Reply #170: Why would they vie for its support?

[BzaDem]

The truth is that the vast majority of the movement would vote for the Democrat anyway (despite what you may read on some message boards). As for the ones that don't, it is far easier for the party to flip someone in the middle from R to D than it is to flip someone that might ever consider not voting for the D. In fact, they get twice the electoral benefit from doing so -- the margin changes by 2 instead of 1. This is in direct contrast to change through the nomination process, where candidates have to move to satisfy a majority of the party.

And while Citizens United does allow those with gobs of money to disproportionally impact the market for ads, that only helps them so far as the number of people that let their vote be swayed by ads. As horrible a ruling as it is, it does not prevent someone from ignoring the ads, spending an hour to figure out candidate positions, and voting accordingly. In any case, Citizens United (and the rest of the "free speech" absolutist decisions) are not going anywhere until Democrats win enough successive Presidential elections to replace conservative justices.

Often, the most idealistic and intuitive proposals are the ones that describe exactly how the system doesn't work. Just because one wishes for the system to work a certain way does not mean it does or ever will. The road to change is very messy, and it almost always involves compromises and supporting of politicians who from an absolute perspective (as opposed to in relative terms) does not share many of one's own views.