Bernie Sanders, the Democratic Party, Trump & November

[justoffal]

Crazy Bernie is an insane douchebag. It is hilarious the DNC thinks they can butt f@ck him again.

How’s the RNC treating Joe Walsh and Bill Weld?

As well as they can expect for men that have been able to generate almost no support even after months of campaigning.How much support did the DNC give Randall Terry back in 2012 during his bid against Obama? Probably even less, and Mr. Terry had the support of major, national, pro-life outfits who could have provided diversity to the Democrats. Neither Walsh nor Weld offer anything to the Republicans.

Bill Weld would have done better if he could stay sober for half an hour..... I don't know much about Walsh.

JO

 

[LoneLaugher]

Who here believes that if Bernie Sanders becomes our President, he will easily
enact all of his policy proposals?

How stupid do you have to be to STILL treat campaign promises
like they are going to be realised?

Sanders is an intelligent man who has integrity and knows
how to conduct himself. Trump is none of those things.

Sanders' policy proposals are aimed at making life for the least
among better. His entire focus is on making sure that power is
taken back from the wealthy donor class.

Trump is focused on dividing Americans.

The choice is clear.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Crazy Bernie is an insane douchebag. It is hilarious the DNC thinks they can butt f@ck him again.

How’s the RNC treating Joe Walsh and Bill Weld?

As well as they can expect for men that have been able to generate almost no support even after months of campaigning.How much support did the DNC give Randall Terry back in 2012 during his bid against Obama? Probably even less, and Mr. Terry had the support of major, national, pro-life outfits who could have provided diversity to the Democrats. Neither Walsh nor Weld offer anything to the Republicans.

They are not holding primary elections. That is rigging defined.

 

[Norman]

Who here believes that if Bernie Sanders becomes our President, he will easily
enact all of his policy proposals?

How stupid do you have to be to STILL treat campaign promises
like they are going to be realised?

Sanders is an intelligent man who has integrity and knows
how to conduct himself. Trump is none of those things.

Sanders' policy proposals are aimed at making life for the least
among better. His entire focus is on making sure that power is
taken back from the wealthy donor class.

Trump is focused on dividing Americans.

The choice is clear.

Sanders is all about the losers of society at the expense of society itself. I see why you are so attracted...

 

[Polishprince]

How stupid do you have to be to STILL treat campaign promises
like they are going to be realised?
.

In the Pre-Trump era, you might have a point.

But President Trump is actually accomplishing his promises much to the chagrin of libs. So now, people will start to expect the same from Crazy Bernie or whomever succeeds him, whenever that is.

 

[LoneLaugher]

How stupid do you have to be to STILL treat campaign promises
like they are going to be realised?
.

In the Pre-Trump era, you might have a point.

But President Trump is actually accomplishing his promises much to the chagrin of libs. So now, people will start to expect the same from Crazy Bernie or whomever succeeds him, whenever that is.

You might be insane.

 

[candycorn]

I'll write in Porky Pig

So you're voting for a Democrat then. (Pork) (pig)

(Pork) (pig)

Both parties love their (Pork) and both sides are (pig)s.

It wasn't long ago that I would have told you that if things ever got this fucked up and both parties had completely lost their shit like this, a strong and viable third party would have emerged.

Wrong. Clearly we just don't care enough.
.

Good to see you're now saying "both parties".

Heh....there are many of us that don't like " Party " politics....unfortunately however we must all live in the world that is before us until we can find a way to change it. Political parties per se run contrary to the interest of the nation because they preclude the priorities of the national needs in favor of simply being in power. It sucks...
How do we get away from it though?

JO

One thing that would plant the seeds of a metamorphosis is to question candidates early in the process about the Federal Election Commission, the Commission on Presidential Debates, and other entities and get them to state that they are in favor of changing the structure of the televised presidential debates. This is key because the structure of the commissionis is the first step in election reform. Once a 3rd party gets on the dais the game starts to change. It would be my hope that the negative politics practiced by the D's and R's begins to work against them because if they are attacking each other, the one not being attacked looks better; the old 2nd String Quarterback rule.

That, in and of itself, is a longshot. A longer shot is to add language to the constitution (we need to have regular intervals above and beyond electioneering where the document is amended--about every 75 years or so) to add language to where any party cannot stop other political parties from ascending. We essentially have that now.

 

[justoffal]

So you're voting for a Democrat then. (Pork) (pig)

(Pork) (pig)

Both parties love their (Pork) and both sides are (pig)s.

