A recent Colorado Politics story, and my experience refereeing middle-school basketball, have inspired me to write today’s column from the perspective of a sporting match, so I hope you will forgive my overuse of sports metaphors.

The recent Trump rally in Colorado Springs was pretty much like all his rallies around the country, involving demonization of his opponents, declaring himself to be the font of all “real news” and such. And when you officiate a school basketball game, you will find that some of the parents and coaches behave in much the same manner. 

For example, both groups are often angry, but they are not entirely sure why. Some of it is being mad at the overall situation, some are angry at the refs or the media. They often feel abused and are sure they are getting treated unfairly, but they usually don’t know the actual rules (you cannot travel while dribbling, people!). They boo automatically when things seem to turn against them, and they are quite certain of their own wisdom and insights.

Which, of course, brings me to the ongoing Democratic candidates’ various campaigns for the White House. 

You see, given the “everyone is against us” mass hysteria that runs rampant at Trump rallies and basketball games, the Trump base will behave like the parents at basketball games: they will be supporting their “team” regardless of any outside evidence or reason to do otherwise. It will take a unified opposition to overcome the blindness with which Trump’s base supports him.

So, what are the Democrats doing? It seems to me they are doing their very best to make Trump’s re-election more likely. I recently wrote about my concern that Bernie Sanders is the George McGovern of 2020. Now I want to tell you about my concern that the 2020 Dem candidates are the GOP candidates of 2016. Recall that Donald Trump was the one candidate who all of the Republican leaders agreed could not, and indeed must not, get the 2016 GOP nomination for president. But how did they go about it? Pretty much the same way that the Dems are running things this year.

In 2016, the GOP had one extreme candidate in Trump, and several more “moderate” candidates such as Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, John Kasich, and a few others. While Trump was able to occupy a unique position on the Republican political spectrum, the gentlemen just mentioned managed to divide the more “moderate” voters in the GOP, and as a result, Trump was able to win because of divided opposition. The Republicans didn’t really see what was happening until it was too late. 

A similar thing happened to the Republicans in my own congressional race back in 2008. Two years earlier, there had been an open “safe Republican” seat in CD-5, and a bunch of candidates jumped in. Doug Lamborn ultimately won, and two years later, when I was dipping my Democratic toe into Colorado’s political waters, two of the men whom Lamborn had beaten two years earlier again ran against him in the GOP primary. I did events with both men, and they were, and are, good guys with whom I differ on issues. But both were quite sure they were the best candidate to defeat Lamborn in the Republican primary, so neither would drop out. The result was that they split the “anti-Lamborn” vote, and Lamborn squeaked through with a plurality win.

The lessons of 2008 and 2016 would seem to be clear, at least to me: When a number of similarly oriented candidates split the “reasonable middle” vote, a more extreme candidate can win out, at least to the nomination stage. I worry that the Dems are now repeating the GOP’s mistakes of 2016, in that there are several running for the “moderate” label, with Klobuchar, Biden, Buttigieg, and especially Bloomberg carving up the votes – I’m guessing about 60% overall – of all those who don’t want Bernie as the nominee That very action may end up actually securing Bernie the nomination, and I’m quite certain Bernie loses to Trump head to head, once the GOP oppo machine kicks into high gear with anti-Bernie commercials.

So, what’s a party to do? The first thing is to take a good look in the political mirror, and behave responsibly, and for the greater good. That’s what my old boss U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet did, promptly, after finishing poorly in New Hampshire. And before it’s too late, several of those centrist candidates should drop out, to clear the stage for the candidate or two with the very best chance of beating back the Bernie charge and then winning in November. My gut tells me that is Klobuchar, but I admit that Bloomberg’s money skews the scale a bit.

So come on, Dems, let’s think about taking one for the team, and placing the greater good before personal gain. Otherwise, we may be looking at four more years of a stunningly dishonest and dangerous presidency, and Ruth Bader Ginsberg isn’t looking too good these days. So, service before self? It’s a motto that dominated my years in the Air Force. Perhaps that idea could work today in a difficult and troubled political world.

Hal Bidlack is a retired professor of political science and a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel who taught more than 17 years at the U.S. Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs.