Since the genocide of the Georgia governor was reduced to less than six months ago, Stacey Abrams named him "victorious" in the election. Recently, on April 28, he told The New York Times Magazine, "I can not say that everyone trying to send a ballot vote for me, but if you look at the information, it's enough to show that too many people have been disenfranchised and not hurt by the action of the winner in the election that I feel comfortable saying, & # 39; I won. & # 39; "
The absurd statement it focuses on a glamorous series of misleading statements made by Abrams A May 15th of the New York Times was opened by Abrams, titled, "We Can not Determine Ourselves in Remembering and Removing Disenfranchisement, "more details about the unmistakable and hypocrisy.
This kind of thing started before the campaign ended itself, Abrams criticized his opponent, Brian Kemp, who reinforced an "atmosphere of fear" in a debate two weeks before Election Day. Georgian voters, he declared, "were cleansed, they became restrained, they were scared."
All attention Abrams is getting as a rising star of the Democratic Party and a rumored contender for the 2020 vice presidential party slot, one would think that his eyebrows of increasing Georgia election claims became more thorough investigations. In particular, there is a special kind of publisher that exists solely to verify statements of politicians' credibility.
Nonetheless, not a single major media tracker of the media did Abrams to make sure he was "winning" in the election, a claim that rests on various empirical assumptions. PolitiFact did not do this. FactCheck.org has not done so. Snopes? Nope. The record's role was not obtained here. Quite with this credit, the Washington Post is true-assuring some of the facts that are related to lies about Georgia's voter repression when Clinton tries to claim that 201
Let's start with his most important declaration. In fact, he lost the election by 50,000 votes. Even if it is a close margin in an election where millions of votes have been cast, it is not enough to seriously argue who has succeeded. So the first reply was that Abrams's claim that he was "winning" in the election was the rhetoric.
When the New York Times Magazine hits, Abrams makes some concessions. "I do not have the evidence that I can get a higher number of votes. However, I have enough, and I think it's legal, doubtful about the process to say it's not a fair election," he said. . He also tries to move "I won" this context in the field of highly metaphorical. "My bigger point is, here, I win because we changed the constituents, we changed the people who never voted, we went out to every Democrat in the history of Georgia," he added.
One can say that taking this literal Abrams is The framing of his claim with these caveats is not worthy of a fact check. However, it does not always stop the checkers of truth from being extreme-literally to the point of absolute lack of headline for the kind of universities of politicians To give an example, said of PolitiFact once said that Sen. Rand Paul "FALSE" by saying "The average federal employee makes $ 120,000 a year. The average private employee makes $ 60,000 a year." PolitiFact's argument is why Paul used more colloquial verbs "working" and did not specify numbers for total compensation instead of just salary, he was being a mi that was ridiculous -that given that the average taxpayer could not be more agreeable once they learned federal employees just got an additional $ 30,000 a year on average wages and the remaining difference was because the workers the federal buys the benefits package that costs the average private sector four times the cost.
It is safe to say the unnecessary degree of literalism, PolitiFact is more misleading than Paul. Stacey Abrams examined the comments, a better case made that he repeatedly claimed that he was "winning" in the election – especially when he himself hoped when challenged that "I have no empirical evidence that I can get the higher number of votes "- is misleading, and perhaps voluntarily.
And if we want to talk about literalism vs. the context, it is possible to say that no politician brings too much literal intelligence than Donald Trump. The current Washington Post study says, "In 828 days, President Trump made 10,111 false or misleading claims" and the New York Times has published similar eye-popping tallies . Although it is difficult to defend Trump's relationship with facts, to claim that he is lying that you often need to be tone-deaf in the nuance and context at the point of absurdity.
For example, according to the Post, it is one of Trump's lies: "I found that I had more Indian blood than me [Elizabeth Warren] and then referred to me as nothing." Most reasonably people can read it and understand that Trump, famous for harassing enemies, uses a hyperbole to cast aside Sen. Warren in his claims that he is Native American – his academia career – when it turns out that Warren, through his own admission, can be as 1/1024 th Native American. The Post repeats an obvious joke – how, exactly, one less than no Indian blood? – in a misleading statement.