It wasn't long ago that I would have told you that if things ever got this fucked up and both parties had completely lost their shit like this, a strong and viable third party would have emerged.

Wrong. Clearly we just don't care enough.
.

Good to see you're now saying "both parties".

Heh....there are many of us that don't like " Party " politics....unfortunately however we must all live in the world that is before us until we can find a way to change it. Political parties per se run contrary to the interest of the nation because they preclude the priorities of the national needs in favor of simply being in power. It sucks...
How do we get away from it though?

JO

One thing that would plant the seeds of a metamorphosis is to question candidates early in the process about the Federal Election Commission, the Commission on Presidential Debates, and other entities and get them to state that they are in favor of changing the structure of the televised presidential debates. This is key because the structure of the commissionis is the first step in election reform. Once a 3rd party gets on the dais the game starts to change. It would be my hope that the negative politics practiced by the D's and R's begins to work against them because if they are attacking each other, the one not being attacked looks better; the old 2nd String Quarterback rule.

That, in and of itself, is a longshot. A longer shot is to add language to the constitution (we need to have regular intervals above and beyond electioneering where the document is amended--about every 75 years or so) to add language to where any party cannot stop other political parties from ascending. We essentially have that now.

I cannot disagree.

JO

 

[LoneLaugher]

Who here believes that if Bernie Sanders becomes our President, he will easily
enact all of his policy proposals?

How stupid do you have to be to STILL treat campaign promises
like they are going to be realised?

Sanders is an intelligent man who has integrity and knows
how to conduct himself. Trump is none of those things.

Sanders' policy proposals are aimed at making life for the least
among better. His entire focus is on making sure that power is
taken back from the wealthy donor class.

Trump is focused on dividing Americans.

The choice is clear.

Sanders is all about the losers of society at the expense of society itself. I see why you are so attracted...

Yes. I've just completed my 11th year in business after a 20 year import/export career.
I am sure that is the stuff of losers to a self made billionaire like you.

 

[Polishprince]

Crazy Bernie is an insane douchebag. It is hilarious the DNC thinks they can butt f@ck him again.

How’s the RNC treating Joe Walsh and Bill Weld?

As well as they can expect for men that have been able to generate almost no support even after months of campaigning.How much support did the DNC give Randall Terry back in 2012 during his bid against Obama? Probably even less, and Mr. Terry had the support of major, national, pro-life outfits who could have provided diversity to the Democrats. Neither Walsh nor Weld offer anything to the Republicans.

They are not holding primary elections. That is rigging defined.

Hardly. Its still up to the delegates at the tremendous convention planned for Charlotte, even if some states cancel primary elections.

I can't think of a single prospective Republican other than Donald J. Trump, who stands a chance in hades of vanquishing the Democrats in November. And that's the real issue for the R's. Defeating a fool like Crazy Bernie or Sleepy Joe in the General Election.

 

[candycorn]

It does highlight that in our system, two very small states hold unimaginable sway over the choices the rest of the nation gets to make. Let alone the racial demographics of Iowa and New Hampshire, their combined population is smaller than many metropolitan areas. The old saying that there are "3 tickets out of Iowa" and "2 tickets out of New Hampshire" usually holds.

I'm not sure why the Parties allow this to continue. It is the Parties who can allow for a changing of the calendar. It really doesn't seem to benefit the parties to have these people, every four years, trudge through Iowa, to county fairs, etc... or go from hamlet to hamlet in New Hampshire and pretend they are interested in problems Washington really cannot solve. Most of what Washington does (when it works) is do the most good for the most people. One million people in New Hampshire are usually not the "most people" in any case.

Anyway, this should be changed to having 4-5 regional contests where a near equal number of delegates are up for grabs.

Hmmm.....that's an interesting thought.....I wish there was a way to explore that more but you know as well as I do it would get slapped down and stomped on....but still.....perhaps that idea should be given some daylight.

JO

Yeah, that's just it... I don't see why the Parties allow it to continue? If the Democrats wanted to have their Iowa Caucus in March instead of February, they could do that. If they wanted to have their Florida Primary on a Wednesday in April, they could do that too.

There are local races, state-wide races, referendums, ballot measures etc... all being on the ballot at the same time. The Democratic Party Caucus is just the most visible thing happening in Iowa next week. And in 4 years, win, lose, or draw in 2020, the Republicans will be held to the same silly structure.

