This case is a bit different, because it's not merely a policy preference, but an accusation of a bad faith metagame strategy of "intentionally breaking government and wile complaining that it's broken".
You may disagree with a policy, but that doesn’t mean the party isn’t completely upfront about it.
Meta game stuff does well in fundraising and the primaries even if not the general election because everyone already shares most of the party’s core beliefs. It’s all about convincing people your strategy will get those core ideas in place. Voter disenfranchisement being a popular example.
Also, many positions seemed stupid to many voters. That doesn’t make them useless as long as there is some perceived net benefit.
