Select Page

Democrats have a fascination with losers

Democrats have a fascination with losers

Democrats have a tendency to create iconic political figures – sort of fame-over-substance folks. 

Whether they are winners seems to make no difference.  The left-wing media keeps them propped up with piles of undeserved positive publicity.  Failing to become an officeholder, they at least can serve as personalities.

Stacey Abrams

One of the first that comes to mind is Stacey Abrams.  Her greatest political accomplishment was getting elected to the Georgia State House in 2006. 

In 2018, she ran for Governor of the Peach State to the acclaim of the national press.  Her fame made her one of the best-funded candidates in America.  She lost.  She claims she was cheated and never conceded her defeat — gracefully or otherwise.  

A lot of Democrats ran for governor that year – and many of them won — but they are not the subject of constant promotional publicity by the news media as is Abrams.  After her initial defeat, she was still declared to be a major personality and powerhouse in the Democratic Party – more so than governors that won their elections.

Abrams ran – and lost – again a gubernatorial race in 2022 – and by a wider margin than she lost in 2018.  She was running against the same guy.  And yet, a number of the talking heads on MSNBC, etc. still claimed that she has a great future in politics and in the Democratic Party. 

Some even say she would be a good selection for Vice President in a future election … or suggest that she would make a good chairperson of the Democratic National Party.  Losing two elections is hardly the best recommendation, so I doubt that would happen.  Even Democrats must apply common sense at times.

Beto O’Rourke

In 2016, Beto O’Rourke came out of the obscurity of a Texas congressional seat to run for President of the United States.  He claimed that he was “made to be President.”   (I wonder how many of the also-rans felt the same way.)

Like Abrams, campaign money poured in for O’Rourke. He was immediately the darling of the limousine liberal set in the Democratic Party – and the media.  While he was getting a lot of attention, voters and those competing against him for the Party’s presidential put the kibosh on his campaign.  

Failing in his bid for the Democrat presidential nomination, O’Rourke decided to take on incumbent Texas Senator Ted Cruz.  Again, Democrats gave him their support for the race – and a lot of money.  Regardless, he lost.  Many in the media had declared his losing campaign a sort of victory because he came close – which only has value in horseshoes.

Weeell … O’Rourke came back, and the hapless Texas Democratic Party gave him the nomination for governor – this time against the extremely popular Governor Greg Abbott.  Lone Star Democrats were apparently not aware of the old saying that, “the definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results.”

And still – after three very expensive losses – a number of Democrat pundits and media types were still claiming that O’Rourke has a “bright” career in politics and elective office.  The way things are going along the Texas southern border, O’Rourke may not even be able to reclaim his old congressional seat.


Despite the adulations of SOME folks in the Democratic Party, Abrams and O’Rourke are not great leaders – and are not the best prospects for future elective office.  In the parlance of the profession, they are has-beens. 

They may still be regulars on the left-wing media circuit.  That is because their recognized leadership abilities are largely limited to the far-left faction of the Party.  

Abrams had her last successful run for public office – her last hurrah — in 2016 when she won re-election to the Georgia State House– and O’Rourke in 2012, with his last run for Congress.  They may still be able to rouse the radical rabble on the left – and continue to appear as panelists on MSNBC — but their political currency is not faring as well with the less radical faction of the Democratic Party.  

One of the brutal realities in politics is that there is no future for folks who keep losing.  Comebacks after one major defeat are rare – and after two, even rarer.  And after three … ?

So, there ‘tis.

About The Author

Larry Horist

So,there‘tis… The opinions, perspectives and analyses of Larry Horist Larry Horist is a businessman, conservative writer and political strategist with an extensive background in economics and public policy. Clients of his consulting firm have included such conservative icons as Steve Forbes and Milton Friedman. He has served as a consultant to the Nixon White House and travelled the country as a spokesman for President Reagan’s economic reforms. He has testified as an expert witness before numerous legislative bodies, including the U. S. Congress. Horist has lectured and taught courses at numerous colleges and universities, including Harvard, Northwestern, DePaul universities, Hope College and his alma mater, Knox College. He has been a guest on hundreds of public affairs talk shows, and hosted his own program, “Chicago In Sight,” on WIND radio. Horist was a one-time candidate for mayor of Chicago and served as Executive Director of the City Club of Chicago, where he led a successful two-year campaign to save the historic Chicago Theatre from the wrecking ball. An award-winning debater, his insightful and sometimes controversial commentaries appear frequently on the editorial pages of newspapers across the nation. He is praised by readers for his style, substance and sense of humor. According to one reader, Horist is the “new Charles Krauthammer.” He is actively semi-retired in Boca Raton, Florida where he devotes his time to writing. So, there ‘tis is Horist’s signature sign off.


  1. frank stetson

    I haven’t read it, just reacting to the header.

    Democrats have a fascination with losers.

    and it’s corollary:

    Conservatives love to play the victim, love to be the losers.

    and I wonder:
    is that why Democrats are fascinated by Trump, the biggest loser?

