Share This Article with a Friend!

Assault on America, Day 230: Dem losers make great candidates for intra-party advancement

Stacey Abrams
Among a wealth of other oddities, it’s strange how being a loser in the Democrat party makes one a winner in other significant ways with the faction’s faithful, as though there’s something intrinsically noble about flaming out at the ballot box (of course, due to fantastic assertions of voter suppression or other stuff of kook hallucinations).

At least to liberals, that is. Everyone knows the story of Hillary Clinton in 2016 -- the 2008 party runner-up who wouldn’t take no (freakin’ way!) for an answer and still ran a presidential campaign as though she were the most qualified (entitled) politician to ever walk the earth. And then there’s this year’s Texas skateboarding idiot “Beto” O’Rourke who’s riding a wave of failure and desperation into the Democrats’ bottom tier.

O’Rourke lost his’18 Texas senate race to Sen. Ted Cruz (who still was no doubt suffering from his prolonged and nasty intra-party battle with President Donald Trump in 2016) by three points and reasoned his red state close call strongly indicated he was destined to win the presidency. How’d “Beto” reach that conclusion? We’re still wondering.

And although it’s a little early for such talk, former Georgia Democrat gubernatorial candidate -- and loser -- Stacey Abrams is making the media rounds claiming she’s the one who should be the party’s choice for vice president. We’re still well over five months away from the first official votes (in Iowa), but already there’s talk of who should be the nominee’s number two. You can’t make this stuff up, folks.

Becket Adams wrote at The Washington Examiner, “[Abrams] is auditioning to serve as vice president to whichever 2020 Democratic primary campaign makes her the most attractive offer…

Abrams announcement this week that she is open to serving as vice president, after saying the exact opposite in March, has been greeted with predictable giddiness by some of the #Resistance regulars...

“The hype surrounding Abrams possibly joining a 2020 Democratic campaign as a vice presidential candidate may be in the heads of the same members of the press who are all too eager to overlook her failures while also indulging her in her election-truther conspiracies.

“And if you are wondering how press-generated excitement has worked out in the past for Democratic media darlings, look no further than failed Georgia congressional candidate Jon Ossoff, failed Texas gubernatorial candidate Wendy Davis, failed Kentucky Senate candidate Alison Lundergan Grimes, and failed Texas Senate candidate Beto O’Rourke.”

Yes, it’s true -- the media loves getting worked-up over the prospect of someone like Abrams running on the national ticket. Adams’ story quotes a couple delusional observers who actually speculate having the Georgia loser on the ballot would be a tremendous lift for Democrats when pitted against Trump. It’s plainly another surface/demographic thing, because otherwise who would even consider the accomplishment-less Abrams as an asset to anything?

Two of the Democrat presidential hopefuls who spoke glowingly about Abrams were “Beto” and Kamala Harris, neither of which will likely get within smelling distance of the nominee’s podium at next summer’s Democrat National Convention. Both are languishing far behind the top (and far more interesting or well-known) leaders in the Democrat race and it would be something akin to a miracle to somehow make themselves part of the party’s national conversation.

Harris drew all sorts of praise for her brief confrontation with Joe Biden during June’s (second) candidate debate but has since surrendered about half her polling support and is back to comfortably occupying the number four spot in the Democrat hierarchy. Because she’s a minority female from the nation’s most populous state and well-funded, Kamala will be able to stay in the contest as long as she chooses. But with ultra-leftist Elizabeth “Pocahontas” Warren staking her claim to second place (behind Biden), Harris doesn’t have much room to grow unless the faux Native American falters.

Meanwhile “Beto” is languishing in sixth position after having recently gained back a slight bit (how, I don’t know). But he’s still averaging less than three points in polls (whereas his peak was over 9 percent in late March). It’s enough to secure a spot in the debates but how will he keep his fundraising up to the extent he can compete everywhere? Being a “loser” is lucrative in some liberal circles… but seriously?

Abrams’ flimsy claim to fame was her refusal to concede against the victor in last year’s Peach State gubernatorial contest. Clinging to an absurd notion of voter suppression, Abrams became the pathetic darling of disaffected Democrats everywhere who believe they never actually lose and if their Election Day tally is less than a Republican’s, it’s because of white supremacists in charge of the poll machinery -- or Russians lurking in Siberia manipulating the count with a twist of a knob. Evidence doesn’t matter a lick to these people… appearances are everything.

