Jump to content

Talk:Stacey Abrams

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2024

[edit]

In the section about Abrams' position on Israel it references when she voted against 'Georgia's anti-BDS legislation' but it links to a Wikipedia page about the federal anti-BDS legislation, called 'Israel Anti-Boycott Act' which I believe is slightly misleading. Could you change it to reference Georgia's SB 327 legislation and then just mention how it is similar to the federal legislation? LatestEdits (talk) 01:23, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done: I changed the in-text wikilink to Anti-BDS laws#Georgia where Georgia's SB 327 legislation is mentioned. Left guide (talk) 02:05, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed content

[edit]

Freespeech2024 is invited to discuss their preferred content here rather than edit warring. So far, five other editors have reverted this content. In my own revert, I stated Rolling back WP:BLP violation. We'd need a preponderance of reliable sources to say this. Please discuss here and gain consensus before attempting to re-add it once again. Generalrelative (talk) 15:22, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed content worsens the neutrality of the article. We settled on some well-sourced and neutrally summarized content after lengthy discussion in Talk:Stacey Abrams/Archive 2. I'm not aware of new, strong sources that would be likely to shift that consensus. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:37, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revisiting the lede

[edit]

Given this is a frequent topic of discussion, I've decided to go back and review the sources regarding Abrams and the 2018 claims. Here's what I've found:

  • USA Today (November 20, 2020) - “While Abrams has maintained the 2018 gubernatorial election was unfair and tainted by voter suppression, there’s no empirical evidence that now-Gov. Kemp stole that election from her.”
  • 
USA Today (November 18, 2020) - “Bullock said that there's not much empirical evidence to suggest Kemp tried to suppress votes or steal the election – but the talking point is good politics.“
  • New York Times (April 28, 2019) - “I have no empirical evidence that I would have achieved a higher number of votes. However, I have sufficient and I think legally sufficient doubt about the process to say that it was not a fair election.”
  • 
AJC (December 3, 2021) - The kind of voting barriers that Abrams said she objects to did exist to some extent, though her loss by about 55,000 votes wasn’t in doubt after ballots were counted.
  • NYT (March 3, 2019) - It is a sweeping conclusion that even many voting rights advocates say remains extremely difficult to prove.
  • AJC (November 9, 2018) - However, no evidence emerged of systematic malfeasance – or of enough tainted votes to force a runoff election between Republican Brian Kemp and Democrat Stacey Abrams.
  • PolitiFact (November 21, 2019) - “The claim is a good talking point, but the evidence is missing
  • PolitiFact (May 10, 2019) - It isn’t possible to prove if any election law or policy in either state cost the Democrats their elections, so we aren’t rating the statement by Harris on the Truth-O-Meter
"
  • PolitiFact (May 10, 2019) - “I have seen no good evidence that the suppressive effects of strict voting and registration laws affected the outcome of the governor’s races in Georgia and Florida”
  • PolitiFact (November 21, 2019) - “ We previously found it isn’t possible to prove if any election law or policy in Georgia cost Abrams her narrow loss to Republican Brian Kemp.”
  • PolitiFact (May 10, 2019) - “The only really honest answer is that no one knows for sure how much voting was depressed by the alleged acts of ‘voter suppression’ by former Secretary of State Kemp”
  • Washington Post (October 30, 2019) - “I have seen no good social science evidence that efforts to make it harder to register and vote were responsible for Kemp’s victory over Abrams in the Georgia gubernatorial race.”
  • Washington Post (October 30, 2019) - “The claim is not based on fact but will continue to be articulated by Abrams since it helps mobilize her supporters.”
  • Washington Post (November 15, 20180) - Practically speaking, they are alleging illegal activity that hasn’t been proven -- and seems unlikely to be.

Out of all of these sources, only one presents it as even possible to prove voter suppression impacted the result. The vast majority either say that no proof exists, or the claim is impossible to prove or disprove (an unfalsifiable claim, akin to trying to prove or disprove Bigfoot or jackalopes are real).

The one exception is source in the the lead - a quote from a Richard Hasen book, which is itself a quote from Mother Jones writer Ari Berman. But this is conflicted by other Hasen quotes above, and his article in Slate, where he says "Saying Kemp tried to suppress Democratic votes and saying the election was stolen are two different things, and making charges of a stolen election when it cannot be proved undermines Democrats’ complaints about suppressive tactics."; the quote from Berman itself comes from a Mother Jones article, and at perennial sources Mother Jones is listed as reliable, but with a disclaimer that "Almost all editors consider Mother Jones a biased source, so its statements (particularly on political topics) may need to be attributed"; the current wording does not attribute Mother Jones. Berman is unequivocally a partisan source here, too - his works include Herding Donkeys: The Fight to Rebuild the Democratic Party and Reshape American Politics and his articles are about as partisan as you'd expect of a Mother Jones writer.

In other words: I don't think the lead accurately reflects the consensus of sources. The consensus of sources isn't that it's unclear what happened - it's that the claims haven't been proven, or can't be proven because they're unfalsifiable - even Abrams herself admits she has no evidence in the third quote. The current page wording, rather than saying this, says scholars and reporters are "unable to determine whether voter suppression affected its result", which instead falls in line with the least reliable, most partisan source listed (Mother Jones). When in doubt, we shouldn't be relying on Mother Jones - we should be relying on more reliable sources like the Atlanta-Journal Constitution, PolitiFact, The Washington post, etc. I'm concerned we're providing undue weight for a fringe theory here.

At the very least, the lead should be reworded to be more specific - something like "News outlets and political science experts have not found evidence that voter suppression affected its result", which is more in line with what reliable sources broadly suggest (that there is no evidence, or that the claims are inherently unable to be proven or disproven). Toa Nidhiki05 15:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Voter suppression in the United States is a real thing, so much so that we have a page on it. It can't be proven that it swung the election to Kemp. With more time having passed, do we need to keep it in the lead at all? We can just say she lost in the lead and leave the voter suppression stuff and lack of concession in the body. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That’s a fair point. The body already covers it - so it’s not like a removal from the lead would remove that. I’d be fine with this. Toa Nidhiki05 20:40, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]