It's Pragmatic to have a Voice at the Table.

[Soontir C'boath]

Probably the number one reason I have encountered from Democrats about politicians like Bernie and AOC is that their policy positions are not pragmatic when passing legislation. But perhaps one of the main reasons to have people like them in office is to reshape the political conversation around their policies just as say, Andrew Yang and the idea of UBI have become prolific in this year's Presidential election cycle. While the possibility of passing legislation "may be slim", it is pretty clear that even having a politician in office who voice and demand these policies are considered a danger to the lack of accountability of these corporations, banks, etc and in the end it is actually pragmatic to have them in power. And the more voices we have in office, the more powerful we can fight them off.

We have seen things accomplished off the legislative field too. Just off the top of my head in regards to Amazon alone which clearly has massive political power, Bernie Sanders still made Amazon institute a $15 minimum wage. AOC fought off Amazon from building a mega corporate stronghold in NYC that would've at the same time received massive subsidies from the government.

TL;DR version: There is simply no good damn reason in safe blue seats, they should be governing as if they'll lose to a Republican.

Wall Street giants including the CEOs of Goldman and Blackstone are pouring money into the campaign to defeat AOC in a June primary

Saloni Sardana

Some of Wall Street's most prominent names have donated thousands of dollars to Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez's opponent in the upcoming Democratic primary in New York, data from the FEC shows.

Federal Election Commission data shows that donors including Goldman Sachs' CEO David Solomon, Blackstone's Stephen Schwarzman, and hedge fund behemoth Paul Tudor Jones have given to the campaign of Michelle Caruso-Cabrera.

The story was first reported by the Financial Times.

Caruso-Cabrera, a former CNBC reporter, is going up against Ocasio-Cortez to secure the Democratic nomination for New York's 14th congressional district on June 23.

The primary is significant as it would pave the way for the winner to be the favorite for the election taking place in November as the 14th district — which covers the eastern part of the Bronx and much of northern Queens — is a Democratic stronghold.

Stephen Schwarzman, co-founder of Blackstone has donated $2,800 to Cabro-Cabrera's campaign. A further five Blackstone employees have donated the same amount to her campaign as well.

David Solomon, chief executive of Goldman Sachs also backed Caruso-Cabrera to the tune of $2,800, along with three other Goldman employees.

Paul Tudor Jones, the billionaire founder of the Tudor Investment Corporation also gave $2,800 to Caruso-Cabrera's campaign.
A number of other donors to Caruso Cabrera's campaign include staff at Wall Street firms including Evercore, Elliott Management, and Apollo Global Management.

Caruso-Cabrera has raised just over $2 million so far, while Ocasio-Cortez's campaign has received more than $10.5 million, FEC data shows.
Read more: BANK OF AMERICA: Buy these 13 cheap stocks that have unexpectedly strong finances, making them great bets for the next phase of the rally

The median size of Ocasio Cortez' donations is around $10, according to a Financial Times analysis of FEC filings and the online fundraising platform ActBlue. The FT reported while Caruso-Cabrera has received more generous contributions, Ocasio Cortez leads the way in smaller donations.

Republican economist Larry Lindsey, told the FT: "Michelle knows more about the world and how things work than probably a solid majority of Congress."

Caruso-Cabrera has been a controversial figure in the Democratic race as she was registered as a Republican until 2015.

She authored a book called "You Know I'm Right: More Prosperity, Less Government" in 2010 where she claimed Ronald Reagan, a Republican who served as president from 1981 to 1990, was her favourite president of all time.

Ocasio-Cortez told the FT: "It's not surprising that Republicans would finance the campaign of a life-long Republican in a Democratic primary."
She added: "While we have pushed against corporate power with policies that favour everyday working Americans, those donors prefer to bankroll a candidate who answers to Wall Street over the needs of our constituents."

