It's amazing to me that you can type this with a straight face. Have you perhaps noticed the catastrophic, literally country-threatening disaster that is Donald Trump and how the far right wing foisted him on the GOP?
Why would you want more of that?
Trump isn't far right. He's anti-free trade, once proposed the largest tax hike in American history, significantly to the left of anyone in his party on health care, isolationist, pro-Russia, anti-NATO, moderate on abortion rights, the list goes on. I mean, he's not centrist or leftist, either. His brand of populism is kind of sui generis and defies easy political categorization. And it's precisely that the various interest groups in the Republican party are willing to defect against their party when they're not pursuing their interests that there are so many Republican NeverTrumpers.
It's not something the left is likely to repeat, and even if they succeed in getting an outsider nominated it's going to be someone like Sanders rather than a proto-tankie or whatever the communist equivalent of proto-fascist is.
The real analogy is to the tea party which, yeah, should be a model for far-left organizing going forward. The next time Democrats are tempted to sign off on some latter day Melian expedition I want them quaking in their boots about a primary challenge from a Bernie-branded leftist.
..That's not likely to happen because the far left is pretty cynical about electoral politics and never seems to show up for midterms, much less primaries for state representatives, but if anyone can make it happen it's Bernie.
If you're far left, why would you hope for the Republicans to choose a better candidate? Is this that accelerationism idiocy again?
No. I never advocated for accelerationism. I'm hoping the Republicans nominate people better than Trump going forward because they're going to win at least a few elections, and if they are I'd much rather it be Romney than Trump.
I was just thinking about how this is the perfect year that Hillary could have won the presidential nomination. Not 2008, but now. Eight years ago, the Republican Party still had an effective enough leadership to stress their commitment to patriotic values and American exceptionalism. Hillary is just seemingly hawkish enough to appear genuine in seizing the opportunity to label the Democrat party as the patriot's party, and still keep to her core values and champion progressive values.
I don't condone war unless all other meaningful options have been exhausted, but this is fantastic. I'm still in awe that we have become the party of everyone. Excluding bigots and the uncompromising, of course.
She's hardly the candidate for everyone. This is still the candidate that is neck and neck with Barry Goldwater for favorability ratings. Throughout the entire primary season, in a head-to-head matchup with the opposing party's presumptive nominee, she was trailing five points behind a self-identified socialist that had nice things to say about Castro and the Sandinistas (yes, Bernie would have tanked the moment the attack machine revved up and been in an even worse position than Hillary, but attack machine or no that polling is atrocious). She's turned what should be the easiest layup in American electoral history into a tossup. She's as unelectable as McGovern, and if she makes the White House it will only be because the Republicans were feeling mildly more suicidal than the Democrats this cycle.