This is what I have been saying ever since the DLC moved the Dems permanently to the right, that the Dem leaders really don't care about winning prez elections or getting control of congress, because they and their kids will still do great financially and careerwise while enjoying a very high standard of living and be wealthy. Too bad for the peons who make up their base and are big enough chumps to think the Dem leaders actually care about the middle class and working class. I wised up and quit being a sap who bought their act as soon as I saw Bill Clinton in action as prez and the way he sold out the base as well as the poor. That is also why I have hated both of the Clintons actually more than the Repubs ever since, since they are actually bigger liars and traitors to their base than the Repubs, at least in my book. The Repubs are actually more honest about how they are going to rape the middle and working class, as well as the poor. The Dems lie as well, but sometimes use some lubricant when they go ahead and screw those classes.

If, as the article says, the Dem leaders and establishment back an independent centrist candidate (probably Bloomberg or someone like him) against their own party's nominee, should it be, say, Bernie, then the voters will finally see the plain truth of how corrupt and phony the Dems are at the federal level and their party will be ruined for good. Which might be a good thing if it resulted in an actual progressive party finally replacing it as a major party. My guess is, tho, that instead of backing an independent candidate, the Dem leaders and establishment would just quietly sandbag their own nominee and support the Repub candidate behind the scenes. It would be much like a replay of 1972 when the Dems nominated McGovern and then sandbagged him, helping Nixon win.