[The Romulan Republic]

It is inaccurate to frame "Democrats" collectively as hostile to the likes of Sanders and AOC- especially since AOC is herself a Democrat, and Bernie is basically one in all but name (caucuses with the Democrats, ran for President in the Democratic primary, votes with the Democrats on numerous issues).

But yeah, I really hate the "electability" argument for running Centrists and implementing Centrist policy. Its especially frustrated because the sudden shift in support from Bernie to Biden, as well as numerous polls of Americans' views on different policies, suggests that a lot more people backed Sanders and many of his views than ended up actually voting for him- they just went for Biden because he was deemed safer. Which I do understand, given the stakes in this election and the history of Left-wing candidates failing to win the Presidency in America, but at this point that is starting to seem like a self-fulfilling prophecy. Bernie lost because people thought he would lose. And even if Biden was more electable at the time, I'm willing to bet that Bernie would be way ahead of Trump too, given the events of the last few months.

My philosophy is pretty much "Vote progressive (socialist where possible) in the primary, Democrat in the general". Never vote for a Centrist candidate in the primary because you think they're "more electable", especially not in a safe blue seat. Vote your convictions- the primary is where you can do so with relatively low risk, and where you often have the widest range of choices as a voter available.

[Dominus Atheos]

Probably the number one reason I have encountered from Democrats about politicians like Bernie and AOC is that their policy positions are not pragmatic when passing legislation. But perhaps one of the main reasons to have people like them in office is to reshape the political conversation around their policies just as say, Andrew Yang and the idea of UBI have become prolific in this year's Presidential election cycle. While the possibility of passing legislation "may be slim", it is pretty clear that even having a politician in office who voice and demand these policies are considered a danger to the lack of accountability of these corporations, banks, etc and in the end it is actually pragmatic to have them in power. And the more voices we have in office, the more powerful we can fight them off.

As you might know, what you are describing is basically the Overton Window, the relatively narrow range of "mainstream ideas" out of the wide possibilities of new and old ideas that sound workable to someone somewhere.

When I first started supporting Bernie this cycle, my exact thoughts where "I'm supporting Bernie because I want him to pick up the oveton window and sprint as far left with it as he can possibly take it and hopefully drop it at least right in front of Elizabeth Warren."

Any other far left thinkers and doers who are capable of the same effect proudly have have my support

[Knife]

Democrats are a large range, then there are Lefties and Liberals and others who aren't even Democrats. When you say "Democrats are actively hostile to ..." XYZ, what you're saying is that the established system of how money and power are exchanged in America won't like those ideas.

[Soontir C'boath]

It is inaccurate to frame "Democrats" collectively as hostile to the likes of Sanders and AOC- especially since AOC is herself a Democrat, and Bernie is basically one in all but name (caucuses with the Democrats, ran for President in the Democratic primary, votes with the Democrats on numerous issues).

*looks at article I posted, reads TRR's reply, big fucking facepalm*
I personally am referring to Democratic voters, however you seem to referring to the Democratic party itself. Either way, you seem to miss a thing about each of them.

1. If you think AOC wouldn't have been grounded to dust if not for her popularity, you are wrong.
2. Bernie ran as an Independent and he was actively opposed by both Republicans AND Democrats even to the point where both parties actually worked together to try and stop him.

[Soontir C'boath]

Oh and how could I forget 3. During the 2016/2020 campaigns, Bernie was constantly derided for not being a real Democrat.

[The Romulan Republic]

It is inaccurate to frame "Democrats" collectively as hostile to the likes of Sanders and AOC- especially since AOC is herself a Democrat, and Bernie is basically one in all but name (caucuses with the Democrats, ran for President in the Democratic primary, votes with the Democrats on numerous issues).

*looks at article I posted, reads TRR's reply, big fucking facepalm*
I personally am referring to Democratic voters, however you seem to referring to the Democratic party itself. Either way, you seem to miss a thing about each of them.

