[Maru]

Originally Posted by Alf

And it was supposed to be Bush vs Clinton last time, but Trump got in the way and upset the status quo, and that's why he's treat as an imposter. The USA wasn't supposed to elect a president, they was supposed to elect a monarch.

Clinton paid the way for the DNC (in her words) because they'd been struggling financially. I guess if the dynasties help keep the money flowing, then there's no reason to rock that boat. However, Americans can't really complain as much about the choice in candidates on the ticket (aside from when Bernie was screwed) though as we vote democratically who will be at the top of the party ticket. So in this case I was mainly referring to internal politics.

Inside Hillary Clinton’s Secret Takeover of the DNC
https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...ks-2016-215774

I had promised Bernie when I took the helm of the Democratic National Committee after the convention that I would get to the bottom of whether Hillary Clinton’s team had rigged the nomination process, as a cache of emails stolen by Russian hackers and posted online had suggested. I’d had my suspicions from the moment I walked in the door of the DNC a month or so earlier, based on the leaked emails. But who knew if some of them might have been forged? I needed to have solid proof, and so did Bernie.

So I followed the money. My predecessor, Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, had not been the most active chair in fundraising at a time when President Barack Obama’s neglect had left the party in significant debt. As Hillary’s campaign gained momentum, she resolved the party’s debt and put it on a starvation diet. It had become dependent on her campaign for survival, for which she expected to wield control of its operations.

Fastforward to mid-terms and Pelosi is having an issue getting the votes to take back the speakership because the new, more progressive Democrats are willing to buck tradition and go against their party's establishment. Who knows if that will hold though and if tradition will continue.

But yeah, Jeb... he wouldn't have been many people's first choice. Too stoic for one, but when he does speak, it comes off as overly contrived. Voters are finally getting tired of political dynasties I think.

So back to Nigel, is he considered establishment or a disruptor? Guessing by this quote, he's the not the latter:

He accused Mr Batten of having a "fixation with Tommy Robinson and discussing Islam, and dragging UKIP into a direction of effectively being a, sort of, street activist party".