On Sunday, 2020 presidential hopeful Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) spoke at the NAACP’s 64th annual Fight for Freedom Fund Dinner in Detroit.

During her speech, she it was time to “speak truth” … and then proceeded to tell a couple of whoppers about the election results for the 2018 Florida and Georgia gubernatorial races.

The Detroit News reports:

She also spoke of the Voting Rights Act and laws that “suppress the vote.” She raised the controversy that arose with Georgia Democrat Stacey Abrams, who narrowly lost a bid last fall to become the first black woman elected governor in U.S. history, and Andrew Gillum, the former Tallahassee mayor. Without “voter suppression: Stacey Abams is Governor Stacey Abrams. Andrew Gillum is Governor Andrew Gillum.” “So the truth is, we need a new voting rights act in this country with automatic voter registration,” Harris said, noting Americans have to “fight back” against Republicans “who suppress” the right to vote.

Watch Harris speak on this issue in the video clip below:

Sen. @KamalaHarris speaks to Detroit @NAACP: "Let's say this loud and clear — without voter suppression, @StaceyAbrams would be the governor of Georgia, @AndrewGillum is the governor of Florida. So the truth is we need a new Voting Rights Act." pic.twitter.com/j37Rjkhcmb — The Hill (@thehill) May 6, 2019

Harris’s comments came on the heels of twice-failed candidate for president Hillary Clinton’s remarks Saturday on her 2016 presidential election loss:

“You can run the best campaign, you can even become the nominee, and you can have the election stolen from you.”

And both Clinton’s and Harris’s statements were in addition to Stacey Abrams’s continued refusal to concede the Georgia governor’s race. She continues to say that she won, when she knows she didn’t. She’s been debunked over and over again, but continues to make the false claim.

Gillum, too, lost fair and square. His election was not “stolen.”

Remember when refusal to accept election results was a direct threat to democracy or something? Me, too.

Donald Trump refused to say that he’d respect the results of this election. That’s a direct threat to our democracy. — Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) October 24, 2016

Trump's refusal to concede the election if he loses proves he is a petty man uninterested in our national stability https://t.co/V1alhxLKmn — Stacey Abrams (@staceyabrams) October 20, 2016

“Refusing to accept the outcome of an election is a threat to democracy itself” – every Democrat on November 7, 2016. https://t.co/zVJ8pnlSHJ — Luke Thompson (@ltthompso) May 6, 2019

As I’ve said before, it’s amazing how quickly their standards change. Always quick to cry foul when they lose. In fact, hotly contested elections are only considered “legitimate” in their eyes when they win.

It just doesn’t compute with them when election results are not in their favor that maybe, just maybe a majority of people truly believed in the other candidate and their ideas more.

The left’s attempts at delegitimizing legitimate election results are part of long-term strategy on their part to motivate minority voters into turning out to vote in critical elections. It’s a shameful tactic, and one that deserves calling out whenever they try it.

Besides, shouldn’t saying such things be considered “incitement”? By the left’s rules of engagement, anything that could motivate someone to retaliate violently should be considered an attempt at inciting voters. Doesn’t suggesting to voters that their votes were “suppressed” fit that description?

———————

—Sister Toldjah is a former liberal and a 15+ year veteran of blogging with an emphasis on media bias, social issues, and the culture wars. Read her Red State archives here. Connect with her on Twitter.–