1. If you think AOC wouldn't have been grounded to dust if not for her popularity, you are wrong.

I'd say her popularity effectively refutes the notion that there is a general hostility to progressives among Democratic voters. Nor is she the only example of a progressive who has successfully obtained national-level office through the Democratic Party (the Squad, arguably Warren, some other pro-Bernie Congressmembers).

2. Bernie ran as an Independent and he was actively opposed by both Republicans AND Democrats even to the point where both parties actually worked together to try and stop him.

This ignores that a significant percentage of Democratic Party primary voters voted for him and multiple Democratic members of Congress endorsed him so you can keep pushing the Both Sides narrative while Democrats are running against a literal Nazi.

Sanders is a Democrat in all but name. And he would never have been effective as he has if the entire party was opposed to him, or if he had refused to ever work with Democrats.

You can say "I'm talking about the voters, not the party"- but to some extent the two are the same thing. The voters influence who controls the party. And in either case, the party is divided into multiple wings, not a homogenous entity collectively opposed to progressivism.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Democrats are a large range, then there are Lefties and Liberals and others who aren't even Democrats. When you say "Democrats are actively hostile to ..." XYZ, what you're saying is that the established system of how money and power are exchanged in America won't like those ideas.

This.

Much of the Democrats support base, as with any political party, is more or less going to follow the ideology the party dictates. It is the PARTY that wants this safe, centrist, neo-liberal corporatist candidates, and they convince the voters that is also what they want and what is in their best interests. For all that people on the forum like to talk about how the Republicans have tricked their base into voting against their best interests, the Democrats do the same thing. That is, really, the whole basis of a neo-liberal political party, trying to justify the existence and interests of capital.

[The Romulan Republic]

The thing is, if you poll Democrats on policy, a lot of the voters are pretty far left. Left of Biden, certainly, on numerous issues. There's at least some evidence that the percentage of the party that wanted or would have accepted Bernie Sanders as nominee was considerably higher than the percentage that voted for him, even before he was clearly finished.

They went to Biden because they believed Biden would win, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts. While I actually think Biden has run a pretty good campaign since Sanders dropped out, his campaign during the primaries was very much a paper tiger- he was electable because people believed he was electable.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Which is precisely my point, only that "electable" is a generally meaningless quality that is effectively defined by the Democratic Party itself.

[Soontir C'boath]

Democrats are a large range, then there are Lefties and Liberals and others who aren't even Democrats. When you say "Democrats are actively hostile to ..." XYZ, what you're saying is that the established system of how money and power are exchanged in America won't like those ideas.

This.

Much of the Democrats support base, as with any political party, is more or less going to follow the ideology the party dictates. It is the PARTY that wants this safe, centrist, neo-liberal corporatist candidates, and they convince the voters that is also what they want and what is in their best interests. For all that people on the forum like to talk about how the Republicans have tricked their base into voting against their best interests, the Democrats do the same thing. That is, really, the whole basis of a neo-liberal political party, trying to justify the existence and interests of capital.

Fucking this! Glad this wasn't left to fester while I was gone.

[The Romulan Republic]

The depiction of the Democratic Party as a homogenous block of neo-liberal corporate elites is rather belied by the results of last night's primaries:

https://npr.org/2020/06/24/882787276/bl ... didates-lo

[Soontir C'boath]

The depiction of the Democratic Party as a homogenous block of neo-liberal corporate elites is rather belied by the results of last night's primaries:

https://npr.org/2020/06/24/882787276/bl ... didates-lo

You're an idiot, you realize that? Just because there's a segment of the party that includes people that support Bernie, AOC, etc. You know people like me. Duh. Doesn't mean there is a power structure in place, that rather sees us eat shit, you fucking dumbass.

Here's a hint, if you think the party rather have Bowman and not Engel, especially after many of them explicitly endorsed him including Hillary who made Engel her first endorsement of this election cycle, you're an idiot.

