Ranting On...Stacey Abrams

State House Minority Leader Stacey Abrams (D-GA) 

Democrats have recently caught a case of the stupids when it comes to political ambition, and I'm about done with it.  I saw it a few weeks ago when Crisanta Duran committed potential political suicide for no reason when she decided to run for the House when she had a far better chance at the Senate (before you start protesting, other than Nancy Pelosi or Kevin McCarthy no one would prefer being a member of the House to the Senate).  And I'm seeing it this week with the news that Stacey Abrams is considering a run for the presidency rather than going for a Senate bid, and it's starting to make my actively angry.  The Democratic Party is famously "unorganized" according to Will Rogers, but this year's presidential primary has made fools out of smart people, and I think it's time for us to start calling out how Democrats are dangerously close to giving Republicans a way out in 2020 because of ego.

Before I begin, I want to point out that I really like Stacey Abrams.  I donated to her campaign in 2018, and I never donate to gubernatorial candidates other than my own state's (I only donate to my home state candidates or for federal candidates who will vote on laws that will affect me).  That's because I believe her message, and I think we will not start seeing real change for women of color, who are under-represented and discriminated against far more than almost any other population in American politics, until we start seeing women of color in power in this country.  Abrams would have been the first black woman to serve as governor of any state, a huge accomplishment, and would have instantly become a national figure if she'd won.  Were Stacey Abrams to announce a run for the Senate, I'd click the donate button that day because I think she's one of the best ways for the Democrats to win in 2020.  And I do think, given time, she could make a very strong potential candidate for president, provided her time in the Senate or as a Governor was successful.

That out of the way, her running for president is lunacy for a few reasons.  For starters, it's a terrible decision because there's already too many people in this race as it is.  It's probable that Abrams would dilute the progressive vote of people like Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris, making it more likely for someone like Joe Biden to make it (I love Joe, but if we're looking at a decent shot of taking down Trump, I'd prefer someone like a Harris in office who has a 2020-style kind of liberalism that feels more like how they truly view the world and not how they think the world wants them to act/behave).  Abrams also doesn't come into this race as a serious candidate who has a proven track record in public office, ready-and-willing to show what she did during her previous experience.  Abrams lost a gubernatorial race in a potential swing state in a deeply favorable environment.  I don't think it's fair to entirely blame her for that loss (Brian Kemp basically stacked the deck in his favor), but I also don't think it's appropriate to not give her some of the blame for it, particularly if she wants to take on someone like Donald Trump.

Because that's what we're dealing with here-we're not running a campaign against Jeb Bush or running a campaign without gigantic stakes-we're running against arguably the biggest threat to American democracy since George III.  I'm not willing to take chances here-if Abrams was leading in polls and matchups, I'd feel differently, but she's not.  Polling might change, but in a crowded field, is Abrams really going to be able to beat Biden, Harris, O'Rourke, Gillibrand, and Sanders...and should she?  Should we trust the fate of the world to someone who has never run a national campaign, or held a seat in Congress or a Governor's mansion?  I feel like Abrams is getting ahead of herself here, and using the excuse "if Donald Trump can be elected president, anyone can!" as a reason to be emboldened, ignoring the fact that Donald Trump is an almost exclusively bad president, for the most part because he has not worked in federal government or run a state to understand the sorts of sacrifices needed to be successful in that job.  And with all due respect, neither has Stacey Abrams.

But this isn't the only reason that I'm mad about Abrams' flirtation with the White House; if she was just throwing away her career, I'd be disappointed but understand that sometimes you throw the Hail Mary to see if it connects.  No, I'm disappointed because Stacey Abrams has a genuine future in the Democratic Party if she just goes and takes it, and that comes from running for the Senate in 2020.  Abrams is, in my opinion, the only person who could beat Sen. David Perdue next year.  She proved in 2018 that she can come close to winning, and with an election year turnout in an increasingly purple state, I think she might be able to pull this off.  Considering that the Democrats have an easier shot than last year, but still need an inside straight to take the majority, a loss of someone like Abrams for the Senate would be an enormous blow to the left's ability to take out Mitch McConnell.

And trust me here-2020, especially if the Democrats win the White House, is your last chance in a while to best Mitch McConnell.  History shows that first midterms are unkind to the party in the White House, and as a result if they don't take the Senate this year, they likely won't have a shot at it until 2026 or 2028.  McConnell being in power with a Democratic White House will be hell, a different kind of hell, but surely hell for the Democrats.  Imagine a world where President Sanders appoints a successor to RBG, but McConnell just pulls a Merrick Garland until he can get another Brett Kavanaugh on the Court.  Imagine President Harris not having a full cabinet for the entirety of her first term because McConnell slow-walks every one of her nominees.  Imagine a meaningful climate change bill with the full-backing of President Biden, one that could save the world, being stopped because McConnell has a one-seat majority that's aided by David Perdue?  This is very real possibility if Stacey Abrams doesn't run for the Senate.

Stacey Abrams is in a unique, and admittedly unfair position here.  Except for Steve Bullock, no other person exploring a presidential run is in a position where them refusing a Senate bid could cost us a seat, and Bullock is a sitting two-term governor, so you can't make the same argument about experience with him.  John Hickenlooper, yes, but the Democrats can win that seat without him (and probably will, potentially with Diana DeGette in a hilarious turn-of-events).  Bullock & Abrams might have presidential aspirations, but their country needs them in the Senate races if they truly care about the issues.  There will be other opportunities if she wins in 2020, and if she waits to run it'll likely be too late; there is too much risk of getting attacked by fellow Democrats or having Perdue saying the Senate is "her second choice."  She doesn't have the luxury Rand Paul & Marco Rubio had of being a sitting member of the office, where the consolation prize attack doesn't land the same.  It's unfair to ask her to wait, but life isn't always fair, and if Abrams wants to make a true difference, she could take on no more valuable role than to win a Senate seat in 2020.