We hear a lot of talk about whom Joe Biden might choose to be his vice presidential running mate.  One prominent name being bandied about is Stacey Abrams, the Georgia Democrat who lost the 2018 gubernatorial race to Republican Brian Kemp.  In fact, the former Georgia state rep. and minority leader of the Georgia House lost by about 55,000 votes.  However, in this topsy-turvy era of hyperbolic rhetoric, those on the left who lose an election can simply claim that it was stolen from them by voter suppression.  Abrams, taking a page from the Hilary Clinton "I got robbed" playbook, continues to promulgate the narcissistic folly that she is actually the governor of the Peach State.

Moreover, if anyone disagrees with her, she declares him to be a (you guessed it) "racist."  This tactic is so old and mendacious that it's become laughable. It's used only by losers who can't deal with the fact that voters weren't able to recognize their obvious talents (sarcasm inserted).  I suppose the next best thing to winning is lamenting that you would have won if the system were fair.  It must be working, because Abrams has received more publicity for losing than Kemp has for winning.  Furthermore, the notion that she's veep timber is the left's way of pushing the notion that she actually won.  How often have we heard that winning is unfair to the losers?

In the deviational dialect of left-wing orthodoxy, all football teams should win the Super Bowl and all baseball teams should win the World Series in the same year.  You see, if only one team gets the trophy, it means that the other teams will feel sad.  Hence, everyone should get a trophy just for being in the game.  By the same reasoning, everyone who runs for elective office should be sworn in, because all of them tried so hard to win.  We don't want them to feel dejected, do we?  Can you imagine having a lucky night playing poker with some associates who suddenly demand their money back after you scoop up the winnings?  What universe do these people live in? 

Biden is unlikely to choose a crybaby loser to run with him, but if he does, it will be his fear of being called a racist if he doesn't.  Sure, he could select another black woman, like Kamala Harris, for instance.  Yet any top-tier Democrat who looks at the 2020 tea leaves will be reluctant to go against a popular incumbent president.  Such people not fooled by the fake news polls telling everyone Biden is ahead.  Only a political neophyte would be naïve enough to buy into those early and highly subjective wish lists.  Those in the know would rather keep their powder dry and not risk political capital on a losing investment.  They'd prefer to wait for 2024, when Trump will be term-limited, before making a move toward Pennsylvania Avenue.

Nevertheless, the illusion of greatness, in some of the most pitiful candidates, continues.  Social media platforms are so regulated with political correctness that they can't find it in their vocabulary to snatch truth from fiction.  Case in point: When you look up Stacey Abrams on Google and scroll down to the section "People also ask," one of the questions was, did Stacey Abrams win the Georgia governorship?  Now, anyone who follows politics, even occasionally, knows that the woman lost to the current governor of Georgia.  However, Google, being another left wing–dominated search engine, gave this answer: "The primary elections were held on May 22, 2018, and a primary runoff was held on July 24, 2018, between Republican candidates Casey Cagle and Brian Kemp, with Kemp winning the runoff election.  Stacey Abrams won the Democratic primary with over 75% of the vote, allowing her to avoid a runoff."

Did that answer the question?  Is it so difficult to state the obvious?  Apparently!  The practitioners of knee-jerk-inspired misinformation at Google simply couldn't bring themselves to answer with a simple "No."  Instead, they wanted researchers to be aware that Abrams did a good job of winning a majority in the Democrat primary.  One wonders what the answer would be if the question was, who won the Super Bowl in 2020?  Here's a possible response: "The San Francisco 49ers did some good scoring during the game.  So did the Kansas City Chiefs.  Both teams were in the game right up to the final seconds ending the fourth quarter."  Evidently, it's not enough to lie and distort via the news media.  Now we have once reliable information agencies bastardized into delivering fanciful forms of obfuscation that stubbornly resist facts.

Image: Barbara Jordan Forum 2012 via Flickr.