Why are Democrats deliberately choosing the weaker candidate to take on Trump?

[CobaltBlue]

17. Cheese Sandwich—It isn't difficult to understand.

For Hillary Clinton's Democratic primaries voters: They start with people aged 65+. They were born, est., 1950 and before. They were in their 40s, at their earliest, when Bill Clinton unseated George Bush in 1992. Clinton was the only two-term Democratic president during the Republican presidential realigning period of 1968 to 2004, during which that party won 7 of 10 election cycles (1968, 1972, 1980, 1984, 1988, 2000, and 2004). Bill is like a God to this age demographic of Democratic presidential primaries voters. And so, too, is Hillary.

The money people love the Clintons. The bankers, Wall Street, every source of capitalism and corporatism—they are very comfortable with the Clintons. They love Bill for being the president who presided over the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act. And lots of people became richer while Bill was president.

None of the real power in this country want Bernie Sanders to be president. Any politician who is truly progressive—and not a sellout for the wealthy—is to be contained. Even in the Democratic Party, one who is truly progressive is limited to a minor role in the U.S. House of Representatives or a U.S. Senate seat only from a Strong Democratic state which is commonly associated as friendly to the truly progressive. (Everyone else is a—cough!—moderate.)

2016 has been a great year in which both political parties revealed they are lower than that joke about moving a rock and finding a lawyer under it. On the Republican side, there is no concern from that party and any of their officeholders about people's incomes and for climate change. On the Democratic side, progressivism is selling people out on trade deals and continuing with wars, no matter which party's president they had started, in order to further enrich the companies profiting off wars like Iraq. (They both serve the military industrial complex loyally.)

The specifics about this year's Democratic Party has been collusion to get Hillary Clinton the nomination. That Bernie Sanders was not expected by these out of touch establishment figures to be viable. And once Bernie Sanders did catch on, and we saw a few (including John Lewis) from the CBC PAC respond (meaning, reveal they too are corrupt) right after New Hampshire, all the co-conspirators—party insiders, professional pundits, "news" media—worked to malign him with their efforts to shut down Sanders (and, by that measure, his voters). You see that at even from people who don't make their living in Democratic Party politics or "news" media—the two-party system, which has at least 96 percent (since 2000) of this country living and breathing to combine for that dominance routinely propping Teams Red and Blue, is constantly being tauted as the only choices.

Bernie Sanders is not good for corrupt, rich—and really wealthy—people. He is the exact opposite of the kind of politician who would make them feel comfortable. This is recognized by the establishment from the Democratic Party. This is why we have seen corruption among the Democratic Party establishment—along with the corruption from the professional pundits and sources considered "news media"—because they, like the entire Republican Party, enjoy what is typically, for them, a sure thing: money.