Just start it on March 1. Have 10 elections in the upper Mid-west, on April 1, have 10 elections in the South East. On May 1, have 10 elections in the Southwest, etc... Mid July/Early August, have your conventions and be done with it.

 

[candycorn]

Both parties love their (Pork) and both sides are (pig)s.

It wasn't long ago that I would have told you that if things ever got this fucked up and both parties had completely lost their shit like this, a strong and viable third party would have emerged.

Wrong. Clearly we just don't care enough.
.

Good to see you're now saying "both parties".

I've been saying it all along, and getting bitched at daily by both parties for saying it.

You must have missed that.
.

Actually, no you haven't. But whatever...good to see you've accepted that republicans mailing bombs to democrats qualifies as their "losing their shit", finally.

I realize that nutters lack curiosity, but what the hell. Just in case.

This site includes a "Search" feature. I just typed in "both parties" and "Mac1958", hit enter, and poof! About 500 entries came up.

I won't expect you to apologize if you bother to do that and see the results. In fact, I wouldn't want you to.

I wish I could get out of your head.
.

I'm sure you believe what you're saying is true.

 

[justoffal]

It does highlight that in our system, two very small states hold unimaginable sway over the choices the rest of the nation gets to make. Let alone the racial demographics of Iowa and New Hampshire, their combined population is smaller than many metropolitan areas. The old saying that there are "3 tickets out of Iowa" and "2 tickets out of New Hampshire" usually holds.

I'm not sure why the Parties allow this to continue. It is the Parties who can allow for a changing of the calendar. It really doesn't seem to benefit the parties to have these people, every four years, trudge through Iowa, to county fairs, etc... or go from hamlet to hamlet in New Hampshire and pretend they are interested in problems Washington really cannot solve. Most of what Washington does (when it works) is do the most good for the most people. One million people in New Hampshire are usually not the "most people" in any case.

Anyway, this should be changed to having 4-5 regional contests where a near equal number of delegates are up for grabs.

Hmmm.....that's an interesting thought.....I wish there was a way to explore that more but you know as well as I do it would get slapped down and stomped on....but still.....perhaps that idea should be given some daylight.

JO

Yeah, that's just it... I don't see why the Parties allow it to continue? If the Democrats wanted to have their Iowa Caucus in March instead of February, they could do that. If they wanted to have their Florida Primary on a Wednesday in April, they could do that too.

There are local races, state-wide races, referendums, ballot measures etc... all being on the ballot at the same time. The Democratic Party Caucus is just the most visible thing happening in Iowa next week. And in 4 years, win, lose, or draw in 2020, the Republicans will be held to the same silly structure.

Just start it on March 1. Have 10 elections in the upper Mid-west, on April 1, have 10 elections in the South East. On May 1, have 10 elections in the Southwest, etc... Mid July/Early August, have your conventions and be done with it.

It makes perfect sense.....I can only surmise that it would interrupt the current pay to play systems used by both parties and therefore would be in an uphill battle from the onset. But yes....it looks like a solid idea.

JO

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I was listening to a short interview with Bernie Sanders yesterday, and the interviewer asked him how he was going to come up with the $60 TRILLION over ten years that he has promised out.

Anyway, to make a long story short, his answer was something less than clear or compelling. It did include raising taxes on Those Evil Corporations. As with some other Democrats, Sanders appears to be stuck in the 60's, before we were operating in a hyper-competitive global economy. Anyway, that stuff is for a different thread.

Taking a general look at the polls, and a look at the current crop of Democratic candidates, and the base of the Democratic party, those of us who aren't exactly fans of Trump or Trumpism might be getting a little nervous right about now. The Democratic party pretty much lost its shit when Trump won (that's also for another thread) and it does not appear to have located its shit in the interim.

The potential effects of Trump's actions in the subsequent four years pale in comparison (probably) to what happens in our Supreme Court and lower courts. I probably don't have to expand on that. But that's looming out there, pretty clearly.

These are serious times. If the Democrat party doesn't shit-can its loonier elements pretty quickly and clearly, it's possible that this November ain't gonna be good for non-Trumpsters.

There's today's rant. You're nuts for getting this far.
.

Seems like a wash between 4 years of 100% crazy from the blob or 85% crazy from Sanders. I vote for Sanders if hes on the ballot in November. Easy choice.

