Maybe it’s time to talk about what happened in Georgia in 2018 and why it is completely different than what is happening now, since this seems to be making the rounds of conservative talking points. since she was a Black woman no one actually paid attention to her complaints.
First off Brian Kemp, who was running against Abrams, was Secretary of State at the time and he purged 340,000 voters from the state’s voter registration, disproportionally targeting Black voters. theguardian.com/us-news/2018/o…
Kemp also put over 53,000 voter registrations on hold due to extremely minor discrepancies, again targeting Black voters. vox.com/policy-and-pol…
Kemp was also caught admitting to donors that he was concerned about more Georgia residents using their right to vote, saying he was concerned “especially if everybody uses and exercises their right to vote.” rollingstone.com/politics/polit…
On Election Day 2018 in Georgia there were all kinds of problems, again predominantly effecting Black voters. Machines were broken, other machines were kept in storage, and Black communities disproportionately faced lines lasting hours in order to vote. apnews.com/article/a2b641…
Abrams did ultimately end her campaign and state that Kemp won on November 17. She refused to refer to her speech as a concession speech, stating:
Abrams did not sulk, or complain on Twitter. She got to work and built one of the largest get out the vote organizations in the US, and helped flip a state Trump won by 5% to Biden.
None of that happened this time around. There were no major irregularities in Georgia or any state, and there were also next to no reports of massive lines to vote anywhere this year. These are simply not comparable.
Republicans who insist they are are doing a disservice to reality and to their own party.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The first example of a concession is said to be John Adams private congratulations to Jefferson after the latter’s victory in 1800. While concession speeches did not become a thing until the 1920s when radio became a popular medium. Still concessions by telegram were common.
But the election I want to focus on here is the Election of 1916.
Democrat Woodrow Wilson was running for re-election against Charles Evans Hughes, who had resigned from the Supreme Court in order to run for President. Hughes was a compromise candidate for the GOP.
1912 had famously split the party between Taft and Roosevelt, which allowed Wilson to coast to victory. 1916 was different, especially among the early returns. The race was close but early returns were pointing to a Hughes victory. Indeed crowds began to gather in Times Square...
Some people seem to think “back to normal” means that we will revert to where we were. That is impossible. Too much has been lost, and I’m not even talking about the 238,000 who died of COVID-19.
What returning to normal means is the ship has been turned in the right direction.
“Back to normal” has little to do with policy, which will in all likelihood be hindered by an obstructionist Republican Senate led by Mitch McConnell.
It instead has to do with tone, decency and values, which transcend politics in ways that aren’t always exactly clear.
Joe Biden cannot fix all of our problems just by becoming President. Our disagreements are too entrenched, our opinions too hardened by algorithms that are designed not to challenge those beliefs, but to reinforce them, no matter how detached from reality they may be.
As we head into an election night that has more uncertainty than anyone would like, I think it is a good time to take stock of what we know and what we don't know, and how to be good consumers and conveyors of information at a time where America is on edge and simmering.
Here's what we know: There will be massive numbers of early voters, but some states have not yet begun to count those votes. As such, we will have large vote totals for some states early, and other states will take much longer to count the votes.
WE KNOW: that the demographic for absentee ballots, early voting and day of voting are different, politically.
WE DON'T KNOW: Exactly what those numbers are and how they will be reported state-by-state.
So, tonight I'd like to talk about James A. Garfield. I realize that isn't a statement that is said very often, but I think there might something we can learn from his life, or, more accurately, his death.
And I'm not talking about his assassination by an entitled charlatan who demanded a position he was not qualified for, and became convinced that the only way to stop infighting from his political party. Instead, I'm going to talk about what happened AFTER he was shot.
After Garfield was shot he was taken to an office where he was laid on a mattress, before being moved back to the White House at Garfield's request. The doctor who took charge was not using sterilized equipment or hands when he began exploring the wound.
So, tonight I'm going to talk about abortion, because it is clear that abortion is going to be a major topic through election day and perhaps beyond, even more-so than usual.
This thread is going to look beyond the moral debate into policy and facts surrounding abortion.
We often talk about abortion as a moral absolute, either it's an inherent right or it is literally child murder, with very little gray area. But when you dig into the statistics American opinions on abortion are varied and often counter-intuitive.
You may have noticed I've turned off @ replies for this thread. This will not be a normal thing, but because of the nature of this topic and the ease at which it can go off the rails, I thought this was best. Once I finish I will have a post for people to share their thoughts.