Former Georgia State House Minority Leader Stacey Abrams, unfortunately, lost her second gubernatorial race in 2022, and this was really disappointing. It was disappointing in ’18 as well, but the higher expectations of the ’22 race left a deeper well for Abrams supporters to fall into. After all, the race had a feeling of “getting it right this time” and for some people, a sense of giving Abrams what she deserves for her years of work to turn Georgia into the battleground state it is today. The sense of inevitability felt at its strongest after President Biden and Sens. Warnock and Ossoff secured wins in the 2020 election cycle.
But this is all stuff you probably already knew. These were extremely high-profile races, and it’s been part of the crescendo that is Abrams’ growing national profile, which started during her 2018 gubernatorial bid.[i] This national profile led to presidential and vice-presidential speculation in 2020,[ii] a national tour,[iii] and even an appearance as the President of United Earth on Star Trek: Discovery.[iv] This national network brought strong fundraising as well.[v]
This national momentum would be aimed at Governor Brian Kemp, an incumbent whose national moments involved voter suppression controversies in the 2018 race,[vi] signing SB 202 (a set of new restrictive voting laws),[vii] losing the MLB All-Star Game over SB 202,[viii] and drawing the anger of former President Donald Trump for not overturning the 2020 election results.[ix] With Democratic momentum, a national profile, a controversial governor, and as a bonus, Sen. Warnock running for his first full U.S. Senate term against Herschel Walker on the same ballot, it would seem all Kemp could do was begin preparing his inevitable concession speech. Yet here we are with Abrams recaibrating her next career steps at home, which unfortunately isn’t inside the governor’s mansion.[x]
So, what happened? Well, if you ask the internet . . . a lot of reasons[xi]:
- Racism
- Sexism
- Abram’s failure to reach black men
- Abrams’ lack of spouse
- Abrams’ body image
- Kemp’s incumbency advantage
- Biden’s unpopularity vs. Kemp’s popularity
- SB 202, Georgia’s restrictive voting law
- Warnock-Kemp voters
- Abrams’ focus on her national profile instead of local issues
- Lack of a coordinated campaign with Warnock; and
- Abrams’ running out of money late in the race
And if you’ve read my post “How Business Strategy Explains Why Democrats Lose?” you know that we take a different tact for post-election analysis here. We have a framework to assess campaigns from a strategic perspective. My goal is not to verify or invalidate that list of reasons. I want to put the race into a context that can help us avoid this outcome in the future for Abrams or anyone else running for governor. When we look at the race, you’ll see that Abrams lost because of strategic missteps familiar to Democrats, including some pitfalls she knew to avoid. To conclude this post, I’ll speculate, using my own experience as a strategist, about how Abrams fell into these missteps. In other words, I’ll dig a bit deeper to explain the “why” in “Why Stacey Abrams Lost?” Without further ado, let’s get started.
The Framework:
In brief, because there is more explanation in the post we’re going to look at the campaign framework at a high-level. That framework looks like this:
Each part of the framework works together to make a strategically sound campaign. Strong framing, which is basically the campaign’s general worldview with supporting ideas and language, will lead to strategic choices about key voter segments, demographics, and geographies. Preferably, this is a data-driven and iterative process with the frame informing strategic choices and vice versa. A good persuasive frame and strong strategic choices rest on a bed of key capabilities (i.e., activities and processes) that bring the strategy to life. This process should be repeated de novo for each election. While this framework doesn’t guarantee victory in competitive elections, it will certainly increase the odds of winning and help identify different paths to victory.
We also know that Democrats have common problems in formulating strategy this way. Democrats fail to frame or understand the power of framing, especially when compared to their Republican opponents. They fall into what I call the “Triangulation Trap” while making strategic choices. Not only is Triangulation, a strategy that prioritizes reaching the political middle by solving Republican priorities, a default Democratic campaign strategy that is run often regardless of context and framing, but Democratic candidates also risk conceding the whole election frame to the Republicans if not done well. This allows the Republican campaign to dictate the election’s frame (i.e., the dominant worldview, ideas, and language) and blur the real alternatives between Democrats and Republicans. Conceding the frame of an election is a key step to losing an election. Democrats will also devalue strategic capabilities, like data analysis, which further leave campaigns vulnerable. Abrams did some but not all of this, but any amount of strategy issues decreases the odds of victory.
