OK I'll just say it: the dem establishment wants to lose this election

[CC27]

restorefreedom (2,766 posts)

OK I'll just say it: the dem establishment wants to lose this election


I have spent years working in the scientific field, so I tend to be an evidence-based person. And the only conclusion I can reach after looking at the evidence is that the Democratic Party establishment is trying to throw this election to the Republicans. Here's my evidence and my reasoning. I expect to take a lot of crap for this post but I feel like I have to express my thoughts. So flame away if you wish.

1. it is clear that there's an anti-establishment wave happening on both sides. Bernie keeps rising in the polls while hillary keeps falling. It is looking more and more like he could end up becoming the nominee. The powers that be do not want that because that puts him closer to the presidency.

2. so in order to avoid number one, they keep propping up a candidate who has terrible trust ratings, has a scandal and possible legal trouble following her, is not particularly popular, and is losing support rapidly. She's very unlikely to win a national election against a Republican candidate, and yet they still support her.

3. as another poster pointed out in another thread (credit to attorney in texas), The "biden might run" bullshit is just chaff being thrown out to try to undermine Bernie support and to try to give the impression that he can't possibly win a general election, so the establishment keeps floating out Joe as a possibility to "save the party" when Hillary tanks. but by his own words, actions and demeanor, it is not looking like he's ready to run.

4. debates. The Republicans have had two high-profile debates already, yesterday's getting 24 million views. They keep getting opportunities to present their points of view, meanwhile, the Democratic debate is not going to be for a few more weeks. This is clearly hurting all democratic efforts, since the Republicans are getting all of the media attention and getting that all the time they need to present their platform, yet nothing is done about it.

5. Debbie Wasserman Schultz. She is clearly a major liability to the possibility of the Democrats winning this election, not just the White House but all the down ticket races as well. Her blinding devotion to Hillary and her willingness to sell out the country, the party, and democracy itself is hurting every Democratic effort to win an election next year. She has totally rigged the process, and instituted what is probably an unenforceable exclusivity clause to further tamp down free-speech supposedly to "help" her preferred candidate,and the president is doing nothing about it. A simple phone call from President Obama and she would be replaced in two seconds flat. Why is he allowing this to continue?

as I said before I am an evidence-based person. The evidence and the behavior of the powers in the Democratic Party have led me to believe that they don't plan to win this election. They plan on propping up a corporate candidate who probably can't win, and if she did then they would probably be happy about it, but they know she probably can't, and they will do anything to prevent Bernie from getting the presidency.

please feel free to provide ample evidence as to why this is incorrect, and I will be happy to reassess my thought process and conclusion.

The bold part made me 

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251601430

[franksolich]

Hmmmm.

I wonder if the original-posting primitive's one of Skippy's sockpuppets.

[Karin]

I think it is kind of strange that there have been no debates.  I would watch them, just to see DUmmies up on a stage. 

[Carl]

The dems are banking on the the commie coasts plus minorities to elect a toadstool president and it may very well happen that way.
Shillary has been gaming the election cycle since 2008 and she still is in trouble nationally.
What does that tell everyone about liberal policy?

[jb2u11]

How is it possible to be an evidence based person and still be a liberal?  Unless you ignore the evidence I suppose......

[thundley4]

I have spent years working in the scientific field, so I tend to be an evidence-based person. And the only conclusion I can reach after looking at the evidence is that the Democratic Party establishment is trying to throw this election to the Republicans.

I can almost agree with that, but the DUmmies reasons are total BS.

The democrats get control for 8 years and they know they have totally ****ed up the entire country and realize that they can't win another national election.

They knew Hillary had too many problems to remain a viable, electable candidate, but they didn't want to lose the wemyn's votes, so they didn't offer any other decent candidate.

Bernie is pretty much a "feel good" candidate for the far left and not very desirable by the mainstream independents.

No, the Democratic machine is willing to let the GOPe, (rinos) win, but they are worried by some of the more conservative GOP candidates.

However, the democrat plan is to more fully groom another commie like Obama that is acceptable to more people.

Elizabeth Warren will be their choice in 2020.

[98ZJUSMC]

restorefreedom (2,766 posts)

I have spent years working in the scientific field,

[JohnnyReb]

The democrats get control for 8 years and they know they have totally ****ed up the entire country and realize that they can't win another national election.

Damn right...now they want to hand control back to the republicans so they can right the ship...then the dims take it back and F-up again.

