Rachel Maddow Finds a Unique Villain to Blame for Ossoff’s Loss

The leftist media has already jumped the shark long ago, but now, on the heels of the Democrats sad loss in Georgia this week, it’s getting ridiculous.

As we might have predicted, the media thinks the loss is not at all because liberalism simply doesn’t sell — especially in the Deep South.

Nay, it must be due to something other than a failed ideology and/or a bad candidate…despite tens of millions of dollars.

According to Rachel Maddow, the loss was due to… wait for it … the weather.

But here’s the dirty little secret: Ossof got fewer votes than the previous Democrat candidate in that district, the one who spent less than a grand.

Yes, you read that right: Nearly thirty million won fewer votes than half a grand.

Um, ouch.

Here’s more from Redstate…

On Tuesday night, when media outlets declared Karen Handel defeated Jon Ossoff in Georgia’s sixth congressional district, I said progressives would have a difficult time trying to find a scapegoat. After all, Ossoff is straight, white, and male. There was no grievance factor for progressives to latch onto, especially considering he lost to a woman.

But then there is Rachel Maddow. Her ratings have increased since Donald Trump became president mainly because she will indulge even the most absurd theories about the president and his administration. The idea that a Democrat lost to Karen Handel for any other reason than an outside influence cannot be justified. Something sinister happened. There is no other reason Ossoff lost, right?

Enter the weather.

Yes, Maddow went there. Watch this clip:

“If there was a turnout effect from the bad weather today in the district, does that have any partisan implications that you can foresee in terms of what was expected for same-day, election-day voting here, rather than the early vote?”

Remarkable. Yesterday, on the Commentary podcast, John Podhoretz said Ossoff received 24 fewer votes than Rodney Stooksbury, Tom Price’s opponent in 2016. Ossoff spent $30M. Stooksbury? $427.

The hilarious part is, people weren’t even sure if a person named Rodney Stooksbury even existed. He didn’t campaign. His website featured no photos of him. He was a mystery. His existence ultimately was confirmed at some point.

You Might Also Like