No True Scotsman fallacy coupled with a completely a historical view. Bernie has been a major part of the party for a very long time. The man is an imperialist through and through. He’s very useful to them as a Democrat, specifically, he’s useful to attract progressive voters and they can always throw an election by the way they manage him. Very few people in the party are like that. Hillary is like that for them too, though less progressive and more violent. But all they have to do is treat Hillary badly and alienate a huge amount of voters.

This is like accusing an Welshman of being a Scotsman. He literally isn’t a Democrat. That’s his whole brand and his function to the party.

He is a major part of the party and certainly a useful idiot, but because he literally isn’t a Democrat isn’t allowed to be an important part of the party. His job is to be a sheepdog and shepherd us back into the polls for Democrats, he isn’t supposed to actually lead the party.

Also… are you implying they treated Hillary badly and caused her to lose on purpose? That’s a pretty wild accusation lol

No it wouldn’t have. Because general voters don’t elect party leadership, and the president doesn’t suddenly become the head of the party. The party would have been fine ideologically. Their problem was that Bernie would hurt their donors.

That’s a contradiction. If the party was fine ideologically then Bernie couldn’t hurt donors because that runs counter to their ideology.

Bernie would certainly hurt their donors, and that itself would fundamentally change the party because it would change who the financial backers of the party are - but you’re also ignoring how Trump very clearly changed the Republican party (yes, I know Republicans were always fascists, but they were cryptofascists before they stopped hiding behind dogwhistles). The very demographic base of the party changed because of who the president was, and now those “”“respectable”“” Republicans that Democrats love so much are on the outside of the party’s base. Bernie, if he had been allowed to win, would have changed the voter base and the financial base. They’d rather lose than have that.

This is all a ridiculous hypothetical, of course, because Democrats would rather lose than let Bernie win. But that’s it! They didn’t want Hillary to lose, they really wanted her to win - but they wanted her to win with her unpopular platform that caused them to lose. Her platform wasn’t intended to lose, though, and they didn’t give her an unpopular platform to make her lose. You’re really putting the cart before the horse here.

They would rather lose than stop doing the genocide.

It certainly looks that way, but that doesn’t mean they want to lose for its own sake. I’m not sure what you’re even arguing here.

It sounds like you’re saying that Biden supports the Zionist’s genocide literally because he wants to lose. As if this is a wedge issue that Democrats inflicted on themselves intentionally because they don’t want to be in power anymore.