YOu essentially replied 4 times to my posts, all of which agreed with my premise while thinking you were arguing against me.
I said we need a candidate who can get elected without the establishment, and you argue against that by saying that any good candidate will be attacked and ridiculed by the elite. Who are, in fact, the establishment.
I argue we need a candidate who can cut through the crap thrown at them by democrats AND establishment republicans, and appeal to the people without help from those we are trying to beat. And you ARGUE against that by pointing out that no good candidate WON’T be attacked and ridiculed — which is precisely my point.
And yet somehow you are blaming the republican establishment in Delaware, even though you seem to fully understand that they acted PRECISELY as we would expect them to act. And you pretend I’m living in the unicorn world, when I’m the one who is arguing that O’Donnell was a bad candidate PRECISELY becuase we DON’T live in your unicorn/rainbow world where the establishment will bust their butts to elect candidates who will oppose their interests.
However, since your arguments all fit well with my point, the fact that you can’t see that isn’t important — your arguments simply support my conclusion: O’Donnell was a bad candidate, because she was an attack on the establishment but failed to win without establishment help.
Now, let’s see if you get it, or if you will argue that we should live in your world where the establishment signs up for their own destruction.