    (it’s a joke, don’t knee jerk, but conservatives do love to play the victim — google it…. :>)

    • Larry kuhn

      Just look at the losers. That’s why democrats have to cheat to have a chance of putting idiots like Beatoff O’roark and big mama in office. Thank God they failed this time.

  2. Bibfy

    Yeah, we failed……

    It’s only because you cheated using north Korean satellites to brainwash independents while reprogramming voter machines against us and telling the post office to take september-november off, all allowed by the conservative scotus. It was rigged.

    • Miles collins

      Was it jigger rigged?

    • Tom

      I am an Independent, and nobody programmed me. I split my ticket a bit, but primarily voted GOP this time because I am tired of the Democratic Party left wing agenda: crazy spending, inflation, green agenda, abortion on demand, woke-ism, LGBTQ agenda, child grooming for body altering surgeries, open borders and all of the illegal folks walking in, and this garbage about the GOP being the party of violence which was being pushed by your Queen Nancy – all were no-starters for me. So if anything programed me, it was the Democratic message and platform.

  3. Bibfy

    From the party that parties with white supremacists and anti semitics I would expect no less from Mr. Collins.

    • Miles collins

      Ok bibfy. What makes you think I’m in any party. Your post is confusing. You must be a colored boy

      • BibfY

        Yes I am and so are you. Everyone is a color, you’re the color stupid.

        And you’re a racist loser too.

        • Mack ewing

          Racists don’t exist It’s just democrats propaganda to shame idiots into voting for them.

          • Bibfy

            And it worked.

            Because it’s true.

            Racism does exist, republicans courts them, their leader invites them to dinner, they embrace them because they need their votes.

  4. Tom

    I totally agree with you on this one Larry. 10 Points for you! Frank gets 1 point because he does appear to be trying out his sense of humor. Truth is, I think they back both of these losers because they are good fundraisers, and they do a great job at playing the race card, particularly Abrams. Beto mostly cries and whines for open borders which is another issue the Democratic Party is trying to program us to accept. Most likely they will find offices within the Democratic Party at some point. Good for them, everyone needs a job.

    • Bibfy

      I’ll give you beto and stacey and raise you with lake, blake, oz, and walker. Hands down you win in loser land.

      • larry Horist

        Bibfy …. You missed the point, Lots of candidates lose. The commentary was pointing out how Democrats maintain losers as heroes after SEVERAL loses. None of your examples address the key point.

  5. Ac

    Why democrats may appear supportive of the two you one admitted republican with an opinion on a non-issue has to do with context. Given your well publicized option on all things Democratic Party related, context for this commentary has little to do with the two and more to do with your history of animosity toward that Party.
    As this your space and your moment for airing your opinion in commentary format, it’s inevitable its content would reflect the certain opinion held for the other political party. You have your right to your own opinion and this country allows you the right of expression regarding making commentary on matters of interest in the public domain. That readers of this space agree or beg to disagree with your analysis is, also, inevitable. This, too, bears witness to context. That place one comes from which determines our worldview, the making of our opinion, and our manner in which we receive opinions from others,.
    Through the wonder of media Larry is provided opportunity and space to publish “So, there ‘tis”dot the edification of those voluntarily choosing to take time to read and to reply. Few rules exist in this medium and reply sees both agreement and disagreement writings with some acerbic insult judgement heckling on the sidelines. It’s all part of the game on line .retaliatory nonsensical outbursts from the sidelines.
    So, context is king, it rules the way we think, how events play out, and require consideration before judgment calls are made. Context also determines consequences, positive and negative. If it’s the ignored elephant in the room or the ghost unseen and not known, true unbiased context is the only storehouse holding critical information needed to learn what is to be known for understanding the “why” behind every action and subsequent reactions.”Deep Dive” into a subject, when research is thought to be thorough. It is not complete if true context is absent. Ignorance comes from ignoring essential facts for whatever reason.
    In the present case, why democrats still
    seem to care about even two of there’s who have lost their race for elected office is loaded with historical context and philosophical context. Considering, we’re talking about just two among all
    Democrats who have recently lost their bid for office. These two are no doubt important in the party’s perception. How that came to be is, again, all about context.
    Perceptivity, a personal skill acquired, not taught, its presence in a person is shown by behavior. One who self identifies as being skilled in the art of perceptivity and feels it’s necessary that others are told. That person does not understand real perceptivity first hand. If the skill is there, others will blow the horn in recognition. For most perceptivity comes through one’s nature while one’s nurturing refines and sharpens nature. For, others who have both desire and ability for learning social skills like perceptivity, what nature did not provide, nurture by choice intervened. Learning about value in keeping skills like this out of one’s speech and let actions speak for you. That’s all about nurture. Perceptivity, natural and reflexive, does not need to be learned.
    Context and Perceptivity are a set. Neither operates at its best without the other.
    Ignoring the validity of either or both shows the presence of prejudicial bias, this sets up the usual road blocks to progressing in our understanding.
    Several lines more academic than normally seen on PBP. Readers may think these ideas are pure opinion on my part, as may Larry. To that I respond with. I humbly agree to disagree with you who perceive differently and contend otherwise.
    For those seeing ideas that resonate even if just a little, bless you for the number appears to few.