BaptistLife.Com Forums.

Well, he hasn't completely squashed the Obama recovery. And he hasn't actually started a war. I mean, that's important stuff.

Abrams lost but will, I expect, follow a strategy of maximum contentiousness by demanding a recount then suing. She's 63k votes under Kemp and he is 13k above the threshold for a runoff. No one expects provisional and absentee ballots to provide the numbers to change anything.

She almost won against a spectacularly mediocre republican nominee.

Abrams placed such a high value on making sure that everyone's vote was counted that she can't just concede with uncounted votes out there without sending the wrong message to the people she urged to vote. I suspect she will do the right thing when she knows all have been heard.

Nonsense, conjecture, and blind partisan idiocy are staples here. We've come to expect it.

Abrams, a liberal democrat, almost won in a state dominated by republicans since almost all the white democrats switched parties years ago. While the demographics have changed, they haven't changed enough to make electing a democrat to a statewide office easy or expected. Even against a very mediocre GOP candidate, a respected dem candidate lost.

She lost because she didn't have the votes. The margin wasn't a few hundred or even a few thousand but tens of thousands. I have no idea if her stature is enhanced in the state or diminished. Her standing with the liberal media, Hollywood, and elitist coastal donors is probably enhanced. Since she ran partly on her record of working with republicans, her final fusillade probably lowered her chances among Georgia voters but the populace is slowly changing.

Her angry and combative non-concession speech was, I suppose, a deliberate strategic move. I'd just call it classless.

Not your best effort. Kemp was a very weak candidate. That's why it was close.

Could Kemp have won without holding up 73,000 registrations, an action that should qualify him for a term in the "big house?"