General Discussion

>>So, more competition in primaries is akin to "Shitting on Democrats and bad-mouthing our party"

Yes. Exactly right. What you have in mind, and what you're calling for amplification of the myth that all of our loyal and competent Democrats are somehow NOT WORTHY of being supported and that they must ALL be subject to senseless and risky primaries. That is the definition of shitting on Democrats and bad-mouthing our party.

The scenario you imagine is not based in reality. The wholesale primarying of incumbents is a fantasy version of politics that only harms stalwart and experienced Democrats, and creates unnecessary division. It perpetuates the lie that every Democrat must pass some sort of "vermont-style" purity test in order to be worthy of serving. That's just complete nonsense.

We need EXPERIENCED leaders in Washington and in our State Houses. The notion of "firing them all" and sending a fresh crop of newbies is absurd. It just doesn't work that way. Plus... on top of that... it will never happen. But in the meantime, those who call for this to take place are perpetuating the myth that all Democrats are somehow "corrupt" or "oligarchs" or "beholden to corporations" or "incompetent" or "too old".

Whenever I hear someone continually gripe about being in opposition to giving a "free pass" that is a big clue that they're an unrealistic and impatient voter, that they want instant results, that they're not willing to compromise, and that any compromise is a sign of weakness (even if it gets us closer to the goals that we seek). The "throw the bums out" philosophy denies our representatives the chance to build coalitions and partnerships, learn the ropes, and get a complete understanding of the legal, legislative, political, and interpersonal dynamics of Washington.

I call it VALUABLE EXPERIENCE, but I suspect that the most cynical and impatient ones among us will deny the importance of experience and connections... and they'll choose to denigrate the Democrat by accusing them of being a "beltway insider" and being detached from the plight of the common-man.

A smarter strategy is one that helps to DEFEAT VULNERABLE REPUBLICANS. A smarter strategy is one that helps to WEAKEN REPUBLICANS and replace them Democrats (preferably) or at the very least, replaces them with someone who's not an insane MAGA Republican. (See? I'm realistic. I see that even in areas that we cannot win, at least having a "normal" Republican can be better than a MAGA republican, and I'd consider that to be kind-of a win... or at least one where compromise and finding common ground is a possibility.)

Fortunately, I am not one of those hyper-idealistic voters who believe that all politics is like a round-robin sporting event. And, as I've mentioned before (but you fail to acknowledge) unnecessary primaries cost money (that could otherwise be used to help defeat the Republican) and they cost political capital too (when the loser or said primary, or the supporters of said loser are unable to get over their disappointment). It's NOT a unifying plan that you have in mind. It's expensive and divisive.

It's one thing to have high standards and high hopes... but those things are only meaningful when paired with a strategy that exists OUTSIDE of the world of unicorns and rainbows.