“Lindell alleges voting irregularities, refuses to concede”

But she did

No. Stacey Abrams never formally conceded the 2018 Georgia gubernatorial election.


On November 16, 2018—about 10 days after Election Day—she ended her campaign and acknowledged that Republican Brian Kemp would be certified as the winner. She lost by roughly 54,800 votes (about 1.4 percentage points), with Kemp at 50.2%, just above the threshold that avoided a runoff.


In her speech, she explicitly rejected the label of concession:


  • “I acknowledge that former Secretary of State Brian Kemp will be certified as the victor in the 2018 gubernatorial election.”
  • “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.”
  • “I will not concede because the erosion of our democracy is not right.”

She cited alleged voter suppression and mismanagement under Kemp (who was then Secretary of State overseeing the election), announced plans for a federal lawsuit via her new Fair Fight organization, and said the law offered no further viable path to overturn the result or force a recount/runoff. Kemp’s campaign treated the announcement as an effective end to the race.


Abrams has later said she never denied the outcome (that Kemp became governor) and has acknowledged he won under the rules then in place, while continuing to criticize the process and access. She did formally concede her 2022 rematch loss to Kemp. The 2018 record, however, is unambiguous: she deliberately declined to concede.

 
So he triggers you. Beat those tiny insignificant fists on the table little man. 😂

He lost by too large a margin to even challenge the results.



Wrong. The Democratic Party of corrupt serial lying Socialists stinks from the head down.
“He lost by too large a margin to even challenge the results,” which means he is Trump style sore loser, thanks for proving my point
 
No. Stacey Abrams never formally conceded the 2018 Georgia gubernatorial election.


On November 16, 2018—about 10 days after Election Day—she ended her campaign and acknowledged that Republican Brian Kemp would be certified as the winner. She lost by roughly 54,800 votes (about 1.4 percentage points), with Kemp at 50.2%, just above the threshold that avoided a runoff.


In her speech, she explicitly rejected the label of concession:


  • “I acknowledge that former Secretary of State Brian Kemp will be certified as the victor in the 2018 gubernatorial election.”
  • “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.”
  • “I will not concede because the erosion of our democracy is not right.”

She cited alleged voter suppression and mismanagement under Kemp (who was then Secretary of State overseeing the election), announced plans for a federal lawsuit via her new Fair Fight organization, and said the law offered no further viable path to overturn the result or force a recount/runoff. Kemp’s campaign treated the announcement as an effective end to the race.


Abrams has later said she never denied the outcome (that Kemp became governor) and has acknowledged he won under the rules then in place, while continuing to criticize the process and access. She did formally concede her 2022 rematch loss to Kemp. The 2018 record, however, is unambiguous: she deliberately declined to concede.

Jaysus, according to your own beloved grok :

She did formally concede her 2022 rematch loss to Kemp
 
He lost by too large a margin to even challenge the results.


Did Mike Lindell lose by too large a margin to even challenge the results?





No. He lost by a large margin (~11 percentage points / ~45,000 votes), far outside Minnesota’s threshold for a publicly funded recount, though a candidate can still request a discretionary (self-paid) recount or file an election contest.


In the August 11, 2026, Minnesota Republican primary for governor, Lisa Demuth (Minnesota House Speaker) defeated Mike Lindell. Final or near-final tallies reported Demuth with roughly 43–43.6% and Lindell with 32–32.5% (vote totals around 179,546 to 134,198 in one report, or similar figures with Demuth ahead by more than 45,000 votes). Kendall Qualls finished third. The Associated Press and others called the race for Demuth late on election night; by the next morning, essentially all precincts were counted.


Lindell (endorsed by Trump) has refused to concede, citing possible irregularities or “anomalies,” questioning remaining votes early on, and expressing skepticism of the AP call and computerized systems. He has said his team needs time to review results.


Minnesota recount and challenge rules​


  • Publicly funded recount (for a statewide office like governor): Available if the margin is less than 0.25% of the total votes counted for the office (or ≤10 votes in a very small race). The losing candidate must request it promptly after the canvass.
  • An ~11-point / ~45,000-vote margin is many times larger than 0.25% and does not qualify.
  • Discretionary recount: A losing candidate may still request a manual recount at their own expense even with a larger margin. They can often specify starting with particular precincts.
  • Separate from recounts, candidates can pursue an election contest in court alleging irregularities, fraud, or other issues that could change the outcome. Success requires evidence sufficient to affect the result; large margins make this practically very difficult.

In short, the margin is far too large for an automatic or publicly funded recount that has any realistic chance of flipping the result under normal conditions. Lindell can still seek a paid recount or legal challenge if he chooses, but the scale of the defeat makes overturning it highly improbable without substantial, verified evidence of widespread problems—which has not been publicly established as of the latest reports. Demuth advances to face Democratic nominee Amy Klobuchar in November.


 
Jaysus, according to your own beloved grok : She did formally concede her 2022 rematch loss to Kemp

No contradiction.


The original question was specifically about the 2018 election. My answer was accurate and remains accurate:


  • Abrams explicitly refused to concede in 2018. She said the words “this is not a speech of concession” and “I will not concede” while acknowledging that Kemp would be certified the winner.

The sentence Anchovies is highlighting (“She did formally concede her 2022 rematch loss to Kemp”) is a separate, later fact about a different election four years later. It does not change or contradict anything about 2018.


Those are two distinct races:


  • 2018: refused to concede.
  • 2022: did concede.

That’s all.


Poor Anchovies.
 
Odd that I can't seem to remember any JPP lefties crying when these events occurred.