I'll write in Porky Pig

So you're voting for a Democrat then. (Pork) (pig)

(Pork) (pig)

Both parties love their (Pork) and both sides are (pig)s.

True enough. I'll deal with the pork if the alternative is black reparations, high taxes and illegals getting social/medical services

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

Who here believes that if Bernie Sanders becomes our President, he will easily
enact all of his policy proposals?

How stupid do you have to be to STILL treat campaign promises
like they are going to be realised?

Sanders is an intelligent man who has integrity and knows
how to conduct himself. Trump is none of those things.

Sanders' policy proposals are aimed at making life for the least
among better. His entire focus is on making sure that power is
taken back from the wealthy donor class.

Trump is focused on dividing Americans.

The choice is clear.

He won't be able to. But if he does end up winning and the Democrats are able to take back the Senate, my hope is that we'll at least start discussing and seriously considering some of his proposals. While I raise my eyebrows at his answers of how he'd pay for his proposals, he's at least been consistent in what he's been talking about for almost his
political life. Hell, I'd settle for some serious Congressional hearings and debate, not just Mitch, Lindsay, and Ted spiking the ball and kicking the can down the road because it would anger their corporate masters and donors. Aging Baby boomers have too firm of a vice lock on the political process right now.

Trump on the other hand wouldn't know a policy position if it ran up to him and stole his nightly Quarter Pounder with Cheese.

 

[jknowgood]

I was listening to a short interview with Bernie Sanders yesterday, and the interviewer asked him how he was going to come up with the $60 TRILLION over ten years that he has promised out.

Anyway, to make a long story short, his answer was something less than clear or compelling. It did include raising taxes on Those Evil Corporations. As with some other Democrats, Sanders appears to be stuck in the 60's, before we were operating in a hyper-competitive global economy. Anyway, that stuff is for a different thread.

Taking a general look at the polls, and a look at the current crop of Democratic candidates, and the base of the Democratic party, those of us who aren't exactly fans of Trump or Trumpism might be getting a little nervous right about now. The Democratic party pretty much lost its shit when Trump won (that's also for another thread) and it does not appear to have located its shit in the interim.

The potential effects of Trump's actions in the subsequent four years pale in comparison (probably) to what happens in our Supreme Court and lower courts. I probably don't have to expand on that. But that's looming out there, pretty clearly.

These are serious times. If the Democrat party doesn't shit-can its loonier elements pretty quickly and clearly, it's possible that this November ain't gonna be good for non-Trumpsters.

There's today's rant. You're nuts for getting this far.
.

The term is “Democratic Party”.

Thanks.

You mean "lunatic party".

 

[imawhosure]

I'll write in Porky Pig

So you're voting for a Democrat then. (Pork) (pig)

(Pork) (pig)

Both parties love their (Pork) and both sides are (pig)s.

It wasn't long ago that I would have told you that if things ever got this fucked up and both parties had completely lost their shit like this, a strong and viable third party would have emerged.

Wrong. Clearly we just don't care enough.
.

Ahh.... Great point..... I have some thoughts on this.
When it comes to household interest in the political process you are quite right....the average household is far too distracted by Dancing with the Stars and Tom Brady's dispute with Roger Goodell. I strongly believe that the elements for a third party are there and not the AOC brand either...but a middle of the road party composed of sane, compromising and reasonable people from all walks and avenues of life. I think the problem is that the money support has been neatly cleaved into to lumps that are definitively controlled by the two parties. For a while I though Pelosi and company were going to get steam rolled by the AOC branch of the party....but no the old Sea Hag still has sharp claws and she put the upstarts back in their place....THAT WAS NOT EASY.....
So the old party is still hanging onto control of the money and the influence without which no upstart party can survive I'm afraid. The only remedy would be to rally support from the small people in large numbers. Similar to what Bernie has done....the Dems really don't see Bernie as a Dem...that's why they keep stabbing him in the back when he starts to get off the ground. If he's smart he'll run as a write in this time if they screw him again.
Hey It worked for Murkowski. Don't get me wrong...I despise Bernie's politics but I admire his stamina and his
Trueness to his own positions. Some of the DC Troglodytes could take a lesson from him on that.

JO

I think that's at the root of it. A small number of maniacs who control the parties also then control the system. The rest of the country either (a) doesn't care enough or (b) doesn't want to join the shit show, and just stays out of it. They may vote for their party on a regular basis, but they're not engaged in the insane mechanics of it.

