Failed gubernatorial candidate (and current gubernatorial candidate) Stacey Abrams has claimed since 2018 that she really won her initial race. She claimed that the only reason she didn’t actually win was voter “suppression” laws in the state of Georgia. She was so adamantly invested in this narrative that she started a group called Fair Fight Action in order to champion her cause and continue to gripe about her lost election.

It was much to her chagrin that her complaints were smartly swatted down by a federal court judge last Friday. Through her group, she attempted to prove that Georgia’s “Jim Crow 2.0” voting laws were racist and that they suppressed votes. Federal Judge Steve Jones, who has been hearing this case since 2018, said, “Although Georgia’s election system is not perfect the challenged practices violate neither the Constitution nor the [Voting Rights Act].”

Judge Jones is an Obama appointee and black, in case one might be tempted to think that this was a white conservative jurist weighing in. Jones did what should be expected of any federal judge: He applied the Constitution and other federal laws to see if Georgia had indeed broken any of them. In a neat 288-page decision, he concisely outlined why Abrams’s claims were false.

The greatest thrust of her claim rested on the notion that Georgia’s “exact match” policy was a form of voter suppression. Her group presented seven plaintiffs. According to the editors of National Review, “Of the seven voters the plaintiffs presented who had trouble at polling places, six of them still got to vote.” The only reason the seventh one was unable to vote was due to a time constraint issued by the individual’s nursing home facility; the plaintiff was unable to sort out the misunderstanding as a result.

As far as the claim of racism goes, Judge Jones said no. Just because 69% of the voters who were flagged as a mismatch in voting information were black did not actually prevent them from voting. National Review reports that Jones “quotes the Supreme Court for the proposition that a ‘policy that appears to work for 98 percent or more of voters to whom it applies — minority and non-minority alike — is unlikely to render a system unequally open.’”

As an overall criticism of Stacey Abrams as a politician, this court loss is undeniable. Abrams is a classic example of someone who gets so wrapped up in her political narratives that reality doesn’t matter. She has proven that again and again beginning with her claims in 2018 that she really won the election.

Another narrative that she pushed was mandated masking for school children to protect them from COVID-19. And yet, when she went to read to elementary school children for Black History Month, she took off her mask for a photo op and her hypocrisy went viral. She first called it a “false political attack,” “pathetic,” and “silly” — because when you’re a woke Democrat, you have to double down on your narrative. But she later apologized for her poor judgment.

Most recently, Abrams weighed in on the abortion narrative. “There is no such thing as a heartbeat at six weeks,” she said. “It is a manufactured sound designed to convince people that men have the right to take control of a woman’s body.” She combined two leftist talking points into one — that babies in the womb are not human or valuable until they are wanted, and that women are routinely oppressed and duped by men. Besides being patently false, Abrams’s grasp of the science of sonograms leaves something to be desired. Did she back down from this insane statement? No.

Each time Abrams makes one of these political missteps that make her even more unpopular, the mainstream media comes to her rescue and defends her. This white knight syndrome has created a false sense of security for Democrat “rising stars” who believe they don’t have to be held accountable for their words, actions, or hypocrisy. That is why, come election time, they are in a world of hurt (see also Beto O'Rourke).

Abrams shows no signs of backing down from her chosen narrative of racism and voter suppression. After the resounding loss in court, she said: “Over the past four years, Fair Fight and its allies have exposed a deeply flawed and problematic system. As the judge says in his first sentence, ‘This is a voting rights case that resulted in wins and losses for all parties.’ However, the battle for voter empowerment over voter suppression persists, and the cause of voter access endures. I will not stop fighting to ensure every vote can be cast, every ballot is counted and every voice is heard.”

The narrative, regardless of how fallacious, is the point — but hers may prove to be too transparently false for voters.