by cmsellers » Thu Mar 14, 2019 4:04 pm
If Abrams runs, she might actually be my top pick, but I'm not entirely sure how politically sensible that is. There are basically two groups of swing states the Democrats could target to get to 270: Sunbelt states such as Florida, Arizona, North Carolina, Texas, and Georgia, and the Rust Belt/Midwestern states Trump turned red in 2020. (Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Ohio.)
Of these states, I think Michigan, Ohio, and Abrams' home state of Georgia almost certainly won't be tipping point states, and Texas is very unlikely to be (especially if the nominee isn't Castro or Beto), but Texas and Georgia could be tipping point states for control of the Senate and are still worth targeting.
Targeting the Sunbelt means winning over some suburban voters (Beto O'Rourke won Tarrant County, Williamson County, and Hays County in Texas, for example), and bring in new voters, especially young and minority voters, and I think that Abrams is uniquely well-positioned to pull this off. However Trump's approval ratings have held up really well in the Sunbelt, and the only sunbelt state I think Democrats are likely to flip is Arizona. Florida I'd say is about 50-50, and the other targets are reaches.
In the Rust Belt/Midwest, Trump's approval ratings have declined steeply, and I think Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Pennsylvania are all probably easier gets than any Sunbelt state except Arizona, Florida, and maybe North Carolina. Swing voters there tend to be culturally conservative and economically left-wing, the opposite of my own views, so if it was a matter of only targeting the Sun Belt or the Rust Belt, I'd prefer to target the Sun Belt. But I think several candidates have the potential to target both areas, in particular Klobuchar, Castro, and Booker.
I think any candidate who isn't associated with the far left on economic issues (Sanders, Warren) or with identity politics (Warren, possibly several other candidates) has a shot at competing in both areas. Abrams, with Harris and Gillibrand, occupies a position on identity/cultural issues where I'm honestly not sure if it's a liability. But while I don't like Harris and Gillibrand appears to be dead in the water, Abrams, like I said, is someone I'd very seriously consider for my top pick.
So the question I have is: how will Abrams play in the Peoria? And if she's likely to struggle there, is it more of a liability than other liabilities potential candidates may have, such as being "boring"? (Castro, Buttigieg, possibly Booker.) I genuinely don't know the answer to this. I lean towards no, because she tends to pursue concrete, admirable goals like voting rights, rather than extreme things like "abolish ICE." But her views on Stone Mountain, while I supported them, were needlessly risky. Abrams is someone I think does what's right regardless of the cost, and while I like it, I'm not entirely sure how it would play.
As for Beto, he's a lightweight, but as Nate Silver pointed out, betting markets consider him a top-tier candidate, on par with Biden and Bernie, above Harris. I feel like he's due for a major stumble, but if he makes it to the end, I prefer him to Sanders, Harris, and Warren.