Abrams’ Strategic Missteps:
Framing:
Abrams didn’t have effective framing in this race. Elections can be entirely about frames with one candidate pushing one frame against the other candidate’s frame. The winner will generally have the most persuasive frame. Republicans will consistently have strong framing, even if you disagree with it, and routinely face Democrats that have no framing.
While not always the case, a slogan can be a summation of a campaign’s frame. According to one post-election article, Abrams’ campaign slogan was “One Georgia.”[xii] Despite voting in this election, this was entirely news to me. So, I don’t think Abrams pushed this frame too hard or got away from it. Changing frames is a sign of a frameless campaign.
Also, what does “One Georgia” mean? “One Georgia” to do what? I can’t tell from that. I can’t instantly tell what the candidate will deliver unlike successful frames like FDR’s New Deal or former President Obama’s “Change You Can Believe In.” Now, you might be thinking “a voter can just google it and find out.” Ok, but why do that to the voter? A strong frame makes your campaign easy for the voter to approach and internalize. Voters are busy and aren’t always die-hard politicos. So, why would you add a policy research project to their life? Also, what about voters with inconsistent access to the internet? Make it easy.
Either way, I had never heard of “One Georgia” before researching this post. Maybe that’s on me for not going to an Abrams’ speech or rally[xiii] but still . . . the frame didn’t land. I kind of heard about the “Abrams Plan.”[xiv] This is the integrated set of policies that explained what Abrams would do as governor, and it is also not an effective frame. Again, what does the Abrams Plan do? Which again, a voter can look up, and Abrams pushed voters to do that in ads.[xv] But I ask again why do that to voters? Abrams spent almost $23M in media to just tell voters to google something.[xvi] It also makes Abrams’ entire election argument about Abrams. Therefore, her campaign logic reads more like “Elect Stacey Abrams as governor because she is Stacey Abrams”, which for me is the outcome of a frameless campaign.
A frameless campaign is a problem, but it is exacerbated when your opponent is using framing against you. Say what you will about Kemp, but he’s a skilled politician. I don’t agree with his stances, and I certainly don’t approve of SB 202 or all those, in my opinion, conveniently timed investigations into Democratic-leaning voter registration efforts in 2018.[xvii] However, he’s disciplined to his message and thinks about how to authentically frame the election.
Kemp built his frame to pressure Abrams. By focusing on his economic development record, he drew attention to Abrams’ perceived lack of business understanding and cast her as an outsider.[xviii] Kemp morphed his conservative “accomplishment” in losing the MLB All-Star Game into an attack on Abrams by alleging that she helped push the game out of Atlanta.[xix] The net effect of this was to 1) establish Kemp as the candidate best for Georgia’s economy and 2) expose Abrams as not capable of boosting GA’s economy at the expense of pleasing the “Woke Mob.” This made Abrams look more like an outsider who would put national interest ahead of Georgia’s. This is classic Republican framing, and it left voters with a choice of electing Abrams because she’s Abrams or electing Kemp because of the economy.
The Triangulation Trap:
Shockingly, Abrams fell into the Triangulation Trap. I say “shockingly” because Abrams had resisted triangulation before. In 2018, she ran a campaign focused on Democratic priorities and designed to activate previously unengaged likely Democratic voters.[xx] Triangulation was largely abandoned in 2020 as well.[xxi]
A key indicator that Abram’s attempted to Triangulate was her emphasis on bipartisanship. Bipartisanship is a Democratic candidates’ shortcut to say they’re addressing Republican priorities in hopes of getting Republican or Republican-leaning votes. I argue in my prior post that at best this is a misapplication of Triangulation. Abrams was so committed to a bipartisanship message that she wore blue and red suits in ads.[xxii]
Abrams conceded the frame by trying to match Kemp on economic development. Even Level Up: Rise Above the Hidden Forces Holding Your Business Back, which she co-authored before the campaign, is also about small business growth.[xxiii] Kemp, who previously owned a construction company,[xxiv] had this experience and a record of economic development as governor.[xxv] By agreeing that economic development is what a governor should do and by trying to match his background, Abrams basically conceded that Kemp was right and had the right background. Thus, falling into the Triangulation Trap.
