As you likely know, Democratic presidential candidate and the assumed nominee for the party Joe Biden is looking for someone to name has his running mate for the upcoming November election.

He has already stated that he would very much like to see a woman in that position. And we all know that a woman of color and who is also younger than him would fit the bill nicely, as she would complement him.

And as a government official with all three of those qualities, former Georgia Representative Stacey Abrams thinks she is the perfect fit. She told Elle Magazine, “I would be an excellent running mate. If I am selected, I am prepared and excited to serve.”

As such, she has been campaigning for the position ever since Biden announced his desire for a female vice president.

However, there seems to be much debate on what actually qualifies her for such a position.

While she served in her state’s legislature for about ten years, she failed to win the contest for governor in her state, even after being named as the first major-party gubernatorial nominee ever.

Such a defeat, especially after a decade serving as a state representative, causes us to wonder why.

Lauren Groh-Wargo, the manager of Abrams failed campaign for Georgia governor in 2018, recently wrote her opinion on the matter. In an Op-Ed piece for The New York Times, Groh-Wargo explained why she thought Abrams would make a great vice president and why Biden should choose her.

However, such an explanation required Groh-Wargo to discuss why, if Abrams was so great, she didn’t win the title of governor a mere two years ago. After all, any running mate of Biden’s will need to prove that they can bring in more voters to his cause as well as being able to back him on policy ideas.

Groh-Wargo’s task was a difficult one to be sure, but a completely doable one. She could have explained that Abrams’ no-nonsense attitude and policy issues made her a few enemies along the way. She could have even stated that her campaign staff made some mistakes, causing a lower than expected voter turnout.

But instead, she claimed that while Abrams brought in massive amounts of minority voters, those voters were suppressed heavily.

I know, not exactly the route I would have taken either, as it is both entirely confusing and wholly contradictory.

How could she have had an enormous voter turnout if voters were suppressed? Or vice versa?

It simply doesn’t make sense.

Groh-Wargo wrote, “Sure, turnout was up everywhere and at presidential levels in many states. But Georgia was the only state where midterm turnout was greater than presidential turnout in each group of voters of color. Any political scientist will tell you this is not something that happens. Ever.”

And yet…

“Despite a scourge of voter suppression, Stacey came within 55,000 votes of victory in 2018.”

So she did awesome in the polls, bringing in record numbers of minority voters. Great for her. But she still lost, apparently because of voter suppression… in minority groups.

Wait! Is anyone else confused?

How could both of these happen at the same time?

The fact is, it didn’t. Abrams campaigned. And she lost to Brian Kemp.

Naturally, in true Democrat fashion, she never conceded the election and kept with Groh-Wargo’s claim of voter suppression as the reason for her failure. And Abrams has since put her nonprofit to work on changing elections so that fewer of them are rigged as she believes hers was.

Clearly, she was a victim.

Although, as her former campaign manager fails to explain, exactly why is still unknown. After all, she only lost by “55,000 votes.”

And according to Groh-Wargo, “much has changed in Georgia since.”

She writes, “More than 600,000 Georgians have registered to vote since 2018; half of them are voters of color, and 40 percent of them are under age 30,” inciting that if Abrams were to run again, things might be different.

And they might be. Then again, who’s to say that all those new or minority voters would choose her?

It seems if she really wants VP, she is going to need a better argument than one that contradicts itself. Oh, and just being a woman doesn’t exactly count either.