[Zathras]

Sanders is anti-establishment? How long has he been in DC as a Senator? Hey DUmbasses....Bernie is about as establishment as you can get. Too frakking bad you morons lack the brains God gave the common dust mite to see this fact.

[miskie]

We all know that Sanders is destined to lose to HRC - Its what the DNC wants.

The part that will be delicious is the abject demoralization that loss will bring to the Democrats most likely to vote. If Biden does jump in, HRC is going to be forced to campaign against the administration she was once part of. Also delicious.

If by chance Sanders does win, the average Democrat will be less likely to vote, and there will be mass abstentions by the BLMmers.

If Biden gets the nomination, it will be all "Are you better off now than you were eight years ago ?" ,all the time.

And nobody else on the Dem ticket matters.

So, here's my take on it. The DNC is for Clinton, as 'she is owed it' - and will do their best to make that a reality. - If Clinton loses again, the DNC will say, 'hey, we tried..' - and they will immediately turn to Warren for 2020.

[miskie]

Sanders is anti-establishment? How long has he been in DC as a Senator? Hey DUmbasses....Bernie is about as establishment as you can get. Too frakking bad you morons lack the brains God gave the common dust mite to see this fact.

Well, I tend to agree somewhat. Sanders is VERMONT'S "establishment" candidate. I can tell you from 1st hand experience that Burlington, VT is basically DUville, USA. - And those on the conservative side tend to be Ron/Rand Paul fans. I'd say that as far as most of the rest of the nation's garden variety Democrats are concerned, Sanders is a total anti-establishment wackadoo.

[DumbAss Tanker]

It's not as cockeyed as it may sound, at least if you are a long-term strategist who believes ultimately the tide is on your side, which sadly may be the case.  The US is due for a cyclic economic downturn, the average life of a recovery (Which Obama has *technically* served through) is seven years, the chances are hugely on the side of hitting another iceberg in the next President's term even if Obozo manages to avoid the stink of failure for the next year and a half.  If a Republican is holding the bag when that happens, all the better for that long-term tide thingie.

[thundley4]

It's not as cockeyed as it may sound, at least if you are a long-term strategist who believes ultimately the tide is on your side, which sadly may be the case.  The US is due for a cyclic economic downturn, the average life of a recovery (Which Obama has *technically* served through) is seven years, the chances are hugely on the side of hitting another iceberg in the next President's term even if Obozo manages to avoid the stink of failure for the next year and a half.  If a Republican is holding the bag when that happens, all the better for that long-term tide thingie.

Funny how the economic cycle follows the governing parties. It's the democrat policies that kill off economic momentum and conservative policies that restart it.  It doesn't so much follow the Oval Office holder as it does who controls the senate.

Much of the damage done during GWB's time in office came after the dems took congress. Much of the so-called Obama recovery happened after the congress changed hands from the democrats to the republicans.

I sometimes wonder if the government can positively affect the economy or only do so in a negative way.  People believe and rightly so, that conservatives prefer a "hands off" approach, so the economy usually starts an uptick under them.+

[freedumb2003b]

Hell of a bonfire over there.

I won't ask which of you is running that sock puppet.

But well played :)

[DumbAss Tanker]

Funny how the economic cycle follows the governing parties. It's the democrat policies that kill off economic momentum and conservative policies that restart it.  It doesn't so much follow the Oval Office holder as it does who controls the senate.

Much of the damage done during GWB's time in office came after the dems took congress. Much of the so-called Obama recovery happened after the congress changed hands from the democrats to the republicans.

I sometimes wonder if the government can positively affect the economy or only do so in a negative way.  People believe and rightly so, that conservatives prefer a "hands off" approach, so the economy usually starts an uptick under them.+

Yeah, that same line of thought has occurred to me, and comes back every time I hear Obama's "Recovery" touted or Bush's "Disaster" decried.

[Big Dog]

I sometimes wonder if the government can positively affect the economy

No.

or only do so in a negative way. 

Yes.

[FlaGator]

I didn't read much evidence in the OP. A lot of conjecture and extrapolation on the conjecture but little else.

[GOBUCKS]

the Democratic Party establishment is trying to throw this election to the Republicans.

It's scary when their nuts sound just like our nuts.

[miskie]

It's scary when their nuts sound just like our nuts.

Wait until the Bernouts... Well, Burn out. -Then there will be conspiracy theories piled as high as a donkeys ass. I wonder if the dejected bernouts will be referred to as PUMAs or if they will come up with another stupid acronym.