Just when the DNC "barons" openly call for a coup against Bernie Sanders, Politico accidentally reveals Bloomberg's real mission: "slow Sanders' delegate march" on Super Tuesday

globinfo freexchange

The sequence of events should not be considered random. It all started with a key question on the recent Democratic-primaries debate stage in Las Vegas.

MSNBC's Chuck Todd (you know, the one who described Bernie Sanders supporters as a "digital brownshirt brigade"), asked the candidates if the person with the most delegates at the end of the primary season should be the nominee even if they don't have a majority of the delegates. Of all the candidates, only Sanders answered positively, without hesitation. Something which, of course, shouldn't surprise us much.

The whole matter circulated around the corporate and the independent media for a while, with the progressives attempting to capitalize Bernie's response, in order to demonstrate his deeply democratic "reflexes" against the rest of the establishment candidates.

But it seems that the question was put in place by the establishment in order to test the "reflexes" of its own puppets and open the road for a general coup against Sanders.

Indeed, a few days later, the New York Times dropped the bomb.

The Times interviewed 93 party officials — all of them superdelegates, who could have a say on the nominee at the convention — and found overwhelming opposition to handing the Vermont senator the nomination if he arrived with the most delegates but fell short of a majority.

Furthermore, always according to the New York Times, "Jay Jacobs, the New York State Democratic Party chairman and a superdelegate, echoing many others interviewed, said that superdelegates should choose a nominee they believed had the best chance of defeating Mr. Trump if no candidate wins a majority of delegates during the primaries. Mr. Sanders argued that he should become the nominee at the convention with a plurality of delegates, to reflect the will of voters, and that denying him the nomination would enrage his supporters and split the party for years to come."

And the "best" part comes later [most important part highlighted]: "Should Mr. Sanders win big in the 16 states and territories holding primaries and caucuses on Super Tuesday next week, he could be on a path to the 1,991 pledged delegates needed to capture the nomination on the first ballot at the party’s convention. But if the Super Tuesday vote is sharply divided among Mr. Sanders and two or more other rivals, the Vermont senator could find himself with more delegates than the competition but not enough to win the nomination outright. Under the current rules, the convention would then go to a second ballot. On that vote, all 3,979 pledged delegates and 771 superdelegates would be free to vote for any candidate they chose."

The news outraged progressives. They see now that the DNC establishment is going to ignore the popular vote and put its own favorite to lead the party prior to the November presidential election. In essence, the DNC "barons" are openly call for a coup against Bernie Sanders! And they don't seem to care that much if the party will be eventually fragmented and damaged beyond repair. Their top priority is to maintain neoliberal order and Sanders is the biggest threat for them right now.

But the "surprises" don't end here. Yesterday, Politico published an interesting article about the people who are building the image of Michael Bloomberg. The article impressively reveals key aspects of a quite aggressive PR campaign with a mission to turn a repulsive billionaire into a likeable candidate. Yet, more impressively, the article is also recognizing the very limited potential of Bloomberg to become a political figure capable to attract the popular vote.

We can assume that even Bloomberg himself understands that he has no chance against a candidate with the popularity of Bernie Sanders. So, why bother spending so much money in the primaries? The answer can be found "buried" somewhere in that Politico article [most important part highlighted]: "A big Bloomberg win on Super Tuesday is hard to imagine. Instead, he could help slow Sanders’ delegate march while earning delegates of his own in red states and in the South and positioning himself as the main alternative to the frontrunner."

It all makes sense now. Bloomberg threw himself the last minute in the primaries battle, using his massive money firepower, just to stop Bernie Sanders. We have to assume that this was a plan of the last minute, in full cooperation with the DNC "barons" of his own class, when they saw with terror that any other anti-Bernie campaign simply doesn't work.

So, now, you get the picture. Bloomberg's primary mission is to prevent Sanders reach the adequate number of delegates to win the nomination. And we can assume that the other candidates have the same mission too. They are all on board to stop Sanders by all means. Under these circumstances, our guess is that neither Elizabeth Warren is going to withdraw soon to endorse Sanders in order to help him reach the delegate threshold. She has already tried to sabotage Bernie in several occasions.

But all this anti-Bernie parody may eventually backfire, one more time. And it could be the final and biggest backfire against the corrupted DNC establishment. Because the whole thing could mobilize even more working-class people to support Sanders across America, as they see now clearly that he is their man.

With a continuously growing movement behind him, Bernie could gain so much momentum that he could become practically unbeatable. Not only against the DNC "barons", but also against Trump. This very difficult mission regarding the number of delegates, with all that war against him, may eventually be proved possible.

But if this whole dirty thing eventually pass, our guess is that Berners will burn down the party ...