I like Stacey Abrams but continue to be confused by her choices/public comments. There's a Georgia senate seat Democrats could win; she's never been elected to statewide or federal office; she's not currently a politician; all I hear is talk of her being Vice President of the US.
1/ I think Abrams could be POTUS one day. But where she stands now is she's a non-politician who years ago represented 48,000 people in one Georgia state house district. Meanwhile, Democrats desperately need her to run for Senate and she won't do it because she wants the VP slot.
2/ I mean this with respect and kindness: I can't help but feel Abrams is going about this wrong. Were she to be put on the presidential ticket, the analogue would be putting your *local statehouse rep*—who represents your town in state government—a heartbeat from the presidency.
3/ But it's *worse* than that. Imagine if your local rep had been asked to save the party by helping it take over the U.S. Senate and had *refused*, instead deciding to *leave* elective politics and work for a nonprofit. Would that suggest they should go on a presidential ticket?
4/ To be clear, we do have to acknowledge Abrams was robbed of statewide elective office. But we've seen recently how little it means when one loses—even it if the election was stolen. Many recent elections appear to have been stolen. The general opinion is that a loss is a loss.
5/ Here's what I think is happening: Abrams has a bright future that's a few years away, but the sense is that not only should Biden pick a woman—and I agree—but that it should be someone who is nonwhite and a progressive. That leaves Biden with fewer options than we might think.
6/ A realistic assessment of the situation would be that Biden will more likely have to *choose* between a nonwhite woman and a progressive woman, under circumstances in which his demonstrated weakness is with progressive voters, not black voters. I say this because of a wrinkle.
7/ The wrinkle is that *all the data suggest* that a vice presidential candidate largely exists *only* for turnout—which means that you should be picking someone who has a *demonstrated appeal* (on top of the usual requirement that they could assume the presidency *immediately*).
8/ That demonstrated appeal really needs to be a demonstrated *national* appeal—which is why the ideal is someone who has *run for president* and developed national name recognition. Warren ran a substantially more successful campaign than the excellent Harris (who should be AG).
9/ So when people ask, "Why not the excellent Val Demings?", the answer is VP candidates don't help you win states, and therefore need national turnout appeal. If there's one thing we know, it's Biden's weakness is progressives—not black voters. That's just the reality right now.
10/ The problem is that VP conversations aren't fully realistic; we all root for the person we like the most—whether or not a comprehensive political strategy based in the data would compel the choice. So I can understand why many different people have many different top choices.
11/ That the VP conversation is an emotional one for everyone—I 100% include me—is evidenced by the responses to this thread already including severe misquotings of what I've said. We don't seem to be able to engage one another on the VP question with great clarity or composure.
12/ All I can say is my assessment isn't based on dismissing anyone. I think with Abrams it's just timing; I think Harris is a fine VP pick, but not the best, and could do the most for America right now as its AG. Many folks I read have assessments that *dismiss* certain people.
13/ I think the one thing we *all* have to agree to is sticking to the facts. America can't be told for 9 months that Biden has no weakness whatsoever with black voters, only to be told that his *only* VP options are Harris or Abrams *because* he has a weakness with black voters.
14/ By the same token, we can't be told that people without a national profile actually having national profile. We can't be told VP candidates have utilities—like helping a candidate win a state—that history tells us they *don't* have. We have to stick to the facts and the data.
15/ Certain VP picks are definably bad, like Tim Kaine, as they don't seem to draw from *any* facts or data whatsoever—merely the idiosyncratic preference of the candidate. I think everyone would agree that neither Kamala Harris nor Liz Warren would run afoul of that key problem.
PS/ In any event, I've been clear here that I think a comprehensive strategic assessment based in the data, the facts, and political history rather than emotion suggests the two options for Biden are Harris and Warren. I've also made clear *why* I think Warren has a slight edge.
PS2/ I should probably add that I think *most* VP picks have been bad over the last 25+ years. Quayle was bad. Edwards was bad. Palin was bad. Kaine was bad. Some others were desperate bids to placate concerned party elders, not voters (Cheney and Biden). Biden must do it right.
PS3/ Mike Pence was also a sop to party elders and (a smidge) to evangelicals, who were congealing around Donald Trump, anyway. Ryan (2012) and Gore (1992) probably made some sense, but it was the sense of a different time. Warren or Harris is the sense of this historical moment.
PS4/ I hope my thread's topic is clear: who's *the very best pick* for Biden. This thread has nothing to do with the fact—and it is a fact—that Stacey Abrams is more qualified to be VP than 99.9%+ of Americans. (Trump shouldn't be POTUS—so his *lack* of bona fides is irrelevant.)
PS5/ Anyway, I'll stop there. A thousand things I don't believe, have never believed, will never believe, and have never even considered believing—and that I never said, would say, or have ever considered saying—are being put in my mouth, and I just don't have any interest in it.
