The proof is in the pudding and we haven't seen a damned thing change with the DNC since he took over. Your claims are the same box full of false future promises we've seen from the DNC for decades.

I think moneyed interests will outcompete progressive will. It doesn't matter to voters who the chair is if they're still seeing more ads for Newsom all throughout the primary and electoral seasons. I don't think the DNC is gonna pull a reverse Hillary and force Newsom out if their base is promoting him in the primaries and I think their base is gonna promote him in the primaries.

I hope you're right, I really do. I just don't think it's enough.

There's still an inordinate amount of money in politics, a huge number of people that aren't paying attention, a continued misunderstanding in how government works, and misattribution to what the President's authority is enough that many people only vote on leap years. There's also too many ideological purists that refuse to vote out of misguided fears that it constitutes an endorsement of the system or that it's ineffective thereby ceding their opportunity to influence to stalwart Dems and waivering centrists.

The right has been working since desegregation to secure their political power and neoliberal ideologies have become a mainstay since the energy crisis. A couple of terrible terms isn't going to be enough to break the ratchet and usurp decades of established power in one election--even if the chair of one of the parties is different now.

If all you want is heads on pikes you can say that. If you want democracy you have to work with the demos your have.

Okay, let me rephrase that: I believe that he believes what he's saying -- I don't think he's trying to "whitewash" the DNC (i.e. I don't think he has an ulterior motive), as your previous comment accused him of. Whether he's actually correct in his assessment might be another matter, but I believe he is expressing it in good faith.

Also, responding to this part separately:

Furthermore, Martin is stating that the party only cares about winning and anything that doesnt help them win is simply a “distraction.” This means if the DNC feels its more popular to have ICE round up and throw immigrants into concentration camps, they’ll do it. If they think more tax cuts for the 1% is popular, they’ll do it. They’re abandoning all pretenses of ideology in favor of populism. They’re not interested in solving problems, but rather winning by telling people what they want to hear.

I think you've got some misconceptions and false assumptions going on here:

1. "Populism" (i.e. listening to the majority, which is the working class) isn't a bad thing. Bernie Sanders and AOC are "populist." The word with a negative connotation that you're looking for is "demagogue" -- that's what Trump is.

2. Your speculation about them deciding to support fascist shit is fearmongering. In reality, that's incredibly unpopular amongst the actual people (as opposed to extremists amplified by sympathetic media) and I don't think they're that stupid that they'd support it by mistake. If anything, moving to "populism" means moving away from that.

3. The DNC's problem up to this point has been exactly the opposite: refusing to do what their voters want and instead catering to what their rich donors want. Frankly, Martin claiming that they want to win (instead of being controlled opposition while raking in corporate donor graft) is the best fucking news I've heard in a while.