Prolific Losers Beto, Abrams Wasted More Money Than You Could Imagine

It’s the holiday season, and I am here for it, readers. I love the changing of the leaves, the holiday festivities, and my favorite overpriced coffee order: Peppermint Mochas.

But it’s just not the holiday or election season without watching Stacey Abrams and Beto O’Rourke biff it at the ballot box. So while other Republicans lament our pathetic red dusting, I’m focusing on how Beto and Stacey have managed to make losing a career in and of itself.

Neither expect nor even want to win, at least not in the traditional sense of the term, but I’ll get to that later. The most impressive lesson to learn from Beto and Stacey is that money is not enough to buy you a seat in the Governor’s mansion.

Burning Cash

Democrats spent close to $200 million this last election cycle on Beto O’Rourke and Stacey Abrams. But, if you ask me, their money would’ve been better spent on overpriced coffees.

Stacey raised about $100 million, and Beto raised around $77 million. Beto even broke a record when he raised $28 million in July, which busts the four-month fundraising record for the Lonestar state.

Now, I have a lot of liberal friends, and I, most of the time, understand why they might value a particular issue more than myself and they see a situation differently than I do. But I can’t understand why anyone would give their hard-earned money to two proven losers.

Stacey Abrams lost to Governor Brian Kemp by 1.5 points in 2018. Beto O’Rourke lost to Senator Ted Cruz by two points that same year. Hell, Beto has lost races for Senate, presidency, and governorship within just four years.

RELATED: Carnegie Mellon Professor Claims Stacey Abrams Lost Due to Racism

It would be impressive if it weren’t equal parts pathetic and comical.

Famous For Sucking

The Atlantic’s Jacob Stern wrote an article titled ‘Democrats Keep Falling for Superstar Losers’ about this phenomenon of people supporting two individuals that aren’t in any way, shape, or form known for winning.

Mr. Stern discusses Beto and Stacey’s notoriety as:

“Among the country’s best-known political figures, better known than almost any sitting governor or US Senator.”

He goes on to explain that what they are known for is:

“…not by winning big elections but by losing them.”

Usually, repetitive epic losers don’t maintain positive fame, but that seems to be different with Beto and Stacey. Mr. Stern explains:

“Whether because they outperform expectations or because of what they’re up against, these candidates and their supporters are then able to frame the losses as moral victories.”

Now that is interesting and touches on what I alluded to earlier; Neither of these candidates cares or intends to win their elections.

The Real Campaign

Let’s first talk about Beto. It’s commonly believed that most, if not all, politicians run for office at least due in part to a sense of vanity and a desire for power and fame.

That’s probably true to an extent, and I think Beto has that personality trait in spades. He famously said he was “born to be in politics.”

Apparently, he wasn’t necessarily born to win elections. Mr. Stern notes in his article that supporters of Beto O’Rourke generally feel after he loses that perhaps it’s merely the beginning of his greatness, that at some point, he’s going to make it across that finish line.

“…for O’Rourke supporters, that means framing an unexpectedly good performance in an unfavorable state as a sign of things to come.”

Unfortunately, I fear for Beto Bros and Babes; the sign is that he’s a loser and should probably find something else to do with his time. So now let’s talk about Stacey.

RELATED: Stacey Abrams Concedes After Failing to Win Imaginary Reelection Bid

I think Stacey views her campaigns as more of a referendum on racial issues, forcing the narrative that black men and women can’t get ahead in this country. Leading up to the most recent defeat, she teed up her loss by saying that black men aren’t voting for her because of misinformation.

Mr. Stern backs this theory in his article:

“Sometimes, as for Abrams supporters, that means framing a defeat as the outcome of an unjust system.”

The reality for the Stacey Abrams fan club is that she doesn’t care about the voters, only the ideology she wants to tout from her victimhood podium.

What’s Next

I still don’t understand why voters candidates would throw their money away on two who show no signs of winning an election, let alone doing anything positive to improve their lives. But, perhaps someday, I will understand; I feel I’ll have other elections to glean that knowledge.

You have to give it to both Beto and Stacey, they don’t let losing keep them down, and in a way, that is admirable, I suppose. But, surprisingly, Stacey gave a concession speech after this most recent loss, and in it, she vowed that she:

“…won’t stop running for a better Georgia.”

And why wouldn’t she? She raised $100 million this last time, and the excuses for why she lost range from gullible black men to racist white Georgians. So if she isn’t to blame for her loss, why wouldn’t she run again?

In Beto’s most recent concession speech, he said:

“I don’t know what my role or yours will be going forward, but I’m in this fight for life. Who knows what’s next for any of us, right?”

That is so true, Beto. You should try your hand at British politics; they go through Prime Ministers like my kids go through napkins.

RELATED: Cruz Taunts Beto: He’s Getting Ready to Get His ‘Ass Kicked’ a Third Time

Or maybe you should scale back a bit and try to run for a city Comptroller; After all, you sure know how to raise and spend money. I will blow my hard-earned cash on a venti Peppermint Mocha, no whip.

Now is the time to support and share the sources you trust.
The Political Insider ranks #3 on Feedspot’s “100 Best Political Blogs and Websites.”

Leave a Comment