See, your problem is that you have no factual argument at all. The people you call moderates have been in charge of your party for decades. The data shows decades of stagnating wages, an explosion in inequality, crumbling infrastructure, a huge growth in private debt, a pending environmental crisis, among other things. Your party has also collapsed, is losing support as we speak. The fact is that those moderates share the government with people well to their right, and they are as bad as can be as far as negotiating on policies that are a net positive for a majority of the country. What is fantasyland is thinking that anyone but people in your economic class would welcome a politician not interested in structurally changing anything. You don’t really care about policy, or the impact of those policies. If you did, you wouldn’t be making the arguments you do all the time, and you would be able to wrap your head around the very basic things you feebly argue against. You would have an actual argument worth a damn if the data didn’t show this stuff, if your party hasn’t been so utterly wiped out, if your party isn’t losing support among the public now and even support from millennials because of how bad it is. Your nominee of choice lost to Trump, she was that bad.
“They will occupy committee seats, giving Democrats majorities on committees”
Who is they? Can you show me that actual progressives have willingly been given actual power within your party, especially at the top? Has the DCCC fought, once, for the more progressive candidate? Where is the evidence that your friends in the party will willingly give support to people on the left? Nowhere, and you know it. That is why the invented a position for Ellison after he lost to Perez, and why they gave Sanders the silly position of outreach coordinator, or whatever it is. No actual power. And even if they have, if there is Bernie and a handful of others, and they share a party with people like Schumer, Pelosi, Manchin and the like, and they collectively have to negotiate with people well to the right of center and popular opinion, what will be the outcome?
Besides, this thread is about Democratic Socialists winning. That is something that is new, it does represent a radical break from the past. Look what the DA in Philly is doing, for example. A corrupt, “moderate” Democrat winning means nothing. Again, you couldn’t let people be happy about Democratic Socialists winning, you had to come here and rain on peoples’ parade and mock them, belittle them for caring about things you don’t and holding views to your left. It says a lot about you and your motivations as far as posting here.
“It does matter, it matters a lot, especially when the other party controls the White House and the Supreme Court.”
Well, since your party has no actual coherent vision and doesn’t offer to really structurally change anything in a way that benefits working people, the poor and the environment, what it ultimately means is that your party may, may, be in a position to play (weak) defense against the far right. There is no alternative vision to go on, so going on the offensive is impossible, your party doesn’t stand for anything, there is no logical coherence policy wise, so if all things work out perfectly with the “moderates” still firmly in charge, we might be able to lessen some of the destructive impacts that the right’s policies will cause. That is the best case scenario, managing the decline, slowing it down. I would be so happy to know that my little boys could go to college and not go massively into debt in order to do that. I would be so happy to know that they have healthcare if they get sick, and don’t have to operate in an inefficient wreck of a system dominated by private insurance companies. But that won’t happen, it won’t, unless more democratic socialists win, and it seems that you really don’t want to see that come about.