Former Columbus Mayor Announces U.S. Senate run after Abrams declines
Yesterday an email went out from former Columbus Mayor Teresa Tomlinson re-announcing that Stacey Abrams isn’t running for the U.S. Senate. After a paragraph of praise and gushing over Abrams, Tomlinson went on to say she would have her own announcement today regarding the Senate seat held by David Perdue.
Then, this morning, Tomlinson sent another email and released a video announcing she was, in fact, running for the U.S. Senate. (My favorite part is where she says that D.C. isn’t run well-no argument there- but that it needs leadership from people who understand government and know how to run it. Que literally every political candidate ever who has promised to “fix” whatever branch of government they are running for because they have all the answers and everyone is going to listen to them. Also, I can think of folks here at home who would have a differing opinion of her self-proclaimed skillset.)
Congratulations, Georgia Democrats. After several months of pandering and kowtowing to national leadership, your candidate has been given permission to run and YOU have been given your choice for U.S. Senate.
Wow. Hashtag blessed.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying the Republicans have it all together, but at least we get to choose who from our party will represent us in any given political race.
This is in no way an endorsement of Chuck Schumer’s candidate. But I do have questions. I’m not a Democrat, so I am not real up on my procedure manual when it comes to how this works, but HOW ARE Y’ALL OK WITH THIS??
Stacey Abrams gets this “grace period” from Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi to decide what she wants to do (which, according to Tomlinson’s email, is to focus on her voters rights group). Everyone else thinking about running has to sit back and wait. In the meantime, they are fundraising via exploratory committees and Y’ALL ACTUALLY GAVE MONEY, but in the end, Stacey could have decided to run and so sad-too bad for everyone else and for you and your money.
What version of American democracy are y’all operating under?
And how are your candidates ok with this incredibly demeaning process? Y’all may not know Teresa Tomlinson very well, but trust me, my jaw HIT THE FLOOR when I read her statement in a news article where she said,
“I feel comfortable I’ll be their Plan B.”
https://siouxlandnews.com/news/nation-world/democrats-begin-uphill-fight-to-capture-senate-majority-next-year
Tomlinson also stated in another interview that the position was Stacey’s if she wanted it, that Schumer had offered it to her. What political candidate looking to win the hearts and minds of an entire state admits that not only do they realize they are playing second fiddle to the Party favorite, but also publicly states that they are ok with it. There were a lot of ways to handle waiting to announce a decision, forming an exploratory committee, etc. without looking so weak. The horrific mismanagement of this whole ordeal is a PR person’s nightmare. If you have to kiss the ring, do it behind closed doors, not out in the open for all to see.
On April 5, Tomlinson went on Political Rewind and was asked about the major caveat in her press release regarding her potential run where she stated that her decision was based on Abrams decision. She nods enthusiastically that this is correct. Later she talked about how she was “standing down” until Abrams decided what she was going to do. (Scroll to 2:10 in the video to see her initial responses)
Come on, y’all. Elevating one candidate to that extent is a surefire way to have something go wrong and obviously it didn’t work out the way you thought it might. And now, you are left with someone that has been actively campaigning but you have allowed to look like Eddie Haskell.
Again, I am in no way endorsing this candidate, but the Democratic party is actively failing potential candidates and every Democratic voter with this method of “recruitment”, if you can call it that. When you are “offering positions” (otherwise known as primary elections to the rest of the free world) to your favorite, then what you are really saying is you don’t trust the party voters.
So, again I ask you, Georgia Democrat, are you REALLY ok with this?
About Author
Theresa Garcia Robertson
Wife. Mama. Foodie. Political Junkie. Southern Enthusiast. Taco Lover.
Add a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
This is in no way an endorsement of Chuck Schumer’s candidate. But I do have questions. I’m not a Democrat, so I am not real up on my procedure manual when it comes to how this works, but HOW ARE Y’ALL OK WITH THIS??
1) Georgia Democrats don’t have a deep bench:
The only Democrats with statewide name recognition are Jimmy Carter, John Lewis, and Stacey Abrams. President Carter is long retired (and we already tried the brilliant idea of running someone who shares his last name). Congressman Lewis is too wed to his incredibly safe House seat (but we haven’t yet tried the potentially brilliant idea of running someone who shares his last name). Abrams is, quite simply, the only Democrat in this state with widespread name recognition and the ability to pull in the type of money and media attention necessary to mount a successful campaign.
2) It doesn’t matter how Tomlinson gets the nomination:
Building off point #1, Democrats are lacking in individuals with statewide appeal. A competitive primary isn’t going to change that. Absent something completely insane happening, a hypothetical primary wouldn’t make a single newscast on WSB or any other station in the state. Competing against other candidates isn’t going to do a darn thing to elevate Tomlinson’s profile. She’s the latest in a long line of Jim Barksdales, Jim Martins, and DuBose Porters… generic Democrats who do nothing but serve as cannon fodder for a Republican incumbent.
3) A primary diverts previous campaign dollars:
As most of you know, you can max out your donations to a candidate in the primary and the max your donations out again in the general. Anything that isn’t spent by the candidate during the primary can get rolled into the general. One candidate means all Democratic donor $$$ in the state goes to Tomlinson and, largely, conserved for a general election against Perdue. That helps tremendously when Perdue will be running unopposed on the Republican side and already enjoys a significant cash advantage because a) he’s a Republican, b) he’s an incumbent that’s been doing nothing but raising money for the last 5 years, and c) is richer than the Devil hisself and can self-fund his campaign if he wanted.
A couple more thoughts:
1) I wouldn’t write Kasim Reed off just yet, especially given his prior comments about nominees needing to “earn” the nomination (see Carter, Jason).
2) I applaud Abrams for wanting to focus on her voting rights group, it’s an admirable decision. But any hope of reestablishing Section V of the Voting Rights Act, or any of the policies or changes Democrats have proposed, requires taking control of the Senate, a task that is made exponentially harder if Democrats can’t run strong challenges to potentially weak incumbents. Julian Castro or Beto O’Rourke should be running against John Cornyn, not fighting to see who finishes 5th in Iowa. Same for Hickenlooper in Colorado. That race against Cory Gardner is imminently winnable, especially for a candidate that has been a very popular 2 term governor after being a popular 2 term mayor of Denver.
I think Reed is written off for all Dems except those that make decisions based solely on party, and not even all of those. Reed departed office a self-serving grifter, or in Republican parlance, cabinet material.
“but at least we get to choose who from our party will represent us in any given political race. ”
Except for the entire bench at any level, PSC, and any other elected position subject to being filled by an appointment. Or maybe the Governor is synonymous with Republican,. A synonym for the current Governor is incompetent, but Trump picked him, so that’s not unexpected.