.

Yes: the part where she said "So that they then get maybe a narrow advantage in the Electoral College on Election Day."

Although that line was not in the same sentence as "should not concede" (despite the MSNBC editing), it's clear to me that the overall context of the interview was a discussion about the immediate aftermath of the election.

This is why it's usually not a good idea to selectively quote sentence fragments. People might get the idea that you're not being sincere or that you're attempting to promote fake news.

Edited by Sea Duck
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sea Duck said:
13 minutes ago, NorvilleBarnes said:

My interpretation of the full interview is that Hillary was saying “Joe Biden should not concede under any circumstances". If there's a specific quote in the full interview which contradicts that assessment, please point it out.

Yes: the part where she said "on Election Day."

Although that line was not in the same sentence as "should not concede" (despite the MSNBC editing), it's clear to me that the overall context of the interview was a discussion about the immediate aftermath of the election.

This is why it's usually not a good idea to selectively quote sentence fragments. People might get the idea that you're not being sincere or that you're attempting to promote fake news.

I agree. Selectively quoting a sentence fragment like "on Election day" is not a good idea. People might get the idea that you're not being sincere or that you're attempting to promote fake news. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Max Power said:

Joe, this is your second "did you know" thread today and yes, this is something repeated often in pro Trump circles and pro Trump news.

Right wing sources are often pushed aside as fake news and bias. Can you at least see now that the heralded MSM only reports what they want you to know?

While we're at it, have you seen the cctv video from the All-State arena on election night?

But this isn’t fake.  It really happened.  I don’t think you will get any pushback from left leaning folks on this site saying this news is fake.  🤷‍♂️ 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Alex P Keaton said:
7 hours ago, Max Power said:

Joe, this is your second "did you know" thread today and yes, this is something repeated often in pro Trump circles and pro Trump news.

Right wing sources are often pushed aside as fake news and bias. Can you at least see now that the heralded MSM only reports what they want you to know?

While we're at it, have you seen the cctv video from the All-State arena on election night?

But this isn’t fake.  It really happened.  I don’t think you will get any pushback from left leaning folks on this site saying this news is fake.  🤷‍♂️ 

Also, it was covered by the MSM, despite claims to the contrary (examples: CNN, MS/NBC).

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, NorvilleBarnes said:

This is entirely incorrect. Also I provided several links to the actual interview for context. It's neither baseless nor speculation. 

I watched the clips. You're taking her quote out of context. It was the conclusion of a minute or two of her discussing potential efforts by Trump to negate mail in ballots. That's what she's talking about not conceding to.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Alex P Keaton said:
34 minutes ago, Sea Duck said:

Also, it was covered by the MSM, despite claims to the contrary (examples: CNN, MS/NBC).

Interesting.

But it is also fair game to note that no MSM is harping on Abrams being unwilling to concede NOW as a comparison to Trump.  Which I do find really intriguing.

Actually, both Fox and CNN have "harped" on Abrams recently (see confluence here).

At any rate, it's difficult to make an apples-to-apples comparison because: A) Abrams was not an incumbent and therefore had virtually zero leverage to intimidate judges and legislators or to order investigations into her opponent; B) Abrams was not credibly accused of violating the law in her attempts to challenge the election results; C) Abrams and her allies did not file 40+ baseless lawsuits which were insta-dismissed; and D) Abrams did make a speech shortly after the election in which she acknowledged that Kemp would be governor.

At this point in 2018, Abrams had said "I acknowledge that former Secretary of State Brian Kemp will be certified as the victor in the 2018 gubernatorial election." Trump has yet to utter a similar statement about Biden.

Edited by Sea Duck
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Sea Duck said:

Actually, both Fox and CNN have "harped" on Abrams recently (see confluence here).

At any rate, it's difficult to make an apples-to-apples comparison because: A) Abrams was not an incumbent and therefore had virtually zero leverage to intimidate judges and legislators or to order investigations into her opponent; B) Abrams was not credibly accused of violating the law in her attempts to challenge the election results; C) Abrams and her allies did not file 40+ baseless lawsuits which were insta-dismissed; and D) Abrams did make a speech shortly after the election in which she acknowledged that Kemp would be governor.

At this point in 2018, Abrams had said "I acknowledge that former Secretary of State Brian Kemp will be certified as the victor in the 2018 gubernatorial election." Trump has yet to utter a similar statement about Biden.

I’m not criticizing Abrams.  I’m criticizing MSM.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Mr. Ham said:

 

I’m not saying she shouldn’t have conceded. I’m saying it was different, but the more I try to move in that quicksand, the deeper I will sink. 

 

I think everyone agrees it was different.

Quote

Clearly, this is not the same as an incumbent president refusing to concede. The rest of the article goes on to describe more.

No worries. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Sea Duck said:

Actually, both Fox and CNN have "harped" on Abrams recently (see confluence here).

At any rate, it's difficult to make an apples-to-apples comparison because: A) Abrams was not an incumbent and therefore had virtually zero leverage to intimidate judges and legislators or to order investigations into her opponent; B) Abrams was not credibly accused of violating the law in her attempts to challenge the election results; C) Abrams and her allies did not file 40+ baseless lawsuits which were insta-dismissed; and D) Abrams did make a speech shortly after the election in which she acknowledged that Kemp would be governor.

At this point in 2018, Abrams had said "I acknowledge that former Secretary of State Brian Kemp will be certified as the victor in the 2018 gubernatorial election." Trump has yet to utter a similar statement about Biden.

It's important to note the differences.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I am aware that Stacy Abrams had issues with Republican actions, and specifically those of her opponent who was the acting Secretary of State during the election, that were designed to create voting obstacles for minorities and young people.  In her speech, she stated "I acknowledge that former Secretary of State Brian Kemp will be certified as the victor in the 2018 gubernatorial election". 

That seems like a concession to me, and while she went on to voice her belief that the Georgia election process purposely excluded certain voters, the fact remains that she explicitly acknowledged, 10 days after the election, that Kemp was the victor.  I am unaware of anything remotely similar being uttered by the President in the past 35 days despite the fact that his many lawsuits, filed in multiple states where he lost without any evidence to support his claims, have been an abject failure.  I am therefore having trouble seeing this as a viable "both sides" comparison.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Roy L Fewks said:

Abrams turned her "non-concession" into a grassroots organization that helped register millions of Democrat voters, and they are the reason why Biden won Georgia. Trump is basically doing the same thing, at least that's what I hope he's doing.

One would hope that his goal is, like Abrams, designed to encourage and enable ALL citizens to be able to vote.  Unfortunately, his goal, as put forth in his lawsuits, seems to be more about suppressing and purging votes cast for Biden.  One would also hope that, like Abrams, he would work to correct these perceived injustices in future elections, but I believe Trump has little to no interest in doing anything to improve the election process and help future candidates.  He only seems interested in helping himself.    

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...