Back to blog

Stacey Abrams’s historic win

See blog

Readers' comments

The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.


Good news!
Thanks, DiA, for a piece of straigtforward reporting and a fair substantive analysis therein.
Re an issue having to do with Ms Abrams' taxes as noted by other commenters, perhaps she could learn a thing or two from our sitting President. Not hard - that one.


I just got paid 7k dollar working off my laptop this month. And if you think that’s cool, my divorced friend has twin toddlers and made over 12k her first month. It feels so good making so much money when other people have to work for so much less. This is what I do



I am afraid that an optimism on the side of TE is not justified. I guess that a Black woman will motivate many conservative White voters to vote against her. I am not that sure that she can persuade a center that she is the right candidate. Maybe her time will come later.


Ms Abrams is something of a long shot. But the fact that she, and Beto O'Rourke in the Texas Senate race, are considered entirely possible victors? Add in Doug Jones Senate win in Alabama, and Republicans need to get serious about preparing for the day when the old themes of the last 50 years no longer resonate. Fast. The "use by" date may be arriving rather sooner than predicted.

jouris in reply to jouris

I should perhaps note that, having watched my party waste the past 3 decades refusing to face reality here in California, I certainly wouldn't count on us doing so nationally. But refusing to face reality doesn't show any sign of successfully changing it.

ashbird in reply to jouris

"Long shot" is OK. Marathons always begin with a start, and somebody has to do that start. Here's a "fizzingly intelligent" (quoting DiA, I trust DiA didn't make it up) "black" in color and "woman" in gender (2 major No-No's for the weirdos in America) who beat her humble beginnings and rose to attend Yale Law and the career that followed. A myth punctured. That is what the weirdos in America need. There will be others to shred that myth.

jouris in reply to ashbird

I'm not so sure that the second and third, by themselves, are major No-Nos. Indeed, I think many, probably most, would be perfectly relaxed on those counts.
No, I think it's the first one that, when combined with either (let alone both) of the other two, that is the deal breaker for them. Of course, overcoming humble beginnings to succeed, where they did not, doesn't help either.


It is a cute story but the Economist left out that she is a financial deadbeat and doesn't pay her taxes. Why did the Economist omit these facts? Incompetence? or they would have gotten in the way of a good story?

PI Mack

Not so fast or likely:
As the WSJ reported on May 20:
"Ms. Abrams has argued that her financial status makes her more sensitive to the needs of working people. In her most recent disclosure filed with the state, she listed her net worth at about $110,000. She also reported about $174,000 in credit-card and student-loan debt, and about $54,000 in back taxes and penalties to the Internal Revenue Service."
IRS penalties and back taxes seems troubling. The credit card is merely disheartening.
But the IRS 'trouble' is going to be a big drag on her general election effort.

Sense Seeker in reply to PI Mack

Three-quarters of Americans are in debt. Ms Abrams being in that situation too, because of helping out struggling family members, shouldn't be a problem except with people who share WSJ's values (money = virtue & greed = good).
I'm sure WSJ would recommend a mandatory minimum level of wealth before anyone is allowed to run for public office.
Because as we all know, billionaires make the best office holders. They have proven to be very clever and their wealth makes them virtually incorruptible.