“We know that increased turnout has nothing to do with suppression. Suppression is about whether or not you make it difficult for voters to access the ballot. And in Georgia, we know difficulty has been put in place for too many Georgians who vote by mail, who had to figure out a calendar of applying just early enough but not too late. You had to have wet signatures so they could print things out. Take a picture, upload it.”
—-Now official Democratic candidate for Georgia governor Stacey Abrams, huminahumina-ing her explanation for why the “vote suppression” law she said was an attack on democracy somehow didn’t seem to affect the voting in yesterday’s Georgia primaries, which saw record turn-out in both parties.
The school shooting in Texas luckily knocked Abrams’ doubletalk out of the news, though the mainstream media wouldn’t have reported on it anyway: Mustn’t reveal Stacey for the fake she is!
During a press conference yesterday Abrams leaped into “It Isn’t What It Is” infamy by responding with the above gibberish after a mean reporter asked how she explained the record voter turnout after the Georgia law she had condemned (and used to get Major League Baseball to pull its All-Star Game from Atlanta) was enacted. She argued that just because more voters came to the polls under the voter-suppressing new law than under the previous rules didn’t mean that the law didn’t suppress votes. You see, she explained, there is no causal relationship between turnout and suppression, and turnout is actually the “antidote” to suppression.
Sure Stacey. The fact is that if what is claimed to be “voter suppression” doesn’t appear to suppress the vote in fact, there is no evidence that it is voter suppression, and considerable evidence that it is not. Abrams’ logic is like claiming that just because you gain 50 pounds on a diet, that doesn’t mean the diet isn’t working. [Parlor Game: What are other analogies for Abrams’ claim?]
I hate to appear to be picking on Abrams, but she is as annoying an example of a public fraud as I have ever seen, posing as brilliant truth-teller and constantly tripping herself up. And yet she is the party’s nominee for governor of Georgia.
She will get the Facts Don’t Matter vote, that’s for sure.
Ethics Alarms 
She wants to run for governor of a state she openly hates, she lies about voter ID, and she uses her race as a way to deflect criticism. No way would Georgia vote for her. I would vote for Madison Cawthorn over her. He’s just an idiot, but she’s a grifter. It reminds me of the Clintons.
Can we all just admit that Democrats will not be happy with voting arrangements and everything will always be “suppression” until the day arrives that there isn’t even voting — it’s just the DNC deciding who goes into office after a party congress?
In a lot of cases I would say she’s right. Cause and effect are not always related and a lot of times have nothing to do with each other. However, she was the one claiming voter suppression therefore the burden of proof was on her. Since it did not turn out the way she claimed it would, she cannot retroactively claim that he idea was right, but the outcome was wrong. She assured us it would be the effect. Accept the loss and move on. Why is it so hard for politicians to admit their shortcomings?
I’d say it’s because being a politician is like being in sales, you don’t want to admit your shortcomings if you can help it at all. Or you could say it’s like applying for a job, except it’s the whole public that’s judging your resume. The very nature of elected office attracts people who are inclined to spin things in their favor, and push hard for the results they want. That doesn’t excuse lack of integrity, but it’s a line of thinking that anyone looking to get into politics, whether as voters or candidates, needs to be aware of.
She first stated causation does not prove correlation which is backward statement on its own. What we have is an negative correlation which undermines her assertion that Georgia’s new voting laws suppress votes. She is an idiot. She also believes figuring out a calendar is too intense for her constituents. I will defend her idiotic statement about Georgia being a bad place to live. The context was that George was placing 48th in the nation for education and some other issues that I cannot recall. Her point I believe was that under the current administration Georgia was performing poorly and would do better under her administration. However, given the fact she cannot express that idea clearly does suggest she would not be able to articulate an effective plan to improve these rankings. She remains an idiot.
“We know that increased turnout has nothing to do with suppression. Suppression is about whether or not you make it difficult for voters to access the ballot.”
Okay, I’ll buy that increased turnout could happen despite hypothetical voter suppression, and that such suppression would show up as an increased effort on the part of the voter that might require them to make sacrifices they wouldn’t otherwise have to make.
However, you still have to establish that the voting process places an undue burden on the voter. I will keep in mind that poor people are proportionally more impacted by most difficulties. That’s how being poor works, and that’s definitely a problem that we should solve. …In a holistic fashion, as opposed to, say, modifying rules here and there so that poor people can thank their Democratic patrons for not letting them starve, while enjoying no independent bargaining power that would allow them to hold Democrats accountable for anything.
“And in Georgia, we know difficulty has been put in place for too many Georgians who vote by mail, who had to figure out a calendar of applying just early enough but not too late.”
I was skeptical of the idea that absentee voters would be penalized for filling out paperwork too early, but https://georgia.gov/vote-absentee-ballot confirms “Absentee ballots may be requested any time between 78 and 11 calendar days prior to Election Day.” Alright, that’s a window of 67 days for any given election, although sooner is obviously better because the ballot still has to arrive in the mail and then be returned by mail (or in person). It’s a bit of a hassle, but I’m not sure what there is to “figure out”.
“You had to have wet signatures so they could print things out. Take a picture, upload it.”
That sounds like Authentic Frontier Gibberish at first. (“Wet signatures” as in they were signed a few seconds ago?) However, I was able to translate it into, “You have to sign with a pen, so you must print it out, sign it, take a picture of it, and upload it.” It’s still wrong, though. Your absentee ballot arrives in the mail, so there’s nothing to print. That sentence can’t refer to the absentee ballot application either, because that can be done either entirely online or entirely on paper, so you would never need to scan anything and printing that one is optional. If you do have trouble getting a copy of the application form, you can print it out at your local library, which coincidentally is also a place to learn how to sentence with sense that people must understand.
It’s similar to one argument I hear about ranked choice voting: it’s too complex, because I guess voters can’t follow simple instructions. That begets the question… do we really want to encourage people who can’t follow simple instructions to elect our government? Or should we maybe cultivate a population where as many people as possible can follow simple instructions?
Thank you for fact-checking her statements. I was wondering what in the new law would require someone to print a document out, sign it, take a picture of it, and then upload it. Turns out, nothing.
(from here in California): “Just because we reclassified theft of less than $950 to be a misdemeanour does not mean that the significantly increased rates of shoplifting are related in any way”.
Jack wrote:
I hate to appear to be picking on Abrams…
Why? She deserves to be picked on. She’s trading on the fact that the the Left and Democrat Party’s is willing to declare any disagreement with “people of color” racist hate-speech, and knows she doesn’t have to make sense. Many on the Left have demonstrated the insane tendency to swallow her codswallop whole, and ignore the fact that they are often transparently false or just plain nonsense.
I don’t think she’s ever conceded the 2018 governor’s race to Kemp. Even Trump managed to bow to the inevitable, but not Abrams — She’s special, you see.
Please pick on her some more, I like it.
Having trouble finding the All-Star Killer’s comments on voting regulations in Colorado or Biden’s Delaware…both more restrictive than Georgia’s.
She’s probably just distracted by those racist Republicans daring to vote overwhelmingly for a black man as their Senate candidate.
Of course if the voter turnout had gone DOWN, it would obviously be used to demonstrate voter suppression. hypocrite..
Just like with climate change!
What are other analogies for Abrams’ claim?
Just because it doesn’t stop you from catching or transmitting the disease doesn’t mean the vaccine isn’t working.
Just because crime goes up when police departments are defunded doesn’t mean police deter crime.
Just because inflation spiked immediately after the government hand-waved trillions of imaginary dollars into existence doesn’t mean that uncontrolled money printing causes inflation.