Not voting (in your election)

The DNC or the larger population of representatives in the democratic party?

The latter.

You don't have proof that they are doing it all fully aware and intentionally, and I don't have proof to the contrary.

Sure, but it's almost impossible to actually 100% prove anything the way you're implying, especially as it applies to a group of people that large. What we can do is notice that take the null hypothesis (the idea that most Democratic federal and state-level politicians aren't actively malicious) and see how well it explains their actions. The answer is: It absolutely doesn't. You know it doesn't, which is why you feel the need to present alternative explanations and what-ifs for why they're acting the way they're acting. The fact of the matter is that while we can't be 100% certain, we can make an educated guess that's acceptable until evidence emerges to the contrary. This, not what you're doing, is how scientists tackle these sorts of questions.

There are likely many arguments that have convinced them to act as they are acting. Maybe they want to ensure the Republicans look as bad as possible because some campaign consultant told them it will get them a bigger majority during the midterms.

Okay pardon my French, but why the fuck should I or anyone else care about that? Ultimately the important thing about politicians is what they do, not what they believe. Also if what you said is actually the logic they're working under then they're pieces of shit who shouldn't be allowed within five miles of political power, so that's not the defense you think it is..

That's proof of something specific occuring. It doesn't prove why it occurred, or more accurately the motivations behind the action. If there were proof of the motivations, it wouldn't be proof of a widespread conspiracy.

You say that, but you don't provide any compelling explanation (with evidence to back it up) other than a conspiracy. Do you just expect people to give every individual Democratic politician the benefit of the doubt? That's like saying "oh all those cigarettes were bad, but you don't know for sure all cigarettes give cancer." In essence, your argument boils down to telling us to have faith just because.