Stacey Abrams Just Made History

The Georgia Democrat became the first black woman to win a major party’s gubernatorial nomination.

Stacey AbramsAP Images/AP Photo

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

Stacey Abrams became the Democratic nominee in Georgia’s gubernatorial race on Tuesday night, squarely beating rival Stacey Evans with an early and significant lead. Now, after a tough and racially charged primary, Abrams will likely face off this November against Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle, who was leading the Republican field early Tuesday night. 

Abrams, the 44-year-old former minority leader of the Georgia Statehouse, would become the first black woman ever elected as governor in the United States. That potential to make history has become the backbone of the narrative for Abrams nationally. When I profiled her back in February, the charismatic politician was trying to build a wide coalition of support but was not shy about playing up the significance of her candidacy. “There are folks who don’t think it’s time for a black woman to be governor of any state, let alone a state in the Deep South,” she said at a fundraiser. “But there’s no wrong time for a black woman to be in charge.”

It certainly won’t be easy for Abrams moving forward. The primary battle was especially bruising, and it’s fair to wonder just how much gas Abrams’ team has left in the tank. The GOP primary was also rough; as my colleague Pema Levy recently noted, the Republican race was filled with outright racist talk about guns and undocumented immigrants. 

The Democratic primary race also exposed the deep fissures in Georgia’s Democratic Party. On paper as a candidate, Evans represented a more moderate wing of the party. She’s white and grew up in rural Georgia, and when Abrams and her supporters talked of activating a voting demographic that’s growing more racially diverse, Evans made sure to court disenchanted conservatives who are so turned off by Donald Trump that they might just vote blue. But the liberal-moderate divide between Evans and Abrams—endorsed by Emily’s List, Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.), and Hillary Clinton—hasn’t been so simple. 

In the Deep South, race is always there, just below the surface, but in this primary, race turned into a key issue—and not just because of the historical significance of Abrams’ candidacy. In addition to Sanders and Clinton, Abrams earned the endorsements of high-profile black Democrats like Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) and Georgia Rep. John Lewis, while Evans was publicly left struggling after some amateurish moves to link herself to Martin Luther King Jr. 

But even still, in the small world of monied black Atlanta, Abrams is considered somewhat of an outsider and provokes a certain level of distrust. Born and raised working poor in Mississippi, Abrams entered the political scene in Atlanta as a college activist at Spelman who stood up to the city’s beloved first black mayor, Maynard Jackson, after the 1992 Rodney King verdict and uprisings. After a stint as deputy mayor at 29, Abrams served for years as minority leader and cut controversial deals, making a fair share of enemies among some in the city’s elite—not to mention other prominent local black lawmakers. That includes former Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reid and the city’s current mayor, Keisha Lance Bottoms. Reed broke the color line and publicly endorsed Evans, while Bottoms stopped short of an Evans endorsement but made news just by considering it. 

Now comes the real test this November. While Abrams raised more than twice the amount of money as Evans, banking on her burgeoning celebrity and even releasing a pseudo self-help book along the way, likely GOP winner Cagle has already raised triple the amount of money as Abrams. (Cagle also managed to piss off plenty of Georgians by calling for a boycott of Delta—the state’s largest private employer—after it cut National Rifle Association member discounts in the aftermath of the Parkland shooting in February.)

As Abrams told me earlier this year at her campaign headquarters, “Any businessperson will tell you it’s not who has the biggest bank account when you start a business, it’s who gets the most customers.” 

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate