@snoopydawg One: Bernie Sanders sold out his own movement. Twice. (Here I might add that one of the splinters of the movement Sanders himself destroyed was actually a third party option, the "People's Party," and that it might have succeeded in doing something had it not been monkeywrenched by its twit founder, Nick Brana).

Two: It's never been this bad for the Democrats. They are now on the hook for a genocide and a completely unnecessary war that has killed hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian troops and brought Europe to ruin. They are currently provoking nuclear war with an incompetent President on his way out. They've pissed off the donor class, twice, once when they stuck with Biden after the first debate with Trump, and again after Harris' campaign finances were revealed (see video above). Their idea of domestic policy has been completely captured by the Peter G. Peterson Foundation. They have rigged three primaries in open air. They lie all the time, now, and their lies can be easily exposed, now. The lying thing is important because it's now common knowledge that the Dems do not communicate. They just issue communiques, and you can support or reject them. Their propaganda arm, Comcast, is ditching its cable sector.

And there's nowhere to go but down, because they've either co-opted or destroyed any internal opposition that might once have arisen against them. Should we wait a few cycles to see how long the Republican trifecta in DC lasts? Or maybe when spring comes to America next year it will be time to execute the plan I've suggested here? Somebody is going to do this.

#4.1

Bernie Sanders. He got lots of donations and he had a yuge following and still the democrats cheated him out of the primary. How do you prevent that happening again? People gave him money that they couldn’t afford to give him and when he was cheated he folded lickity split.

Plus democrats are very successful in suing the Green Party off the ballot. Then there’s the games the intelligence agencies play in our elections.

@fire with fire As regards:

Throughout all of the decades since 1972, I never heard anybody, of any philosophical bent, indicate any desire whatsoever to subvert the Democratic Party. The focus was always on getting elected, rather than controlling the "Party."

The notion that well-intentioned liberals were going to be able to do anything with the Democratic Party has appeared to me as laughable since, I don't know, 1992, when I joined the Green Party in California. Thus my choice of "subvert." If you like, you can substitute "take over" or "get elected within" for "subvert." The Democratic Party will allow nice liberals to "get elected" if they exist in really marginal locations. And then said politicians will be co-opted.

The superdelegates were created "in the 1980s," no? And the 1980s, specifically in suburban Boston, was the decade and the place in which the Democratic Party was consciously redesigned to be what it has been since then: the party of Michael Dukakis.

As for:

my response is what has that to do with my tactical opinion that it is harder to fight capitalism at the ballot box than it is to fight it head on?

How is this an either-or? Do both!

#5.1 but I honestly do not understand your point here. I was a Democrat until 2017. I organized my precinct for George McGovern in 1972, and I was elected to be a delegate to the Texas State Convention. As a union staff employee for most of my adult life since then I was required to walk precincts most election cycles, and do other work for Dem candidates. I knew a couple of professional politicians personally: Jim Mattox, who served in Congress for several terms, thanks mainly to the efforts of the Dallas labor community going door to door campaigning. He later got elected Texas Attorney General; and Oscar Mauzy, a labor lawyer who got elected to the State Senate, and later to the Texas Supreme Court. Throughout all of the decades since 1972, I never heard anybody, of any philosophical bent, indicate any desire whatsoever to subvert the Democratic Party. The focus was always on getting elected, rather than controlling the "Party." Meanwhile, I represented the unions that employed me at meetings of lefty organizations like Jobs With Justice. I saw plenty of woke stuff at such meetings, like fretting over pronouns, but not ever so much as a peep about subverting the Democratic Party or even taking it over as an ongoing effort.

Maybe you are referring to politically motivated activists who want to turn the Dem Party institution into a socialist juggernaut. If that is whom you are referring to, my response is what has that to do with my tactical opinion that it is harder to fight capitalism at the ballot box than it is to fight it head on? Like impossible versus doable.