It’s this line of preposterous thinking that’s allowed Abrams to even be mentioned alongside the more famous candidates for the national nomination. They see, black (check!), woman (check!), from Georgia (a potential 2020 pickup? check!) and a dedicated soldier in the leftist movement to take over America (check!). It all adds up to an attractive vice presidential contender. In their dreams, right?

Would any of the former Democrat constituencies who wholesale rejected the party in 2016 come rushing back because they saw Abrams next to Biden, Warren, Bernie, Kamala, “Mayor Pete” or “Beto”? Here’s thinking it would only cement Trump as the winner next year. So bring it on!

The actual Democrat VP choice will depend on which man or woman emerges from the ghastly scrum to win the nomination. If it’s Biden, he could possibly take a flier on someone like Abrams because he’s one, already a national name, two, he feels he needs to shore up the black vote, three, he needs someone who’s much younger than him (Abrams is 45 years-old) and lastly, Joe believes she would be an asset against Trump in terms of attracting suburban female independents.

But if one of the other Democrats ends up the nominee, choosing a “loser” like Abrams won’t be nearly as attractive. Should Warren outlast the others she’ll want a male VP, preferably some guy viewed as a “moderate” and likely already an elected governor. Maybe this would mean Montana Gov. Steve Bullock fits the bill, though he’s a white guy and wouldn’t help people readily forget about the “Pocahontas” fake Indian-thing.

Ultimately it won’t matter because hardly anyone considers the VP nominee vital when voting for the top job. Did Crooked Hillary fall short in 2016 because Sen. Tim Kaine failed to inspire the voters? Hardly. Kaine’s a substance-less white bread empty suit but Hillary’s loss was all her own. Kaine was as dull and boring as Clinton was offensive, so technically they made a good match.

The media did everything in its power to make the Democrat ticket sound desirable, but it didn’t bear fruit. Now many of those same news outlets are coming under fire from the 2020 Democrats who claim -- get this -- that they’re being unfairly covered vis-à-vis their competitors and President Trump. That’s right. Are these whiners actually admitting there’s “fake news” out there?

Jonathan Easley reported at The Hill, “The Democratic presidential contenders are letting loose with a barrage of attacks against the news media, ripping national outlets for what they view as biased coverage of their campaigns or unfair double standards in covering President Trump.

“Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is leading the way, making his grievances with ‘corporate media’ central to his anti-establishment campaign.

“The Sanders campaign took it up a notch [last] week, calling out CNN and NBC by name and making the case that The Washington Post is covering him negatively because he’s been critical of the newspaper’s billionaire owner, Jeff Bezos.”

Predictably, Sanders is the lead griper, a man who routinely attacks everyone other than “Pocahontas” Warren for being too moderate and unadventurous about filling the pockets of the have-nots in society, those whose heads serve as little more than stepping stools for the rich and powerful (never mind the fact The Bern’s been a politician his whole life yet has three houses and millions of bucks in his personal bank accounts).

Equally unsurprising is Joe Biden’s campaign’s beefs, complaining there’s too much media focus being given to the former VP’s uncontrolled gaffe machine (otherwise known as his mouth). Even brainless “Beto” is unhappy because he reasons the establishment media honks aren’t hitting Trump hard enough on the race issue. It seems the non-stop ‘round the clock coverage of all things racism isn’t sufficient for a guy who claims to be Hispanic though he’s as pale as a banshee and lives like a king despite being unemployed.

But what do you expect from a party that gladly champions and promotes losers?

It’s laughable to hear Democrats bashing Trump (for being too hard on the poor defenseless establishment media) in one breath and in the next doing it themselves when they don’t approve of something that’s said or written about them. Sanders is notorious for assailing “corporatism” and it’s the centerpiece of his campaign. But what about “Beto” thinking the talkers aren’t calling Trump “racist” enough?

What a loser!

As long as there are elections there will be losers and a good share of them will be Democrats. Such candidates should take heart; their party not only sees them as unlucky and unfortunate, it also likely considers them good contenders for even higher offices. Stacy Abrams for VP? What a joke.

Share this