“I agree, but Hunter Thompson (Gonzo leftist) thought that Clinton was a “set up” in 1992 by the far right so that he would fail so badly that the right wing could “take over the country in 1996”.
But do you think that is a true truth? I mean, I can entertain wild theories, even if sourced from a Hunter Thompson, but we both know that plenty of writers deliberately seek out the outrageous in an effort to pump themselves. Ann Coulter has a bit of that. What fails me in the HT theory is that I myself do not think the far right has ever had anything near that kind of power. Oh for sure, “the rich” have the ability and flexibility to shift their allegiances based upon whom actually gets elected. That they do as individuals. But “the rich” are not a uniform gaggle of people; nor are the “far right” sufficiently organized to get much of anything done. That HT theory fails Occams Razor, IMHO.
Many of “the rich” love socialism, it keeps out their competition.
Again, I agree. The “rich” seemed bedazzled by Obama in 2008. But I think it was mostly because they thought (Like Goldman Sachs) that if they gave him enough $, he’d let them continue to make big bucks. Not to mention the good business to support a “black guy” for prez. In the real world, the super rich are also super liberal at least on social issues. There is no conservative ultra-rich cabal, as you said. Even the “evil” Koch brothers are socially liberal. They hold no real power electorally despite liberal protestations.