> Some parties tolerate or use corruption more than others
Evaluating this is inherently politicized. Is defense spending keeping the country safe from China and Russia and funding the creation of things like the internet, or is it a giveaway to defense contractors? Is government healthcare spending saving lives, or is it a giveaway to drug companies? The answer is complicated and subjective and people will believe what they want to believe.
But it's telling that both parties receive big money from big corporations who don't give altruistically. If one party is more corrupt than the other, it's not for lack of competition.
> If you mean 'no party is perfectly clean', that's not meaningful, like saying 'nobody is perfectly honest': some people are far more honest than others.
Some people are far more honest than others is the point. We have some idea who the dishonest people are. Let's get rid of them independent of which party they're in.
> If you don't hold the parties to account for their organized behavior, then they have no incentive to stop.
So go focus on defeating the specific Republicans who are the most corrupt instead of the ones who are the most vulnerable.
And you don't have to replace Adam Schiff with a Republican. Go replace him with a better Democrat. But spend your resources getting rid of people like him instead of trying to destroy some incumbent moderate in a swing state who was one of the few people doing the right thing in a party doing the wrong thing.
And hey, if you remove some corrupt and dishonest people from the party you like, maybe they'll win the majority more often.