Furthermore, I think Abrams had an alternative to falling into the Triangulation Trap. Medicaid expansion is popular in Georgia if messaged correctly,[xxvi] but Republicans have refused to enact it.[xxvii] If Abrams had picked up on that in examining her strategic choices, then she could have used it to inform her frame. Failing to expand Medicaid has a built-in economic message given the poor return states get by turning down federal dollars.[xxviii] Therefore, by focusing on a Democratic priority, Abrams could have countered Kemp’s economically focused frame. Basically, she would have left the voter wondering, “How can a good economic governor cut such a bad deal for the state?” I’m not saying it’s a guaranteed winner, but it would have been more interesting than falling into the Triangulation Trap.
Voter Segment Choices:
Abrams outreach to black men and potential Kemp-Warnock votes was another theme of several post-election analyses. After diving into the exit polls[xxix] and the official election results,[xxx] my personal analysis again highlighted a broader strategic problem.
In the exit polls, Warnock finished with 85% of the black male vote, and Abrams finished with 84%.[xxxi] Abrams, by my estimates, lagged Warnock in this voting block by 2,714 votes or 0.9% of the final margin with Kemp.[xxxii] In other words, if Abrams had a problem with black men, then Warnock had the same problem too.
Kemp-Warnock voters are just as an abstract concept as Reagan Democrats and Trump-Obama voters.[xxxiii] According to the data, 6% of Warnock voters crossed over to vote for Kemp, and 6% of Kemp voters crossed over to vote for Warnock.[xxxiv] While not in the same race, this type of voter crossover is pretty normal, [xxxv] and for the most part, cancels each other out with neither block being large enough to change the overall results.[xxxvi]
When you look at the data all together, you see a broader pattern. The data shows there was a persuadable block of about 225-250,000 voters,[xxxvii] (the “Persuadables”) who moved between Kemp, Abrams, Warnock, and Walker in the November election. No individual Persuadable segment could have changed the outcome. However, if Abrams had sufficiently penetrated the whole Persuadable segment, roughly 54-60% or ~135,000 votes, she would have pushed the race to a runoff.[xxxviii]
I think these Persuadables intentionally or intuitively assess each candidate’s strategic approach to the race. Persuadables do this by weighing what each candidate offers. These Persuadables weighed Kemp versus Abrams, saw perceived proven economic development vs. “Stacey Abrams should be governor because she’s Stacey Abrams,” and picked economic development.
Strategic Capabilities:
I didn’t really see critiques about Abrams’ deployment of strategic capabilities. In a race like this, missing an effective coordinated campaign could be a hindrance. One pundit boldly stated that, “There would be no coordinated campaign.”[xxxix] I initially agreed with this only to learn that there was a coordinated campaign, which included a ribbon cutting ceremony.[xl] This coordinated campaign was also better funded by the candidates than the 2020 one.[xli] In the pundit’s defense, this coordinated campaign didn’t appear to be focused on top of the ticket strategy coordination. Overall though, with the available data and information, I’d be purely armchair quarterbacking to second guess the coordinated campaign or the potential fundraising issues that led to the over $1M in campaign debt that Abrams ended with.[xlii]
The lack of commentary on strategic capabilities does show how integrated the framework is. Excelling in one part of the framework doesn’t offset coming up short in the other two. You need to check all of the boxes.
But Why:
If you’re like me, applying the framework to Abrams answers “Why?” yet it doesn’t answer the entire “Why?”. By its nature, strategy is about choices. Choices are influenced by a lot of things.[xliii] And at this point, I want to understand why Abrams and her team made the choices that led to such strategic gaps.
