One thing about Atlas that's always kind of amused me is how certain blue avatars think they can define who the "good leftists" and "bad leftists" are and that there's any reason for actual leftists to take them seriously.
We saw this back when they insisted Tulsi Gabbard could actually win the nomination too.
I think part of their frustration is that they just genuinely don't understand that standard progressives/leftists aren't the target audience of Gray, Greenwald, Gabbard etc. Their target audience is conservatives who want to pretend that they're exposing themselves to an alternate point of view, when all they're really doing is listening to someone else criticize the Democratic Party in a slightly different way.
I wish I agreed with that, but unfortunately there totally is a left-wing (or at least ostensibly "left-wing") audience for people like BJG, Krystal Ball etc. These are people who basically have to constantly reaffirm how Cool and Subversive they are by sh*tting on Democrats, and who love to dismiss any concerns about the GOP's antidemocratic drift as "lib sh*t" (because I guess antifascism is exclusively liberal now?). Basically, they treat being left-wing as an aesthetic and they're mostly concerned with their own sense of superiority over the dumb resistance libs. Some of those people do end up being radicalized into being full-on MAGA types, but I think the majority just keeps floating around into this politically inert crowd and smugly signal how much they hate Democrats and liberals without contributing to left-wing advocacy in any way.
For proof: How well did Tulsi Gabbard's campaign do?
I mean, most of these people think they're too Kewl and Edgy to even vote (it's a bourgeois act don'tcha know?), not even for Tulsi.
But yeah, I know they're not a significant demographic on the electoral level. Sadly though they're significant enough to make the grifts of people like BJG financially viable.