If you think they wanted Mondaire Jones to take the seat, you're an idiot.

If you think they want Booker in there instead of McGrath, you're an idiot.

If you think they wanted...

[Soontir C'boath]

You really do seem to have this unnecessary incessant need to "defend" the party, to the point that it seems you have tied your own identity and self worth to it, so that when anyone say anything to besmirch the party, you get highly offended. Get over yourself.

[Soontir C'boath]

I should also add this. Obviously there has been primary challenges before Bernie came along in 2016, but those were usually between candidates that had very similar platforms or simply had zero chance of upending the incumbent or the status quo. The people that are endorsed by Brand New Congress, Justice Democrats, Democratic Socialists of America, Sunrise Movement, etc however are the type of people that the party would rather see jump off the cliff to the point that anyone who challenges incumbents gets blackballed. And this should be a serious concern, because no one in office deserves to keep their seat by fiat. No one should be able to go unchallenged.

So while you can point out how people like Bernie and AOC and now Bowman, et al are in the party, don't whitewash the challenges that they faced to get to be where they are. For the time being, they are the exceptions to the rule.

The depiction of the Democratic Party as a homogenous block of neo-liberal corporate elites is rather belied by the results of last night's primaries:

https://npr.org/2020/06/24/882787276/bl ... didates-lo

You're an idiot, you realize that? Just because there's a segment of the party that includes people that support Bernie, AOC, etc. You know people like me. Duh. Doesn't mean there is a power structure in place, that rather sees us eat shit, you fucking dumbass.

Here's a hint, if you think the party rather have Bowman and not Engel, especially after many of them explicitly endorsed him including Hillary who made Engel her first endorsement of this election cycle, you're an idiot.

If you think they wanted Mondaire Jones to take the seat, you're an idiot.

If you think they want Booker in there instead of McGrath, you're an idiot.

If you think they wanted...

[FireNexus]

Probably the number one reason I have encountered from Democrats about politicians like Bernie and AOC is that their policy positions are not pragmatic when passing legislation. But perhaps one of the main reasons to have people like them in office is to reshape the political conversation around their policies just as say, Andrew Yang and the idea of UBI have become prolific in this year's Presidential election cycle. While the possibility of passing legislation "may be slim", it is pretty clear that even having a politician in office who voice and demand these policies are considered a danger to the lack of accountability of these corporations, banks, etc and in the end it is actually pragmatic to have them in power. And the more voices we have in office, the more powerful we can fight them off.

I actually had this conversation with my partner right at beginning of quar about Yang. I was explaining that he was an issue candidate, and his issue may have not got traction from his run. But because corona happened at the right time, one of the two major parties was forwarding a serious (if limited) UBI proposal. Probably the most successful issue candidate in history, given how dismissively the idea was treated in the mainstream when he started running on it.

[The Romulan Republic]

You really do seem to have this unnecessary incessant need to "defend" the party, to the point that it seems you have tied your own identity and self worth to it, so that when anyone say anything to besmirch the party, you get highly offended. Get over yourself.

Or maybe I defend the party because it is frequently painted with a very broad brush by people like you, which not only does an immense disservice to the many good people working very hard to make it better, but directly benefits literal Neo-Nazism by undermining and dividing its primary opposition.

But rather than just respond to the point, yet another poster chooses to engage in armchair psychoanalysis as a pretext for character assassination and personal ridicule directed at me. What a surprise.

Look, its really this simple: if Biden and the Democrats win this election, then progressives can keep pushing for what we believe in, flipping primary races, building support, and try again for the Presidency in four years. We can do that because Biden, for all his many, many faults, has shown zero interest in gassing us, putting us in concentration camps, criminalizing all opposition, or postponing or cancelling elections. He has even shown a willingness to at least give us seats at the table, and modify some of his views to be closer to ours.

