On Election Results, The Democrats Veer Into Whacko-Land. They Don't Need To Concede Anymore?

|
|
Posted: May 06, 2019 3:00 PM
On Election Results, The Democrats Veer Into Whacko-Land. They Don't Need To Concede Anymore?

Source: AP Photo/Elise Amendola

For some time, if you needed a Democrat who actually didn’t concede an election result because he or she lost, it would be Georgia’s Stacey Abrams. She lost by more than 50,000 votes but refused to concede the race. She feels, like Clinton, that she was cheated out of victory—not that running as a Democrat in a red state had anything to do with it. Abrams lost fair and square, but to her, voter suppression, another liberal unicorn, did her in last year. 

This is what she said on election night: “So let's be clear, this is not a speech of concession…Because concession means to acknowledge an action is right, true or proper. As a woman of conscience and faith, I cannot concede that.”

Abrams won’t be running for Senate in 2020 but could be gunning for a rematch with Republican Gov. Brian Kemp in 2022. In the meantime, she’s going on a voter rights crusade. Oh, and she’s fine with illegal aliens voting. Now, Abrams is peddling this war cry: “we don’t need to concede elections anymore, because when we concede, we are condoning systems that are used to oppress us.”

Wow. Sniffing glue has detrimental impacts on your health, folks. But Abrams now has company with this election truther nonsense. Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) is joining in on the fun, saying that Andrew Gillum and Abrams would have won their races in Florida and Georgia respectively at an NAACP event in Detroit. She wants a new Voting Rights Act.

It’s a gross sense of entitlement. We don’t acknowledge defeat because we’re right all the time. This is liberal condescension at its worst, and it’s evolved into a concerted effort to destroy those who don’t agree because…why the hell communicate with those of a lesser human form. That’s the liberal mindset. Former Speaker Newt Gingrich aptly noted that some Democrats have adopted this position that they have a divine right to win elections. In the real world, it’s just called being a sore loser.