Considering what "THEY" do to Democracy, "stop THEM" is an appropriate message. This sounds like a vicious cycle. Democrats cannot get the programs across we need to get across unless we have workable majorities in the House and Senate. However, voters are angry that we can't pass those programs, they stay home, and Democrats continue NOT to get workable majorities. So they can't pass programs. So voters are angry and don't vote for them, and so on, and so on.

2000 proved that Democrats need to stop hurting the party by trying to "teach it lessons." The midterms proved that voters felt they got the job done in 2008 and 2012 ("Hey, Obama's President; now we get to stay home) so they didn't bother. The "Tea Party" was more than happy to "stop THEM," so they and they mamas made sure they got to the polls. In 2016, again, many voters, including, sadly, people of color, felt that "since nobody black was on the ballot," they didn't need to turn out. Yeah, that worked out. Look at the narrow vote differences in some of those bellwether states. Votes from an urban population would have turned many states from red to blue. Look it up if you don't believe me.

Activists can only win in certain places. The city population that elected AOC is not the same population as the suburbs. She would not win in those places no matter how much we wish it so. Progressives are often niche candidates. They won't win everywhere.