If we lose this election, however, there will not be future progressive victories. There will be a fascist dictatorship. That may be appealing to accelerationists who believe that reform can only come through pushing society to collapse, but that's not a view most of the country shares, and its also a view that relies on some very dangerous assumptions: that other means of reform cannot succeed, that it will be possible to overthrow Trump successfully once he has amassed that much power, and that what emerges from the ashes (if there is anything left at that point- remember, we've got the climate apocalypse still barelling down on us) will be better than what it replaced.

And even if the revolution does by some miracle win, it will be small comfort to the millions who will likely already be dead. I'm not willing to sacrifice the next wave of covid victims, or the children in concentration camps, because the Democrats aren't good enough.

[Soontir C'boath]

You really do seem to have this unnecessary incessant need to "defend" the party, to the point that it seems you have tied your own identity and self worth to it, so that when anyone say anything to besmirch the party, you get highly offended. Get over yourself.

Or maybe I defend the party because it is frequently painted with a very broad brush by people like you, which not only does an immense disservice to the many good people working very hard to make it better, but directly benefits literal Neo-Nazism by undermining and dividing its primary opposition.

But rather than just respond to the point, yet another poster chooses to engage in armchair psychoanalysis as a pretext for character assassination and personal ridicule directed at me. What a surprise.

I've clearly addressed which part of the party I was referring to and if you haven't noticed I'm part of that Bernie/AOC wing you keep trumping up to defend the party. You may not realized, but I literally LIVE in AOC's district and voted for her and Bernie.

I'm literally that person you're talking about to defend the party.

Look, its really this simple: if Biden and the Democrats win this election, then progressives can keep pushing for what we believe in, flipping primary races, building support, and try again for the Presidency in four years. We can do that because Biden, for all his many, many faults, has shown zero interest in gassing us, putting us in concentration camps, criminalizing all opposition, or postponing or cancelling elections. He has even shown a willingness to at least give us seats at the table, and modify some of his views to be closer to ours.

If we lose this election, however, there will not be future progressive victories. There will be a fascist dictatorship. That may be appealing to accelerationists who believe that reform can only come through pushing society to collapse, but that's not a view most of the country shares, and its also a view that relies on some very dangerous assumptions: that other means of reform cannot succeed, that it will be possible to overthrow Trump successfully once he has amassed that much power, and that what emerges from the ashes (if there is anything left at that point- remember, we've got the climate apocalypse still barelling down on us) will be better than what it replaced.

And even if the revolution does by some miracle win, it will be small comfort to the millions who will likely already be dead. I'm not willing to sacrifice the next wave of covid victims, or the children in concentration camps, because the Democrats aren't good enough.

The fact that you even had to go down this road tells me you have no idea the point I was making in this thread that others here have clearly understood.

[Soontir C'boath]

You're entire fucking argument is that since Sanders and AOC are there, the party was fine with them. That's it. When at the end of the day, Sanders was always a thorn on the side, and they thought Crowley was going to crush AOC.

You're argument is as thin as the soup a family has to last on for a month.

It's just so frustrating trying to have an argument with you. I rather argue with Republicans because at least I can at least needle on why they think the way they do and at least plant an idea in their head. With you, it's like arguing with a robot with a childish black and white view of the world.

[Ziggy Stardust]

The fact that TRR seems unable to distinguish the differences between the Democratic Party as an institution (i.e. DNC), individual candidates running on specific platforms, and the voting block of their constituents actually says a LOT about the way contemporary American politics operates, and how partisan identification has become so ingrained as a moral prerogative.

[The Romulan Republic]

The fact that TRR seems unable to distinguish the differences between the Democratic Party as an institution (i.e. DNC), individual candidates running on specific platforms, and the voting block of their constituents actually says a LOT about the way contemporary American politics operates, and how partisan identification has become so ingrained as a moral prerogative.