I no longer hold out much hope for a viable third party, so I'll just hope that some sanity will return. Ya never know.
.

Mac, I have a reasonable question I would like you to consider, and before shrugging it off, please read it carefully-------->

Most all conservatives and GOP have put forth a synopsis of what happened, and you also have asked what if it is correct what they said, about the start of this Russian collusion/delusion. For the most part as of this writing, more and more revelations are appearing that conservatives were on the correct track, even as the Democrats tried to insist none that happened and laughed, only to so far, be proven wrong.

IF, and yes that is an IF the rest of the story is true, you and I both know that Biden is a post toasty politically as of the Durham release if it is, and this no doubt will happen AFTER the Democrats Super Tuesday; meaning that even if Biden is in the lead, the number 2 contender will instantly take his place.

What will the Democrats do?

It is my humble contention (and at the very least Conservatives who support the fact that the Obama/Biden administration were the father and mother to the collusion/delusion) that if the revelations pull down a large part of the DNC, the Democrats will nominate Bernie for 2 reasons-------->

1. The young and every socialist in America voting will give them a punchers chance.

2. If and when they lose, they can blame it on Bernie and the Socialists, and Obama would parrot that also.

But what if the revelations do not pull down the DNC? What if the facts only encompass the former administration, and a few others so as the rest of the DNC can claim ignorance on the matter while showing outrage at what was pulled off, keeping them within striking distance of Trump?

Then it is my supposition that-------------> Their standard bearer is not at the current time running. They will invoke some sort of "special measures" for the good of the party, and the country. They will choose someone seen as a moderate, and may in fact choose some sort of Republican as his/her Vice-Presidential running mate. (maybe a stretch to far, but with special measures invoked, anything is possible)

It is my belief that the GOP and Trump actually have something, as if they did not, they would not be riding this horse so long. At some point they know they have to deliver, or their base will do what the Democratic base did and deflate.

We must all understand that contrary to popular belief, Trump and friends knew exactly what Mueller had, so there was no reason to deflect. They also have seen what evidence the Democrats had/have on the impeachment, so no reason to continue on with a big lie that could blow up in their face. Mac, they got something!

So, what are the Democrats going to do when it drops? It may actually be the BEST thing for the Democrats IF they can point to only a select few people like Comey, Brennan, Clapper, and Mcabe.

Why?

Because that will then give the Democratic center the ability for at least this cycle by using special measure because of the revelations, the ability to forth a candidate that might actually be able to beat Trump, without having to show themselves moving Left to kiss the a**es of the radicals in the party, creating soundbites for the GOP to paint them negatively!

 

[wamose]

The Democrat agenda is communism bordering on absurdity. There's no choice who to vote for. There's also no doubt that the radical freshman Ds, led by the squad, is the most dangerous movement this country has ever faced

 

[justoffal]

Who here believes that if Bernie Sanders becomes our President, he will easily
enact all of his policy proposals?

How stupid do you have to be to STILL treat campaign promises
like they are going to be realised?

Sanders is an intelligent man who has integrity and knows
how to conduct himself. Trump is none of those things.

Sanders' policy proposals are aimed at making life for the least
among better. His entire focus is on making sure that power is
taken back from the wealthy donor class.

Trump is focused on dividing Americans.

The choice is clear.

He won't be able to. But if he does end up winning and the Democrats are able to take back the Senate, my hope is that we'll at least start discussing and seriously considering some of his proposals. While I raise my eyebrows at his answers of how he'd pay for his proposals, he's at least been consistent in what he's been talking about for almost his
political life. Hell, I'd settle for some serious Congressional hearings and debate, not just Mitch, Lindsay, and Ted spiking the ball and kicking the can down the road because it would anger their corporate masters and donors. Aging Baby boomers have too firm of a vice lock on the political process right now.

Trump on the other hand wouldn't know a policy position if it ran up to him and stole his nightly Quarter Pounder with Cheese.

I never liked Trump....but you do yourself no favors by trying to construct your own reality. Not liking a person does not render them all of a sudden stupid and inept.....you harm your own prospects by blurring your vision and very probably help the prospects of that which you misrepresent.
JO

 

[Mac1958]

So you're voting for a Democrat then. (Pork) (pig)

(Pork) (pig)

Both parties love their (Pork) and both sides are (pig)s.

It wasn't long ago that I would have told you that if things ever got this fucked up and both parties had completely lost their shit like this, a strong and viable third party would have emerged.

