Sometimes, as our Media Overlords try to pound every single political event into their Both Siderist frame. the results are just goofy and weird.
For example, here (h/t Heather from Crooks & Liars) we find dutiful Comcast employee Chuck Todd trying to explain what identically big whoop-de-dos it would be (well, "would have been") for Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders to each win their respective party's caucuses in the now-already-in-the-rear-view-and-fading state of Iowa. Because according to the Authorized Beltway Narrative, Trump and Sanders are practically kissin' political cousins -- each representing exactly the same political impulses among their voters and each posing an identical threat for identical reasons to their party's establishments.
So, according to Chuck Todd, a Donald Trump win in Iowa would have been a "hostile takeover" of the Republican party. And a Sanders win in Iowa would have been the same thing! A "hostile takeover" of the Democratic party!
Except -- and this is what makes is art -- Chuck has to stop and clarify that a Bernie Sanders win would be a "more benevolent version of a hostile takeover".
This is the definition of "hostile":
hos·tile \ˈhäs-təl\And this is the definition of "benevolent":
: of or relating to an enemy
: not friendly : having or showing unfriendly feelings
: unpleasant or harsh
: kind and generous
: organized to do good things for other people
See the difference? "Hostile" and "benevolent" are not slight variations of the same thing.
In fact, they are the diametric opposites of each other.
Sort of like a fascist demagogue like Donald Trump and a New Deal Democrat like Bernie Sanders.