> would gladly use similar mechanisms - so they wouldn't change structurally that much even when they get to the levers.
To address the first part, «similar mechanisms», the Dems realize too late that the GOP had stopped playing the same 'game', as in: the rule of law, respecting institutions, not overstepping the boundaries. They would not gladly use similar mechanisms, because it would mean that no party in the USA would be a democratic rule-abiding party. You would end with a Russia governance style, where 'might makes right' rules instead of the law. In other words: maffia governance.
That is why rules alone wouldn't save a democracy. If you can get away with ignoring them, the rules are dead
The second part, «so they wouldn't change structurally», is a real problem. There is quite a bunch of senators and people clinging to their position and their networks, standing in the way of real chance. Franklin D. Roosevelt had the same problems.
The moneyed interests are a big problem too. From a distance I think AOC is the most clear-headed and general interest driven person, but she has to overcome established interests in the Democratic Party. That requires money and backing from influential people.
And frankly, the press might sometimes sound critical about current affairs (out of necessity, they have to maintain strata-specific degrees of credibility), but they don't raise the alarm (which has been several years overdue). For some politicians and power brokers, just facing up to the consequences of their (in)actions would be too unpleasant, let alone they would want to give up their interests. So they gladly let themselves be lulled to sleep. If the editorial boards would stop down-playing and bullshitting, those "all is more or less fine" people would start to face electoral heat, but you can safely bet the corporate incentives aren't aligned with that.