You might be a ratfucker if you attack party brothers/sisters on the eve of an election

[DirkGently]

166. Well, no. The "activist left" is why people are Democrats.

It's why I'm a Democrat, and I vote in every election. If the whole party was a blob of Third-Way Wall Street apologists, I might sit within the party because Republicans are so terrible, but I wouldn't be terribly interested in elections, because what difference would it make?

People aren't Democrats because they wish everything could be like Republicans want it to be, but in a different colored suit.

They want "change." They have complaints. Criticisms. Principles they feel are unmet.

Somehow the DU conserva-Dems (if that's what they are, and there isn't some actual "ratfucking" going on, in precisely the opposite direction suggested) think that people who disagree with them have views that are somehow illegal, and must, by their very existence, lower the success of the Democratic Party.

That is a laughable proposition. Third-way, conservative Democratic politics are not what sells our "brand." No one is rushing to the polls to cast a ballot for "Well, we're not quite as bad as the Republicans."

Dissent not only is not disloyalty, it is the very thing that makes the Democratic Party possible in the first place.

That "activist left" is not only not an impediment to winning elections, it is how we do it.

But we know that already, don't we? The "liberals are ratfuckers" people all said Obama was the complainer's choice; not mainstream and conservative-friendly like Hillary. A naive pipe dream, blah blah, etc. Right?

How'd that work out?