Graceless

As I watched the graceless speech offered by Georgia's Stacey Abrams as she refused to concede an election loss for Governor of Georgia, it occurred to me that she is but one of many Democrats who have become poster children for sore losers. Abrams claims that "voter suppression" cost her the election, even though she provided no evidence to support her claim. This after voter turnout for the mid-term was the highest in state history. Then there's the Florida debacle in which GOP wins for Governor and Senator were both beset by specious Dem legal challenges, even though recounts indicated that the original wins were accurate.

Lisa Booth comments:

The 2018 midterms crystallized one thing: The Democrat Party is the party of sore losers. Joining the ranks of Hillary Clinton - who still hasn't come to grips with the fact she lost the 2016 presidential election - Stacey Abrams, Bill Nelson, and Andrew Gillum all showed America how to lack grace in defeat.

During the last presidential debate in 2016 with Fox News Sunday’s Chris Wallace, then-candidate Donald Trump drew criticism when he suggested the election had been rigged against him and wouldn’t say if he would accept the outcome of the election. The New York Times called it “a remarkable statement that seemed to cast doubt on American democracy.” Hillary Clinton said it was denigrating and “talking down our democracy.”

But those comments were made when the New York Times gave her an 85 percent chance of winning. It would end up being Hillary Clinton who in the face of a staggering election loss struggled to accept the results. Not only has she listed over a dozen reasons why she lost, but even more troubling is that members of her team encouraged faithless electors, sought to drive a dangerous narrative that the Russians were behind President Trump’s win, and Clinton herself called for the abolishment of the Electoral College.

After the election, her campaign chairman John Podesta poured gasoline on a fire that was brewing on the left for electors to abandon the will of their state. He claimed that electors needed an intelligence briefing on Russian hacking. His calls backfired because more electors tried to defect from Hillary Clinton than Donald Trump. Additionally, the irony of his request is that it was Hillary Clinton’s campaign that was driving the narrative that Russian was behind Trump’s victory.

You can tell a lot about a person or a party by how they accept defeat. Apparently, the Democrats don't handle defeat well, particularly when it is in a close election. If they can overturn the will of the people or failing that, delegitimize the winner, they'll do so via a special prosecutor following wholly unsubstantiated claims of Russian collusion, or other wholly unsubstantiated claims of "obstruction of justice" or in Abrams case, wholly unsubstantiated claims of "voter suppression."

I guess it's never occurred to Dems that it just might be their positions (or lack thereof) on critical national issues that just might suppress votes for them.