Wrong. Clearly we just don't care enough.
.

Ahh.... Great point..... I have some thoughts on this.
When it comes to household interest in the political process you are quite right....the average household is far too distracted by Dancing with the Stars and Tom Brady's dispute with Roger Goodell. I strongly believe that the elements for a third party are there and not the AOC brand either...but a middle of the road party composed of sane, compromising and reasonable people from all walks and avenues of life. I think the problem is that the money support has been neatly cleaved into to lumps that are definitively controlled by the two parties. For a while I though Pelosi and company were going to get steam rolled by the AOC branch of the party....but no the old Sea Hag still has sharp claws and she put the upstarts back in their place....THAT WAS NOT EASY.....
So the old party is still hanging onto control of the money and the influence without which no upstart party can survive I'm afraid. The only remedy would be to rally support from the small people in large numbers. Similar to what Bernie has done....the Dems really don't see Bernie as a Dem...that's why they keep stabbing him in the back when he starts to get off the ground. If he's smart he'll run as a write in this time if they screw him again.
Hey It worked for Murkowski. Don't get me wrong...I despise Bernie's politics but I admire his stamina and his
Trueness to his own positions. Some of the DC Troglodytes could take a lesson from him on that.

JO

I think that's at the root of it. A small number of maniacs who control the parties also then control the system. The rest of the country either (a) doesn't care enough or (b) doesn't want to join the shit show, and just stays out of it. They may vote for their party on a regular basis, but they're not engaged in the insane mechanics of it.

I no longer hold out much hope for a viable third party, so I'll just hope that some sanity will return. Ya never know.
.

Mac, I have a reasonable question I would like you to consider, and before shrugging it off, please read it carefully-------->

Most all conservatives and GOP have put forth a synopsis of what happened, and you also have asked what if it is correct what they said, about the start of this Russian collusion/delusion. For the most part as of this writing, more and more revelations are appearing that conservatives were on the correct track, even as the Democrats tried to insist none that happened and laughed, only to so far, be proven wrong.

IF, and yes that is an IF the rest of the story is true, you and I both know that Biden is a post toasty politically as of the Durham release if it is, and this no doubt will happen AFTER the Democrats Super Tuesday; meaning that even if Biden is in the lead, the number 2 contender will instantly take his place.

What will the Democrats do?

It is my humble contention (and at the very least Conservatives who support the fact that the Obama/Biden administration were the father and mother to the collusion/delusion) that if the revelations pull down a large part of the DNC, the Democrats will nominate Bernie for 2 reasons-------->

1. The young and every socialist in America voting will give them a punchers chance.

2. If and when they lose, they can blame it on Bernie and the Socialists, and Obama would parrot that also.

But what if the revelations do not pull down the DNC? What if the facts only encompass the former administration, and a few others so as the rest of the DNC can claim ignorance on the matter while showing outrage at what was pulled off, keeping them within striking distance of Trump?

Then it is my supposition that-------------> Their standard bearer is not at the current time running. They will invoke some sort of "special measures" for the good of the party, and the country. They will choose someone seen as a moderate, and may in fact choose some sort of Republican as his/her Vice-Presidential running mate. (maybe a stretch to far, but with special measures invoked, anything is possible)

It is my belief that the GOP and Trump actually have something, as if they did not, they would not be riding this horse so long. At some point they know they have to deliver, or their base will do what the Democratic base did and deflate.

We must all understand that contrary to popular belief, Trump and friends knew exactly what Mueller had, so there was no reason to deflect. They also have seen what evidence the Democrats had/have on the impeachment, so no reason to continue on with a big lie that could blow up in their face. Mac, they got something!

So, what are the Democrats going to do when it drops? It may actually be the BEST thing for the Democrats IF they can point to only a select few people like Comey, Brennan, Clapper, and Mcabe.

Why?

Because that will then give the Democratic center the ability for at least this cycle by using special measure because of the revelations, the ability to forth a candidate that might actually be able to beat Trump, without having to show themselves moving Left to kiss the a**es of the radicals in the party, creating soundbites for the GOP to paint them negatively!

If I understand your question -- I think it's "what are the Democrats going to do when some assumed revelations drop?" -- I guess it would depend on the severity of the facts. If they think they can spin their way out of it, that's what they'll do. If Biden clearly has to go, I don't know what that process looks like. Maybe the person who was #2 in the primaries gets it.
.