The party is ultimately composed of individual politicians and individuals, holds a range of positions on different issues, and attacks on "the party" are used to undermine the efforts of those individuals who are genuinely trying to use it as a vehicle for progress (including such progressive figures as AOC and Bernie Sanders, who have done far more to advance progressive politics in America than some Bernie or Busters shit-posting on the internet ever have or ever will).

It is also incorrect to characterize my position as one of blind partisan loyalty, or the idea that loyalty to the Democratic Party is a "moral prerogative". It is ultimately largely a pragmatic decision, based on the fact that there is no other nation-wide organization with the power to block the Republican Neo-Fascist party from power. Nor is there time to create one before the November election.

But don't let that stop you from telling me what my own thoughts are, and then using that to dismiss and what I'm actually saying.

[Ziggy Stardust]

The party is ultimately composed of individual politicians and individuals, holds a range of positions on different issues, and attacks on "the party" are used to undermine the efforts of those individuals who are genuinely trying to use it as a vehicle for progress (including such progressive figures as AOC and Bernie Sanders, who have done far more to advance progressive politics in America than some Bernie or Busters shit-posting on the internet ever have or ever will).

The sheer quantity of stupidity you have managed to cram into this one little paragraph is admittedly quite impressive.

By your logic, we can't criticize the GOP either, because it is "ultimately composed of individual politicians and individuals and blah blah blah more dithering nonsense". I mean, fuck, I even tried to make it more explicit to you in my last post that I was referring to the DNC, the specific governing apparatus of the party, but you decide to appeal to some bizarre pseudo-postmodern gibberish that implies no collection of individuals can ever be discussed or criticized because "lol it's composed of DIFFERENT PEEPLE". I mean are you even vaguely aware of what an "organization" is? Of course it's made of individuals, that's the whole point of an "organization". It's the most incoherent possible position you can take to say that we can't pass judgment on the agendas and priorities that an organization collectively decides upon, simply because it is not composed of 100 identical clones who believe the same way about every little thing.

And how the fuck is what I said "undermining the efforts" of progressives? My entire point is that the DNC would be thrilled if we stopped backing those progressive candidates in favor of centrist candidates (like, you know, the one that WON THE FUCKING NOMINATION, which apparently doesn't matter in whatever world you are trying to describe), and are happy to offer token gestures of compromise with the progressive wing of the party without actually offering real change. That's the entire reason we NEED people like AOC and Bernie, in order to strengthen the progressive wing and give it more say over policy.

What is really frustrating is that I KNOW you know this, and you have even said similar fucking things in the past. You more than anyone here was upset about the way the DNC tried to undermine Bernie Sanders back in 2016, as just one example. But no, apparently pointing out that the DNC is heavily invested in a neo-liberal status quo and historically has only grudgingly and gradually accept progressive platforms is somehow undermining the progressive movement

Pull your head out of your ass, dude.

It is also incorrect to characterize my position as one of blind partisan loyalty, or the idea that loyalty to the Democratic Party is a "moral prerogative". It is ultimately largely a pragmatic decision, based on the fact that there is no other nation-wide organization with the power to block the Republican Neo-Fascist party from power. Nor is there time to create one before the November election.

"It's not a moral prerogative!" *goes on to explain how it's a moral prerogative*
I mean Jesus, dude, have you TRIED reading your posts before you hit submit? I don't even disagree that we need to vote for Biden in 2020, despite all of the profound issues I have with him as a candidate and the DNC as an organization. But this is essentially the "lesser of two evils" argument, which is inherently a moral argument, and it's downright bizarre to claim is isn't.

But don't let that stop you from telling me what my own thoughts are, and then using that to dismiss and what I'm actually saying.

But don't let that stop you from trying to pretend your self-contradictory gibberish is a coherent ideology, and then getting upset when people don't understand what your actual point is. (See, I can be smug, too!)

By the way, your understanding of the word "dismiss" is just as shaky as your understanding of the concept of "organization." I'm not dismissing what you are saying, I AM DIRECTLY ADDRESSING WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. For real, what do you actually think these words you are using MEAN?

