It helps that there is a lack of evidence to support it.
And neither did the government, which concluded that it was real and not a hoax at all. There is a lot of evidence in fact. That's adifference between the two. One had lots of evidence, even from very early, and the other has very little.
Then there is the difference that the Democrats accepted the result. Clinton conceded the next day and Obama immediately started the transition. Trump even complemented him on how smooth the transition was, if I recall.
She said the Russians interfered, not that the election was stolen. No voter fraud was being alleged. The number of people she has called Russian assets are very few, and I don't think any of those claims have been unwarranted. (Calling them "Russian Agents" would have been, but Clinton was more careful than that.)
That's just a nonsense sentence.
Of course she didn't. She told him not to concede early or especially the day of. This was after Trump and the GOP had announced their plan to try and win through disenfranchising voters by delaying the mail in vote and having a huge election night lead before all the votes were cast. So she was, unsurprisingly, completely right that Biden shouldn't concede on election day even if he was behind and should wait for all the votes to be counted.
Stacy Abrams acknowledged that she no longer had a legal path to contest the election and stopped fighting it, acknowledging that Kemp was governor.
This is from her speech after the election:
So, to be clear, this is not a speech of concession.
Concession means to acknowledge an action is right, true or proper. As a woman of conscience and faith, I cannot concede. But my assessment is that the law currently allows no further viable remedy.Now, I could certainly bring a new case to keep this one contest alive, but I don’t want to hold public office if I need to scheme my way into the post. Because the title of Governor isn’t nearly as important as our shared title.
Voters.
Then there was the interview last year where they asked her exactly what she means when she says she feels she "won" that election.
There are three things: No. 1, I legally acknowledge that Brian Kemp secured a sufficient number of votes under our existing system to become the governor of Georgia. I do not concede that the process was proper, nor do I condone that process. No. 2, I believe we won in that we transformed the electorate and achieved a dramatic increase in turnout. It was a systemic and, I think, sustainable change in the composition of the electorate and in the transformation of the narrative about Georgia and Georgia politics. Three, 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.
Trump would get way less flack if he was handling this with as much class and grace as Abrams.
Actually, he was under tremendous pressure to concede from various media, but you are right in that people didn't think he was being unreasonable. Of course both sides insisted the count should finish. They argued on how to conduct the recount and both acknowledged the difference was only a few hundred votes. People didn't allege voter fraud, they alleged that the count was extremely close and that the standard of judging ambiguous ballots needed to be consistent.
Because he lost by a lot more, there is no evidence of systemic voter fraud, he is blocking the transition from going forward, and attacking the idea of elections generally. His own lawyers say the goal is to "overturn the election" and he is now asking state governments to not wait for the courts and just throw out the votes and assign him the electors.
Funny how different situations are different.