My intent on this post is not to criticize Abrams or her team. I don’t know Abrams personally. I met her once in 2011 when she was still minority leader. I helped launch the Nashville chapter of New Leaders Council, and to qualify, we had to observe how an established chapter conducted their training. A colleague and I decided to observe Atlanta’s chapter. By pure chance, Abrams led a session on recent activities under the “Golden Dome,” which is the nickname for the Georgia General Assembly.
My colleague and I were thoroughly and utterly impressed. We realized that Tennessee had no elected official like Abrams, and we needed someone like her. This probably a reason why the TN Democratic Party had its memoriam written in 2009,[xliv] and Georgia is at the epicenter of national politics.
However, I do think Abrams and her team lost objectivity in this race. As a strategist and leader, you must balance optimism about the mission and objectivity about what it takes to achieve it. Too objective; you lose passion for the mission and fail to motivate others. You might venture in unwarranted pessimism or nihilism. Too optimistic (or maybe starstruck here); then you’ll see no real obstacles to overcome. You can fall into overconfidence or if advising, become a sycophant.
While it is easy to ascribe overconfident or sycophantic behavior to personality traits, I’d rather think this possibly happened because Abrams, and maybe her team, didn’t take a real break after 2018. She might have taken a vacation here and there. But it really feels like Abrams went from the 2018 loss, into starting Fair Fight, her voter engagement organization, into the 2020 election cycle, into a national tour, into the 2022 election cycle very directly. Abrams herself admitted to staying really busy.[xlv]
As a strategist, I know that staying in the same problem for too long can create myopia and a loss of perspective on strategic fundamentals, especially after failing to reach a goal. For Abrams, she has tackled the problem of becoming GA governor for over 5 years. As she ponders her next step, I think Abrams should take a real break, solve a different problem for a while, and come back to her political career with a fresh perspective.
Conclusion:
Plainly, Abrams lost because of strategic missteps within our framework. She didn’t commit every misstep possible, but it was enough. I hope all Democrats commit time to framing, strategic choices (not just default to Triangulation), and strategic capabilities. Abrams is far from the only example of Democrats who hurt their odds of winning this way. In this case, I believe the strategic missteps were caused by a loss in objectivity, but this can happen for plenty of other causes too. Ultimately, we need better strategy from Democrats.
Featured image is provided by Wikipedia Commmons.
[i] Bluestein, Greg. Flipped: How Georgia Turned Purple and Broke the Monopoly on Republican Power. Viking. 2022. Pg. 57.
[ii]https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/stacey-abrams-mulling-presidential-run-2020-table/story?id=61634357 ; https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/04/stacey-abrams-biden-vice-president/610441/
[iii] https://www.axios.com/2021/09/23/stacey-abrams-national-tour ; https://staceyabramstour.com/
[iv] https://www.imdb.com/name/nm5885582/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0 (Yes, this author is a trekker. Are you really surprised?)
[v] https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2022-11-02/record-fundraising-in-georgia-governors-race-nears-170m
[vi] Bluestein, Flipped, pg. 63-64,74-75, 77-78, and 81-82
[vii] https://www.vox.com/22352112/georgia-voting-sb-202-explained
[viii] https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/31183822/mlb-moving-all-star-game-atlanta-georgia-voting-law
[ix] https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/georgia-gov-brian-kemp-testify-trump-election-interference-probe-tuesd-rcna57206
[x] https://www.wsav.com/news/stacey-abrams-says-shell-likely-run-again/ ; https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/3899595-abrams-joining-electrification-nonprofit-as-senior-counsel/
[xi] https://www.npr.org/2022/11/18/1137817692/democrats-dissect-why-stacey-abrams-lost-her-bid-for-governor ; https://www.forbes.com/sites/maiahoskin/2022/11/21/the-real-reasons-stacy-abrams-may-have-lost-georgias-gubernatorial-race/?sh=496b3dcb1d5a ; https://atlanta.capitalbnews.org/abrams-loss-recap/ ; https://www.thedailybeast.com/heres-all-the-reasons-stacey-abrams-lost-the-georgia-governors-race ; https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/10/us/politics/stacey-abrams-georgia-governor-election.html
[xii] https://atlanta.capitalbnews.org/abrams-loss-recap/
[xiii] https://youtu.be/vdV3h1XLW9U
[xiv] https://youtu.be/HCueHTJmg7w
[xv] See note xv.
