The 18 Democrats in the presidential primary race are all trying to crack the same puzzle: How to beat Trump in 2020? Call him out directly, like Senator Kirsten Gillibrand? Or leave his name largely out of your mouth, but oppose him directly on policies, like Mayor Julián Castro?
As far as Stacey Abrams, a former Democratic state lawmaker who came incredibly close to winning her bid for Georgia governor in November, is concerned, asking how to beat Trump is the wrong question. “You don’t beat Trump. I think that’s the wrong frame. When you go into any intention trying to defeat someone else, then you’re going to lose because you’re automatically playing by their game. You’re using their narrative. You’re trying to undo what they’ve done, which means you’re not doing yours,” Abrams told Tina Brown as they spoke at the Women in the World Summit in New York City last week.
“I believe that you run a campaign, you run a business, you run an organization with your end in mind, telling people what you will do, why you’re the one to do it,” Abrams continued. “I think it’s important for us to understand, Trump did not win because he was a good candidate. He won because 70,000 people voted in three states because of the Electoral College, but 6 million people stayed home.”
“The reality is we have the opportunity to overcome voter suppression, overcome strategic error. There are a whole host of things that led to his victory, none of which are insurmountable,” Abrams said. “Winning does not mean beating Trump. It means winning America. That’s our mission.”
Here is the clip:
Of course, if anyone knows about how seriously voter suppression can impact an election, it’s Abrams. While it’s a systemic problem in the U.S., Abrams (and the people of Georgia) had to accept an incredible loss in 2018, largely because of reported voter suppression. Dating back to 2012, her opponent, Republican Brian Kemp, had put tens of thousands of voter registrations in “pending” status, requiring validation of signatures. The result? Cancellation of 1.4 million voter registrations. People were understandably outraged.
And, for the record, Abrams never conceded. Why does this matter? In her words:
I knew, as a matter of law, we did not have a viable option because the law itself allowed this to happen. Policies permitted him to bastardize an election and manipulate a system. And so I acknowledged the legal outcome of the election.
But concession is something very different. As a democracy, we concede when we say it’s okay to strip voters of their voices, when we say it’s okay to tell people that you’re not wealthy enough to be treated equally. Those are things that change our democracy and corrode our trust.
The decision was very easy: I could not say the words, “I concede.”
As we all know, people are deeply curious about what future Abrams sees for herself. Politics seems obvious, and she’s made it clear she’s keeping her options open. Will she run for president? Accept a vice president spot? Run for state Senate? It’s still unclear, but she has dropped some insight into the crowded 2020 race.
In a different interview, Abrams said she isn’t terribly concerned with the growing number of Democrats running for the presidential nomination instead of running for Senate. “If you run for the Senate, you should want to do the job of being in the Senate. If you want to be president that's a very different job, and I know people often want to go from one to the other but I want people running for the Senate who want to do the work of being in the Senate,” she explained.
She also clarified that, regardless, she doesn’t think the number of Democrats in the race is a problem. “Separate from that, I don't think we have too many candidates.”
Do you want to see Abrams run for Senate, president, or something else entirely?