Post-elections, I notice that George Galloway remained conspicuously quiet on Twitter for the first few days following his Bradford West defeat to Labour's Naz Shah, despite the endless torrent of vitriolic tweets that were being hurled in his direction.
Away from social media and in a tone that smacked suspiciously of sour grapes, he said in his losing speech that racists and Zionists would be celebrating his defeat. Now he plans to mount legal action over the result.
But here's a controversial thought: Could it be that perhaps, just perhaps, the people of Bradford West actually voted for Ms Shah because they genuinely believe she will represent them better than he ever did?
The greatest irony here that Gorgeous George, who has openly courted the Muslim vote, was beaten in the last two general elections by... wait for it... Muslims.
The first of his recent forays into areas with large Muslim populations was in 2005, when, standing as a candidate for the Respect Party, he took London's Bethnal Green and Bow from Labour's Oona King. It is widely accepted that this gain - in what has always been a safe Labour seat - was a protest vote against the Iraq war and against King, who voted in favour of military action.
But in 2010 the seat was swiftly regained by Labour's Rushanara Ali who has since proven to be an industrious and dedicated MP.
In contrast, local people anecdotally tell me that Galloway did nothing to improve the area and was rarely seen in his constituency office. At the same time, his record of attendance at Commons debates was less than impressive, accounted for to some degree by his appearances on reality television shows dressed in cat-suits.
Then, in 2012, he went on to win a landslide victory in Bradford West following a short, sharp campaign that gained last-minute momentum through the internet. He described the result as a "Bradford spring" in a spurious connection to events in the Middle East at the time, but others saw it as political opportunism plain and simple. Still, he had three years to prove himself and it would appear, judging by Thursday's result, that he has failed to do so.
Party politics aside, Galloway is undoubtedly a rousing speaker on subjects that are close to his heart and that resonate with some sections of British society. He is passionately pro-Palestine, scathingly anti-Israel and a harsh critic of much of Britain's foreign policy of recent years. So while few were failed to be impressed by his ferocious 2005 confrontation with the U.S Senate committee hearing on Iraq's oil-for-food programme, it would appear that Galloway is seduced more by the glamour of larger, centre-stage, headline-grabbing moments than the monotony and grind of the day-to-day work MPs are paid to do.
In which case, now that he finds himself without a day job, maybe it is time for Galloway to focus his energies on what he does best. Maybe he will do a greater service to society as an activist and speaker fighting for the causes he believes in rather than a salaried MP who doesn't seem to create enough of an impact to get re-elected.