[The Romulan Republic]

I am not going to engage with yet another rant predicated on putting words in my mouth, and bashing and ridiculing my intelligence and character.

Suffice to say that the Democratic Party is a very diverse organization, ideologically much more so than the modern Republican Party which is now essentially an extension of the Trump crime family. And that a lot of these "criticisms" of it amount to branding the entire party by its most conservative elements, often with the explicit intent of undermining the Democrats electorally.

I am certainly not opposed to electing progressives or efforts to shift the Democratic Party to the Left, as you yourself acknowledge, and as anyone who has read my posts over the last five years is well-aware.

[Knife]

I am not going to engage with yet another rant predicated on putting words in my mouth, and bashing and ridiculing my intelligence and character.

Suffice to say that the Democratic Party is a very diverse organization, ideologically much more so than the modern Republican Party which is now essentially an extension of the Trump crime family. And that a lot of these "criticisms" of it amount to branding the entire party by its most conservative elements, often with the explicit intent of undermining the Democrats electorally.

I am certainly not opposed to electing progressives or efforts to shift the Democratic Party to the Left, as you yourself acknowledge, and as anyone who has read my posts over the last five years is well-aware.

Yes, the people in the Democratic Party are 'diverse'. What everyone is telling you but you won't absorb, is the power and money structure that funds the Democratic party IS NOT!

We're saying, as an analogy, that the Catholic Church is corrupt and dangerous, you you are all 'but Catholics are a large diverse group with some good people'.

[The Romulan Republic]

I am not going to engage with yet another rant predicated on putting words in my mouth, and bashing and ridiculing my intelligence and character.

Suffice to say that the Democratic Party is a very diverse organization, ideologically much more so than the modern Republican Party which is now essentially an extension of the Trump crime family. And that a lot of these "criticisms" of it amount to branding the entire party by its most conservative elements, often with the explicit intent of undermining the Democrats electorally.

I am certainly not opposed to electing progressives or efforts to shift the Democratic Party to the Left, as you yourself acknowledge, and as anyone who has read my posts over the last five years is well-aware.

Yes, the people in the Democratic Party are 'diverse'. What everyone is telling you but you won't absorb, is the power and money structure that funds the Democratic party IS NOT!

We're saying, as an analogy, that the Catholic Church is corrupt and dangerous, you you are all 'but Catholics are a large diverse group with some good people'.

I think its a false analogy. Catholic Priests are not elected, and do not have to respond to political pressures in the way that the Democratic Party's leaders do. Now, I'm not fool enough to believe that politicians always do what the people want-I wouldn't even say that they always should do what the people want. But they do have to at least somewhat answer to public pressure- or risk losing their job. And we've seen that process in action. Not as much or as fast as many of us would like, no- but the forcing out of Amy Klobuchar and addition of Karen Bass as serious VP contenders in apparent response to Black Lives Matter protests, and the formation of the Biden/Bernie joint policy task forces and Biden's Leftward shift on education funding, are all examples of a Centrist "establishment" politician bowing to public pressure. While the wave of recent primary victories by progressives against old guard Democrats is proof of what can happen to them if they take their offices for granted.

Edit: Of course, you could say that this is true of the Republican Party as well, in theory- but only in theory. In practice, its now the Cult of Trump, and the party's hideous direction is what most of its voters want. Indeed, Trump, and the Tea Party before him, can be seen as a result of pressure from a vocal section of the party base effectively forcing out the old guard (albeit this was less a genuine grass roots movement than one engineered by oligarchs). The Democratic Party, for all its faults, does not have the same cult of personality or lockstep unity- while every candidate has their devotees, it is hard to imagine the kind of fawning, slavish loyalty being shown by Democrats in general toward Biden that Republicans tend to show to Trump.

If that changes, I will certainly reevaluate my view of the party's merit.