Over the years I think it fair to say the GOP has NOT been the party to go to the insurgent candidacy. Was Reagan an insurgent? In 76, yes, in 1980? Hm. Not so much. The Dems have had a more mixed history in that regard. Go back to McGovern, who may have been right about the Vietnam War, but ran such a bad and needlessly anti-establishment campaign that it took them about 20 years to get over that, and that with a centrist candidate like Bill Clinton in a 3 man race. Along the way and in hindsight Gary Hart was a very interesting insurgent, imo a very bright man who got derailed, stupidly, by a sex scandal. As for Clinton himself I suppose he was not the party's establishment's first choice, but I would not call him an insurgent, either. Somewhere in the middle. Gore was the establishment choice, and lost when he should have won. (Well he did win the popular vote.) 2004 gets very interesting, though, and you can see the leftward movement beginning there with the Dean candidacy. Which again died of a self inflicted wound. More interesting still was the Edwards campaign. Imo, Edwards offered a far more saleable and well thought out set of policies than Sanders, but the voters were too leery of Edwards (on a personal level) to let him beat out Kerry. By 2008 Edwards's newness was overwhelmed by the newness of Obama, and I personally think some in the media knew that he was fooling around, thinking he was the next Jack Kennedy. Obama parlayed that newness, appeals to minorities, and what Sarah Palin called the hopey changey thing into a win over the clearly more establishment HRC. But he was actually to the right of Edwards on some issues, and not that strong with working class whites (probably in part for racial reasons - oh well). Does his being right of Edwards counter the leftward trend argument? Not really. He was an insurgent, which was more relevant than that he was in this or that to the right of Edwards and on some things Hillary as well. I know a lot of GOP people try to say that Obama won because of a perfect storm against them, including Katrina itself torpedoing W and W's other failings, the economy, some might say McCain's error in picking Palin. But maybe not. Despite the off year elections, maybe the electorate in presidential elections has moved left. This despite the money from the Kochs and Adelsons of the world funding the rightward drift of people like Cruz. But Trump does not fit the classic mold of a hard right conservative, and he is so far dominating the primaries. Well, I am not so sure myself, but there's certainly some evidnce to support the notion that the voters in national elections are moving left.
Commercials I could give a fuck about because I never watch or listen to them. I will tell you though that Hillary Clinton had a goddamned army of people working for her. Like several a week showed up on my doorstep for the past two months. I'm surprised she got beat so handily.
Just wait for it though everyone. if Hillary somehow loses to Sanders you'll see BB so strongly behind him. Sanders will be the morally superior candidate all along in his posts. This is laying the seeds in case that actually does happen. we're all cynics because we don't have posters in our bedrooms of whatever idiot candidate the political party we associate ourselves with props up as their leading voice
Cynicism is for pussies. "EVERYONE! SEE WHAT BLOCKER DOES!" Message board allies hear you. "Everyone!" I suppose I should be flattered that you wonder what I might be thinking months from now. But you sound like an idiot. Try and do better. I think you have it in you.
Insurgency has nothing at all to do with it. A primary is about pandering to the motivated party acolytes - the true believers. It's why Hillary is a "progressive" today, but the steady "moderate" yesterday. It's why Mitt Romney was pro choice running in Massachusetts, and prolife in a Republican primary. Ronald Reagan was burnished over time, but he wasn't anointed in 1980. It's what primaries are all about. The problem for Hillary - and let's not forget, this is about Hillary - is that she's gone against two of the greatest panderers of all time. Bernje just wants to give out free tuition Barack, geesuz, he was going to stop the rise of the oceans and make history. Remember that idiot woman who thought that by electing Obama she wouldn't have to worry about paying her mortgage anymore, or putting gas in her car, or anything that people in the grown-up world do. Pandering. Hillary can't figure out how to out-pander these to champs. She thought that having a vagina was enough. And, yeah, quite often that does the trick. Just not hers.
If you "like" a post-does that make you a message board ally? Or if you agree with it? What a stupid phrase. _
There needs to be a "Message Board Brethren That Can Bust Balls But Can't Take Ball Busting" thingy. Likely a Union. _
Like I said. It's like Pats fan apologists for Brady and the Cheatriots. Likely we'll be called allies and you hate me. _
