Does the Democratic Party feud show that identity politics is destructive?

[Tartarus Sauce]

Nobody cares outside of Resistance Twitter.

True, but the Democrats are more factional than Republicans.

The GOP falls in line, the Democrats are too fractious and factionalize, that's how Bush 2000 and Trump 2016 won.

The Green Party laps it up.

Democrats have nearly always been more factional than Republicans, particularly since the New Deal era. That's what happens when you have a party historically consisting of a broad coalition of loosely connected interest groups pitted against a more homogenized party organized largely around the same set of ideological principles.

This current "controversy" is a nothingburger compared to the fractures that have rocked the Democrats in the past.

[Tartarus Sauce]

And as an addendum to my previous comment, the thing that OP’s question completely misses the point on is that the current feuding within the Democratic Party has little to do with identity politics. It’s internal tension between the progressive wing complaining about the party establishment being too business friendly and the party establishment getting annoyed at the progressive insurgents for being rowdy and uncooperative.

I mean sure, they’ll smack each other over identity issues in the primary, but nobody is going to threaten to stay home because of that come Election Day or switch to voting for Trump. The people with the greatest probability of being alienated by the current party conflict would be anti-establishment progressives who might get upset that the nominee is somebody they consider too corporatist. Not because somebody was “too woke” or not woke enough. Anybody getting triggered by the identity politics of the Democrats has already either left the party or was never a Democrat to begin with. It’s not going to cause any major fissures among current Democratic voters.

[Tartarus Sauce]

And as an addendum to my previous comment, the thing that OP’s question completely misses the point on is that the current feuding within the Democratic Party has little to do with identity politics. It’s internal tension between the progressive wing complaining about the party establishment being too business friendly and the party establishment getting annoyed at the progressive insurgents for being rowdy and uncooperative.

I mean sure, they’ll smack each other over identity issues in the primary, but nobody is going to threaten to stay home because of that come Election Day or switch to voting for Trump. The people with the greatest probability of being alienated by the current party conflict would be anti-establishment progressives who might get upset that the nominee is somebody they consider too corporatist. Not because somebody was “too woke” or not woke enough. Anybody getting triggered by the identity politics of the Democrats has already either left the party or was never a Democrat to begin with. It’s not going to cause any major fissures among current Democratic voters.

AOC’s chief of staff all but called Sharice Davids racist, the “Squad” hinted that Pelosi is racist, and the official Twitter account of the Democratic party told him to shut up. But there is no feuding in the Democratic party, and it has nothing to do with identity politics.

There are these places called swing districts where people called swing voters vote on many things, including identity politics. Democrats would not hold the House without these districts.

Most Democrats don’t care about those types of dumb feuds that happen over Twitter. I didn’t even know this was what the feud was over and I doubt many other Democrats do either, but the progressive vs. establishment feud is far more salient for your average party voter. 

Pretty much all of the problematic bomb throwers live in safe D districts. Am I supposed to believe that the voters in David’s district are going to punish her for being insulted by AOC’s chief of staff over identity politics? Nobody cares about that kind of garbage other than always online activists.