Drill down on Trump's fact checks and you find a lot. Reporter was tired of hearing about Trump, but this kind of thing perfectly describes taking him literally and not seriously. If we apply these standards of literal interpretation, Abrams is more than suitable for a review of the truth, regardless of any fever cleaning that follows the claim that he is "winning."
Well, let's take a broader context and suppose Abrams says "I won" based on the belief that the process was unfair and had a voter repression. In his "not speaking" last fall, Abrams said, "Despite a high population in Georgia, more than a million people have found their names derived from the state secretary's list." Addition to suspicion is the fact that the state secretary made this was Brian Kemp, his opponent in the election. It is true that Kemp's office cleanses 1.4 million voter registration in Georgia since 2010.
But it is misleading to suggest that by removing voters from the Kemp's lists any something suspect. State secretaries are required by law to clean up voter registrations. "The 1993 National Voter Registration Act has ordered that state and local election official election voter registrations be accurate by removing the names of people who are dying, moving or failing a series of elections to vote. Voters who have been found guilty of a felony may be inactive without the ability to study or be found noncitizens, "reports Carnegie-Knight News21 at the Center for the website Public Integrity. "The U.S. Election Help Commission recommends that 15 million names have been suspended from listings nationwide in 2014."
Thus, cleaning of voter lists in Georgia is not abnormal, and in fact, is required by federal law. However, in his recent New York Times op Abrams makes this unsupported claim that it is being done for suspect purposes. "Across the country, voter purges use an easy manipulation to use it or lose it's rule, under which eligible voters exercised their First Amendment right to abstain from voting In the previous elections can be booted off the roll, "he writes. However, there is no real reason to believe that this rule is "compelled." According to the Carnegie-Knight News21 report, "News21 cites lists of nearly 50 million registered voters from a dozen states, and 7 million more removed from the previous year. By comparing voter registration and cleaning lists against the US Census data, News21 did not see the national or statewide pattern of discrimination against voters based on race, ethnicity, poverty, age or surname. "
Despite the rest another selected, deliberate choice of data points that have been dumped around Abrams and his supporters, there is no good reason to believe that any major voter suppression efforts have taken place in Georgia. Despite the contrary, "If Brian Kemp of Georgia is a vote suppressor, he is at least successful vote support." The previous half of the gubernatorial, Republican Nathan Deal won 1.3 million votes. lost 1.9 million votes, "according to National French Reference David French." There are almost 2.5 million total votes recorded in 2014. In 2018, more than 3.9 million Georgians voted almost matching the total vote for the president in 2016. " In addition, Kemp's eight year term as secretary of the state, African-American voter registration has grown, increasing by 31 percent – translates to 462,000 new voters, higher than white. And although the Constitution of Atlanta, the dominant newspaper of Georgia , warned Democrats' claims, when it came time to see some of these "vigilant" and "fearful" voters, it was a problem. Voters who were cleansed from the list were dead, no longer living in Georgia, or indifferent.
"The Atlanta Journal-Constitution last week tried to contact 50 people who were randomly selected from the list of pure voters of 2017," the reported paper. "Twenty it is clear that the unworthy vote in Georgia: 17 moved to the state, two were convicted of crimes and one died. Most of the rest leave a trail of address changes and disconnected phone numbers. "
This is enough to say, this is an unnecessary trend at this point to revisit what truth checkers have said about Trump's claims of voter fraud in 2016, less re-visit the general opprobrium of the media he said he would not automatically accept the results of the 2016 elections.
However, here we are in 2019 and The New York Times runs headlines like, "Why does Stacey Abrams still say" and let it know he is the deceiver of readers on the op-ed page, and the reality media truths are missing. One man should give Abrams a tall trouser inferno and ladle to some Pinocchios.