"In 2008, we went with the ‘safe’, Establishment, candidate and not only got Obama, we got a Democrat filibuster-proof Senate and a huge Democrat majority in the House."
Yep. And I never saw the Dems fretting in 2008 about losing the House and Senate because they were running somebody that appealed much more to their base than a "safer", "more centrist" (relative term, of course) like Hillary Clinton. Nope, they charged ahead and won everything.
We, of course, have a bunch of Trojan Horse (former?) Democrats as pundits and pseudocons stabbing Conservatives in the back, and that's a big part of the difference.
“We, of course, have a bunch of Trojan Horse (former?) Democrats as pundits and pseudocons stabbing Conservatives in the back, and that’s a big part of the difference. “
That’s a great point. What has to scare The Establishment, even more than losing, is winning with someone not indebted to them. For that could mean a wholesale housecleaning of that bunch.
So, for them, a Romney loss is far better than a Newt win (although a Romney win would be fine, as would a Newt loss).