[xvi] Based on analysis on data from the Georgia State Ethics Commission.
[xvii] See note vi.
[xviii] https://youtu.be/gCIOIgJHbTw ; I think on some level Abrams knew that she had to work on her perceptions as an economic leader. An example of this is her co-authored book: Level Up: Rise Above the Hidden Forces Holding Your Business Back, which was released in February 2022. https://www.amazon.com/Level-Up-Hidden-Holding-Business/dp/0593539826
[xix] https://youtu.be/romBAZtRpf4
[xx] Bluestein, Flipped, Chapter 3.
[xxi] Bluestein, Flipped, pg. 6.
[xxii] https://youtu.be/w9q-WuVvgyc
[xxiii] https://youtu.be/GzFGwSpRzeo
[xxiv] Bluestein, Flipped, pg 62-63.
[xxv] See note xvii.
[xxvi] https://gbpi.org/new-gbpi-uga-poll-shows-georgians-support-state-investments-to-boost-health-education-and-economic-mobility/ (Writer Note: This is a push poll, but it shows how the messaging could work.)
[xxvii] https://www.ajc.com/news/coronavirus/new-georgia-house-speaker-no-medicaid-expansion-to-all-poor-for-now/KWTPZKSUXNCARKC5IDCDXQKCJQ/
[xxviii] https://www.nbcnews.com/healthmain/states-losing-billions-refusing-expand-medicaid-report-finds-2d11697962
[xxix] https://www.cbsnews.com/midterms/2022/georgia/senate/exit-poll/ ; https://www.cbsnews.com/midterms/2022/georgia/governor/exit-poll/ ; https://www.cnn.com/election/2022/exit-polls/georgia/governor/0
[xxx] https://results.enr.clarityelections.com/GA/115465/web.307039/#/detail/10100 ; https://results.enr.clarityelections.com/GA/115465/web.307039/#/detail/20100
[xxxi] See note xxix.
[xxxii] Based on analysis of exit polls and Georgia Secretary of State data.
[xxxiii] https://asktherealquestion.com/what-is-the-point-of-a-moderate-democrat/
[xxxiv] See note xxix.
[xxxv] See note xxxiii.
[xxxvi] Based on analysis of exit polls and Georgia Secretary of State data (Author note: There is a slight edge in crossover voters to Warnock, 17,874 votes, because Kemp was the top vote getter.).
[xxxvii] Based on analysis of exit polls and Georgia Secretary of State data. I determined this by looking at the differences in estimated vote totals by segment between Kemp and Walker and Warnock and Abrams.
[xxxviii] Based on analysis of exit polls and Georgia Secretary of State data.
[xxxix] https://www.thedailybeast.com/heres-all-the-reasons-stacey-abrams-lost-the-georgia-governors-race
[xl] https://www.georgiademocrat.org/in-case-you-missed-it-georgia-democrats-2022-statewide-coordinated-campaign-opens-first-field-office-with-reverend-warnock-and-stacey-abrams/
[xli] Based on analysis on data from the Georgia State Ethics Commission and the Federal Election Commission. Warnock and Abrams contributed about $12M each to the 2022 coordinated campaign. Warnock and Ossoff contributed about $11M total. But it was a shorter race, and I didn’t do any analysis on outside contributions.
[xlii] https://www.axios.com/2023/01/09/abrams-campaign-debt
[xliii] Bruch E, Feinberg F. Decision-Making Processes in Social Contexts. Annu Rev Sociol. 2017 Jul;43:207-227. doi: 10.1146/annurev-soc-060116-053622. Epub 2017 May 12. PMID: 28785123; PMCID: PMC5543983.
[xliv] https://www.nashvillepost.com/home/in-memoriam-the-tndp/article_620832d4-32e6-5f1b-ab29-15397a17418e.html
.jpg){kind=link}