Prominent Democrats who have alleged elections were stolen, illegitimate, or decided by unfair interference (rather than solely by voters) include the following, based on their public statements.


Stacey Abrams (2018 Georgia gubernatorial race)​


Abrams lost to Republican Brian Kemp by about 55,000 votes. She refused a traditional concession speech, stating it was “not a speech of concession” because concession would acknowledge the outcome as right or proper. She repeatedly described the election as “stolen” from the people of Georgia (or from her) due to voter suppression, purges of voter rolls, long lines, and Kemp’s dual role as secretary of state.


Democratic figures including Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Bernie Sanders, Cory Booker, and Hillary Clinton publicly endorsed or amplified versions of this claim (e.g., that voter suppression cost Abrams the governorship).


Hillary Clinton (2016 presidential election, and comments on others)​


Clinton has described the 2016 election as “not on the level,” said Trump was an “illegitimate” president, and stated that “you can have the election stolen from you.” She pointed to Russian interference, the late FBI announcement about her emails, and voting restrictions. She has also questioned aspects of the 2000 and 2004 elections and supported Abrams’ 2018 claims.


Jimmy Carter​


Carter stated there was “no doubt” that Russian interference meant Trump “didn’t actually win the election in 2016” and that Trump “lost the election.” He also said of the 2000 election that “there’s no doubt in my mind that Al Gore was elected president.”


Al Gore and allies (2000 presidential election)​


Gore contested the Florida results extensively through recounts and litigation that reached the Supreme Court (Bush v. Gore). He and others, including Bill Clinton, later expressed the view that Gore had effectively won or that the process (stopping the recount) was illegitimate. Bill Clinton said Republicans could only win “by stop[ping] the voting in Florida.”


John Kerry and Democrats in Congress (2004 presidential election)​


Kerry and some Democrats raised concerns about Ohio’s results and voting integrity. Sen. Barbara Boxer and Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones formally objected to counting Ohio’s electoral votes in January 2005, forcing debate. Kerry and his circle took the view that the election involved denied votes or was not fully legitimate.


2016–2017 reactions to Trump’s election​


Multiple Democrats labeled Trump’s presidency illegitimate due to Russian interference and other factors, even while acknowledging the legal Electoral College result. Examples include Rep. Jerry Nadler (“illegitimate” though legally elected) and the late Rep. John Lewis (who declined to attend the inauguration on legitimacy grounds). Dozens of House Democrats also objected to electoral votes from certain states in January 2017.


Other historical or related cases​


  • In the 1984 Indiana 8th congressional district race, House Democrats (led by figures including Tip O’Neill’s majority) refused to seat the certified Republican winner after a close race and conducted their own process that seated Democrat Frank McCloskey by a handful of votes. Republicans at the time called this a stolen election.
  • Lower-profile or more recent cases exist (e.g., some Democrat candidates or activists questioning internal party votes, or isolated claims after 2024), but they lack the prominence or institutional backing of the examples above.


These statements are documented in contemporary reporting, interviews, and congressional records. They typically focused on specific mechanisms (foreign interference, voter suppression via administrative rules or purges, recounts stopped by courts, or procedural disputes) rather than wholesale claims of ballot stuffing or machine hacking on a national scale sufficient to flip certified statewide results.
Ah, Gore conceded, he was screwed by the Court, but to honor and keep America’s tradition of peaceful transitions of power he acknowledged his defeat, amazing what MAGA’s ignore if it contradicts the narratives they want to be are true
 
No contradiction.


The original question was specifically about the 2018 election. My answer was accurate and remains accurate:


  • Abrams explicitly refused to concede in 2018. She said the words “this is not a speech of concession” and “I will not concede” while acknowledging that Kemp would be certified the winner.

The sentence Anchovies is highlighting (“She did formally concede her 2022 rematch loss to Kemp”) is a separate, later fact about a different election four years later. It does not change or contradict anything about 2018.


Those are two distinct races:


  • 2018: refused to concede.
  • 2022: did concede.

That’s all.


Poor Anchovies.
It is a fact that she conceded the election, are you now saying your beloved grok lied
 
It is a fact that she conceded the election, are you now saying your beloved grok lied

Still no contradiction, and Grok did not lie.


Anchovies is stuck on a simple distinction:


  • 2018: Abrams refused to concede. She said, on the record, “This is not a speech of concession” and “I will not concede.” That is the historical fact.
  • 2022: She did formally concede after losing the rematch.

Saying both of those things is not a contradiction. It is just accurate reporting of two different elections.


Claiming “she conceded the election” while ignoring her own explicit refusal in 2018 is the actual problem. Grok reported what she said and did. That is not a lie.


Poor Anchovies.
 
Still no contradiction, and Grok did not lie.


Anchovies is stuck on a simple distinction:


  • 2018: Abrams refused to concede. She said, on the record, “This is not a speech of concession” and “I will not concede.” That is the historical fact.
  • 2022: She did formally concede after losing the rematch.

Saying both of those things is not a contradiction. It is just accurate reporting of two different elections.


Claiming “she conceded the election” while ignoring her own explicit refusal in 2018 is the actual problem. Grok reported what she said and did. That is not a lie.


Poor Anchovies.
Simple question, did Abrams concede she lost?
 
Ah, Gore conceded, he was screwed by the Court, but to honor and keep America’s tradition of peaceful transitions of power he acknowledged his defeat, amazing what MAGA’s ignore if it contradicts the narratives they want to be are true


Alleged elections were stolen, illegitimate, or decided by unfair interference (rather than solely by voters).
 
Back
Top