Election denier Stacey Abrams, Georgia’s failed 2018 Democratic gubernatorial candidate, continued to falsely claim that she won the race last year in an interview with The New York Times Magazine published on Sunday.
Abrams, who lost by nearly 55,000 votes to Republican Brian Kemp, continued to claim without evidence that the election was somehow not fair to her as she also bragged about having “a dramatic increase in turnout.”
Abrams claimed that her refusal to accept the fact that she lost her election was different than President Donald Trump raising concern over voter fraud, despite the fact that there is proof to back up some of what Trump says about voter fraud including a report published today about 10 people charged in Oregon for alleged voter fraud in the 2016 presidential election.
“Trump offers no empirical evidence to meet his claims,” Abrams continued. “I make my claims based on empirical evidence, on a demonstrated pattern of behavior that began with the fact that the person I was dealing with was running the election. If you look at my immediate reaction after the election, I refused to concede. It was largely because I could not prove what had happened, but I knew from the calls that we got that something happened.”
Abrams, who has claimed that the vote in Georgia was suppressed, bragged: “I won because we transformed the electorate, we turned out people who had never voted, we outmatched every Democrat in Georgia history.”
“But voter suppression is endemic, and it’s having a corrosive effect,” Abrams continued. “If we do not resolve this problem, it will harm us all. … I do not concede that the process was proper, nor do I condone that process.”
After complaining about how voter suppression is supposedly a problem, Abrams once again bragged: “I believe we won in that we transformed the electorate and achieved a dramatic increase in turnout. It was a systemic and, I think, sustainable change in the composition of the electorate and in the transformation of the narrative about Georgia and Georgia politics.”
Later in the interview, after having previously claimed that Trump “offers no empirical evidence to meet his claims,” Abrams admitted: “I have no empirical evidence that I would have achieved a higher number of votes.”
In 2016, Abrams bemoaned the notion that Trump would not immediately accept the outcome of the 2016 election.
“You’re in a state that if it does go to Trump, we may still have a national election in which Hillary Clinton were to win,” CNBC’s Andrew Sorkin said in October 2016. “One of the articles in USA Today this morning, suggest that 4 out of 10 Trump supporters would not recognize such a win if that were the case.”
“What does that mean for a state like this?” Sorkin asked.
“I think what it signals is a shifting of our politics that we’re going to have to work together to shift back,” Abrams replied. “The rancor that pervaded this campaign is disturbing and it is distressing, but it is also a fixable problem. The enthusiasm for Sarah Palin had a similar bent but we eventually found our way back to being good citizens and I think we’ll do the same.”