Rigged from the Inside
Or, Why the Democrats Keep Stepping on Their Dicks
Political organizations, no matter what they were formed to do, eventually evolve into bodies of elites that exist only to perpetuate themselves. There’s a phrase for that, the iron law of oligarchy, and I had to look it up because it’s been a long time since my last poli-sci class.
Whatever it’s called, the Democratic Party has reached that terminal stage. What once existed as a coalition to win elections and enact progressive policy has transformed into a self-protecting apparatus terrified of its own obsolescence — and that terror is causing it to make tactically insane decisions that guarantee the very future it fears.
The pattern is playing out right now in Maine, where the party establishment is working harder to destroy its own insurgent candidate than to defeat the Republican incumbent.
Graham Platner — a 41-year-old oysterman, Marine combat veteran, and political newcomer — announced his Senate candidacy in August 2025 with Bernie Sanders’s endorsement. He drew massive crowds. He raised millions in small-dollar donations.
The establishment response? Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (yes, that far-seeing, clear-seeing Chuck Schumer) recruited two-term Governor Janet Mills to enter the race — not because polling showed she could win, but because Platner represented an existential threat to the party’s control. By October, a University of New Hampshire poll showed Platner leading Mills 58% to 24% in the Democratic primary, despite (or perhaps because of) controversies over old Reddit posts and a Nazi-adjacent tattoo he’s since covered up. And when Mills failed to gain traction (there’s been “little sign of a Mills Senate campaign in Maine,” according to one observer), the establishment deployed a different weapon: EMILYs List commissioned a poll designed not to show Mills could beat Republican Senator Susan Collins, but to prove Platner could not.
The poll never tested Mills at all. It only measured Platner against Collins — specifically after feeding respondents negative information about Platner’s past. The conclusion: Platner would lose. The subtext: Kill the insurgency.
Meanwhile, independent polling told a different story. The Maine People’s Resource Center found Platner leading Collins 45-41% in the general election, while Mills trailed Collins 46-42%. In the primary, Platner led Mills 41-39%.
The establishment isn’t trying to win with Mills; they’re trying to destroy Platner. They would rather hand the seat to Collins than prove a Bernie-backed outsider can succeed without their blessing, their bundlers, their consultant class, their entire fundraising apparatus.
This isn’t isolated to Maine.
Manchester’s Mirror
In 2023, Manchester, New Hampshire — the state’s largest city where all the presidential candidates come for the First in the Nation Primary — had a competitive open-seat mayoral race. Two young-ish Democrats announced their candidacies early: Will Stewart (Ward 2 alderman, former journalist and community organizer with business and economic development background) and June Trisciani (at-large alderman, small business owner, rising star with an EMILYs List endorsement who’d run a credible state senate race in a tough district).
Then the Democratic establishment made its move. Party leaders recruited a third candidate to enter the race: Kevin Cavanaugh, former state senator, labor leader, eight-year alderman. The safe choice. The insider. He received endorsements from outgoing Mayor Joyce Craig (who was leaving to run for governor), Senator Maggie Hassan, labor unions, and state party chair Ray Buckley. (And don’t get me started on fucking Ray Buckley.)
The Sept. 19, 2023 primary was officially nonpartisan, with the top two vote-getters advancing to the general election. The results told the story:
Jay Ruais (Republican): 4,296 votes (42%)
Kevin Cavanaugh: 2,570 votes (25%)
Will Stewart: 1,987 votes (19%)
June Trisciani: 1,455 votes (14%)
The three Democrats combined for 6,012 votes — 58% of the total. Ruais, as the sole Republican, advanced with just 42%. The establishment’s intervention had split the Democratic vote three ways, allowing a Republican to advance despite Democrats holding a clear majority. Republican strategist Michael Biundo saw it immediately: “The fact the Democrats got a combined majority is a cautionary tale for the GOP.” If Cav had stayed out, it could have been an all-Dem race.
In the Nov. 7 general election that year, Ruais defeated Cavanaugh 9,392 to 8,904 — a margin of just 488 votes out of over 18,000 cast. He won 51% to 49%.
The math is undeniable: Democrats should have won Manchester. They had 58% support in the primary. But the establishment’s decision to recruit Cavanaugh -- to block Stewart and Trisciani -- meant no Democrat could consolidate that support. By the time it came down to Ruais vs. Cavanaugh in the general, it was too late. The damage was done.
The 2025 Aftermath
Two years later, the consequences became even more clear. When Ruais ran for reelection in 2025, the Democratic establishment failed to field a serious challenger. School board member Jessica Spillers entered the race just 24 hours before the filing deadline with no campaign website, no infrastructure, and no real chance. Even so, she only lost 59% to 41%.
Kevin Cavanaugh — the man the establishment recruited to “save” the mayor’s office in 2023 — ran for his old Ward 1 Alderman seat. He lost to challenger Bryce Kaw-uh, 1,362 to 1,064.
