So...Stacey Abrams

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
Staff member
PREMO Member
You suppose they're grooming her for 2020? I don't know why they would, but there is absolutely no reason why she would be giving the SotU rebuttal, and now she's getting a spot during the SuperBowl.

Typically when a candidate loses their race, they become invisible. And yet somehow this loser's star is on the rise.
 

RoseRed

American Beauty
PREMO Member
You suppose they're grooming her for 2020? I don't know why they would, but there is absolutely no reason why she would be giving the SotU rebuttal, and now she's getting a spot during the SuperBowl.

Typically when a candidate loses their race, they become invisible. And yet somehow this loser's star is on the rise.
Superbowl? Doing what? Introducing Colin Kaepernick?
 

TCROW

Active Member
You suppose they're grooming her for 2020? I don't know why they would, but there is absolutely no reason why she would be giving the SotU rebuttal, and now she's getting a spot during the SuperBowl.

Typically when a candidate loses their race, they become invisible. And yet somehow this loser's star is on the rise.
Totally agree they’re going the Marco Rubio route. Ms. Abrams would do well not to reach for the water bottle. Quench that thirst beforehand and don’t show up with cotton mouth.

As to your point about being a loser: it doesn’t matter. As long as she brings cash, she’s a winner in the eyes of the national party.
 

Pete

Repete
You suppose they're grooming her for 2020? I don't know why they would, but there is absolutely no reason why she would be giving the SotU rebuttal, and now she's getting a spot during the SuperBowl.

Typically when a candidate loses their race, they become invisible. And yet somehow this loser's star is on the rise.
At the risk of sounding racist it is because the Democratic Party is 100% committed to non caucasian and non male. I say "non male" because according to them you cannot define it anymore. Abrams is female, black, large, embraces all the talking points of an ultra progressive, can string together a coherent sentence and had a good showing in a solid red state while sporting a Michael Strahan gap. In the DNC dictionary she is only 3 clicks lower than Jesus.
 

RoseRed

American Beauty
PREMO Member
At the risk of sounding racist it is because the Democratic Party is 100% committed to non caucasian and non male. I say "non male" because according to them you cannot define it anymore. Abrams is female, black, large, embraces all the talking points of an ultra progressive, can string together a coherent sentence and had a good showing in a solid red state while sporting a Michael Strahan gap. In the DNC dictionary she is only 3 clicks lower than Jesus.
Your toxic masculinity is showing.
 

mAlice

professional daydreamer
Your toxic masculinity is showing.
I submit to you...that toxic masculinity is better than no masculinity at all.

According to today's political climate, you have two choices-toxic masculinity, or soy boy.
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
At the risk of sounding racist it is because the Democratic Party is 100% committed to non caucasian and non male. I say "non male" because according to them you cannot define it anymore. Abrams is female, black, large, embraces all the talking points of an ultra progressive, can string together a coherent sentence and had a good showing in a solid red state while sporting a Michael Strahan gap. In the DNC dictionary she is only 3 clicks lower than Jesus.
Yes: They are wanting to run her. You are right they are looking for a candidate that is female and black, but they cannot handle Kamilla.
They are looking for someone they can control and Abrams fits the slot.
Remember it's a black woman's turn. She is in the mold of what they are looking for.
They will write her a speech and she will give it, if she does a good job she is in.
 

awpitt

Main Streeter
You suppose they're grooming her for 2020? I don't know why they would, but there is absolutely no reason why she would be giving the SotU rebuttal, and now she's getting a spot during the SuperBowl.

Typically when a candidate loses their race, they become invisible. And yet somehow this loser's star is on the rise.
It's silly to think that they're grooming her for 2020. I'm surprised you'd even wonder about that. Yes, she lost her race for GA governor but the fact that she came within two percentage points of winning, as a black women against the usual white male, in GA no less is an accomplishment.
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
It's silly to think that they're grooming her for 2020. I'm surprised you'd even wonder about that. Yes, she lost her race for GA governor but the fact that she came within two percentage points of winning, as a black women against the usual white male, in GA no less is an accomplishment.
And when she lost she pissed and moaned and asked for a recount.

She is a Democrat through and through.

Just what they want
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
Staff member
PREMO Member
It's silly to think that they're grooming her for 2020. I'm surprised you'd even wonder about that. Yes, she lost her race for GA governor but the fact that she came within two percentage points of winning, as a black women against the usual white male, in GA no less is an accomplishment.
I cannot think of any other reason why she is getting all this attention. When was the last time a party member who holds no office - no office at all, not even city council, not even dog catcher - was tapped to rebut the SotU? Or give any other major speech? The answer: Never.

The Dems are pushing Kamala Harris in 2020, why not give her that spotlight? Is she not just as black and just as female as Stacey Adams?
 

Kyle

Imagine No Democrats
PREMO Member
At the risk of sounding racist it is because the Democratic Party is 100% committed to non caucasian and non male. I say "non male" because according to them you cannot define it anymore. Abrams is female, black, large, embraces all the talking points of an ultra progressive, can string together a coherent sentence and had a good showing in a solid red state while sporting a Michael Strahan gap. In the DNC dictionary she is only 3 clicks lower than Jesus.

1r5106zzxiw11.jpg
 

awpitt

Main Streeter
I cannot think of any other reason why she is getting all this attention. When was the last time a party member who holds no office - no office at all, not even city council, not even dog catcher - was tapped to rebut the SotU? Or give any other major speech? The answer: Never.

The Dems are pushing Kamala Harris in 2020, why not give her that spotlight? Is she not just as black and just as female as Stacey Adams?

Actually, she's been in the GA House of Reps since 2007 and the Minority Leader since 2011. Granted, that's not national office or even statewide office but it is more than, "no office at all, not even city council, not even dog catcher".
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
Staff member
PREMO Member
Actually, she's been in the GA House of Reps since 2007 and the Minority Leader since 2011. Granted, that's not national office or even statewide office but it is more than, "no office at all, not even city council, not even dog catcher".
Stacey Abrams currently holds no office at all. Yes, she *used to be* a state semi-somebody, but now she is just a nobody.

If you want to argue that former state reps are so big time they should be giving major speeches and representing the whole Party on a national level, there are about a million better choices than Stacey Abrams. She doesn't have a high profile; the Party is giving her a high profile. I am curious why.
 

awpitt

Main Streeter
Stacey Abrams currently holds no office at all. Yes, she *used to be* a state semi-somebody, but now she is just a nobody.

If you want to argue that former state reps are so big time they should be giving major speeches and representing the whole Party on a national level, there are about a million better choices than Stacey Abrams. She doesn't have a high profile; the Party is giving her a high profile. I am curious why.
I'm not arguing that she's a good choice. I never said that. The only reason that I can think why they chose here is because she came very close (within two points) to winning a governorship in a southern state, being a black female. That hasn't happened before. I agree with you in that she wouldn't have been my first choice.
 

mAlice

professional daydreamer
I'm not arguing that she's a good choice. I never said that. The only reason that I can think why they chose here is because she came very close (within two points) to winning a governorship in a southern state, being a black female. That hasn't happened before. I agree with you in that she wouldn't have been my first choice.
The ONLY reason she came that close is because of questionable practices in the state of GA.
 
Top