And June Trisciani? The rising star the establishment froze out? She ran for At-Large Alderman and won with 9,506 votes, nearly as many as Mayor Ruais himself received (9,618) and more than any other aldermanic candidate. What happened there, friends? What happened there?
Trisciani says establishment Dems remain hostile to her. Not because she left the party or became a Republican. Not because she attacked them publicly. But because she had the audacity to run without kissing the ring.
The party would rather lose the mayor’s office — and keep losing it — than validate a candidate who didn’t wait her turn.
(I also have anecdotal evidence of Democratic establishment figures refusing to sign ballot petitions for youngish progressive candidates (WHO IS YOUNG ANYMORE? NONE OF US!!) — not because they oppose their policies, but because these progressives weren’t registered Democrats. Purity tests matter more than good policy.)
The National Pattern
This isn’t incompetence; it’s fear. It’s institutional self-preservation playing out as a doom loop:
Bernie Sanders (2016, 2020): The establishment cleared the field for Hillary Clinton in 2016, then rallied around Joe Biden in 2020. Bernie’s small-dollar fundraising model and grassroots energy proved you didn’t need the traditional donor class. That made him dangerous regardless of his electability.
Joe Biden’s second term: Biden’s decision to run again despite age and approval concerns reflected classic Founder’s Syndrome -- the belief that only he could do the job, that the institution couldn’t function without its established leadership. When he finally stepped aside, it was too late to run a proper primary.
Zohran Mamdani and similar progressives: Rising stars who build grassroots movements get frozen out, not embraced, because they threaten to prove the establishment is optional.
Obama (2008): The exception that created the terror. Obama proved an outsider could bypass the establishment, build a small-dollar fundraising juggernaut, and win decisively. The party has spent the last 17 years ensuring it never happens again.
The Terror from the Top
At the top, the Democratic establishment isn’t about protecting democracy or even Democratic voters. They’re protecting a business model: the consultant fees, the bundler relationships, the donor access, the entire ecosystem that lives off campaign dollars and party control.
When candidates like Platner, Stewart, Trisciani, Bernie, or AOC prove they can win (or threaten to win) without the traditional apparatus — without hiring the approved consultants, without routing money through established channels, without waiting for permission — they expose the establishment as obsolete.
That terror filters down through party ranks, transforming at each level:
At the Top: “We need to protect our fundraising infrastructure and donor relationships”
In the Middle:“We need electable candidates who can win swing voters”
At the Local Level: “We need party loyalty and proper credentials”
Each level believes their own bullshit. The local Democrat refusing to sign a petition genuinely thinks they’re protecting the party from unreliable allies (or she’s just being nasty). The state party chair recruiting Cavanaugh or Mills genuinely believes they’re fielding more electable candidate (or they’re just following orders). But the structural effect is the same: protecting the establishment’s control over money, messaging, and candidate selection.
The Fatal Contradiction
The establishment is absolutely correct that voters often make terrible decisions. Voters as a group are reactionary and have poor long-term memory. They’re gullible and getting more so. The Dems’ solution -- institutional control, gatekeeping, clearing the field for “safe” candidates -- makes the problem exponentially worse.
Every intervention confirms what voters already suspect: The system is rigged. Your voice doesn’t matter. The decision has already been made.
This is especially toxic for the left, where the entire ideological basis is democratic participation and challenging entrenched power. When your party apparatus embodies what you’re supposed to be fighting against, the cognitive dissonance is unbearable. (Republicans are OK with being snowed, as long as the right people keep getting fucked over.)
The result:
Bernie voters going to Trump or Jill Stein
Young progressives sitting out elections
Democratic votes splitting in Manchester while Republicans unify
Platner supporters who’d rather burn it down than accept Mills
The Democrat’s establishment’s response? “See? Voters are irrational. We need MORE control.” Meanwhile, Republicans figured out letting the base pick — even when they pick a maniac -- means the base shows up and fights. Energy and ownership matter more than strategic wisdom.
The Endgame
Organizations that exist only to perpetuate themselves eventually lose their original purpose entirely. The Democratic Party was formed to win elections and enact policy. It has evolved into an entity whose primary function is maintaining the institutional hierarchy, protecting the fundraising apparatus, and ensuring that power flows through approved channels.
Nationally, they’ve alienated an entire generation of progressives who’ve learned that the party will never let them lead. Locally, very locally, they’ve made a 36-year-Democrat think really hard about exiting the tent.
The tragedy is that Platner, Stewart, Trisciani, Bernie, and the Squad represent exactly what the party claims it needs: fresh, energetic, grassroots-funded candidates who can mobilize voters the establishment can’t reach. But those candidates threaten the establishment’s reason to exist.
So the establishment fights them harder than they fight Republicans.
And voters watch, learn, and stay home.
Infuriating. Thanks for this cogent analysis!