More hysteria and hyperbole from you. I suspect that conservatives are somewhat more alarmed, note 'somewhat', see the numbers below, because more of them are big mouthed Trumpanzee bigots who simply don't like being called out for what they say and do. Tough shit I say to them, what goes around comes around.
In any case, once again reality doesn't support your claims; not in the '18 midterms nor in the '20 presidential, Senate and House elections were Dems punished for the ownership you attribute to them. That's in YOUR head and not in the heads of enough voters to punish Dems.
The right has the 'ownership' of wanting to cancel elections that don't go their way, not teach history as it actually happened and plenty of attempts at censorship of books that they just don't agree with.
And look, the Independents are not seeing it as you do, as an electoral deal breaker, either.
A November 2021 Hill/HarrisX poll found that 71% of registered voters strongly or somewhat felt that cancel culture went too far, with similar numbers of Republicans (76%), Democrats (70%), and independents (68%) saying so.[62] The same poll found that 69% of registered voters felt that cancel culture unfairly punishes people for their past actions or statements, compared to 31% who said it did not. Republicans were more likely to agree with the statement (79%), compared to Democrats (65%) and independents (64%).[63]
Criticism of the concept
A number of professors, politicians, journalists,[64][65][66] and activists question the validity of cancel culture as an actual phenomenon.[15] Connor Garel, writing for Vice, states that cancel culture "rarely has any tangible or meaningful effect on the lives and comfortability of the cancelled."[14] Danielle Kurtzleben, a political reporter for NPR, wrote in 2021 that overuse of the phrase cancel culture in American politics, particularly by Republicans, has made it "arguably background noise". Per Kurtzleben and others, the term has undergone semantic bleaching to lose its original meaning.[67]
Historian C. J. Coventry argues that the term has been incorrectly applied, and that it more accurately reflects the propensity of people to hide historical instances of injustice.[68] Another historian, David Olusoga, made a similar argument, and said it is not limited to the left.[13][c]
Indigenous governance professor and activist Pamela Palmater writes in Maclean's magazine that cancel culture differs from accountability; her article covers the public backlash surrounding Canadian politicians who vacationed during COVID-19, despite pandemic restrictions forbidding such behavior.[12] Former US Secretary of Labor Eugene Scalia says that cancel culture is a form of free speech, and is therefore protected under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. According to Scalia, cancel culture can interfere with the right to counsel, as some lawyers would not be willing to risk their personal and professional reputation on controversial topics.[69]
Sarah Manavis wrote for the New Statesman magazine that while free speech advocates are more likely to make accusations of cancel culture, criticism is part of free speech and rarely results in consequences for those in power who are criticized. She argues that social media is an extension and reincarnation of a longer tradition of expression in a liberal society, "a new space for historical power structures to be solidified" and that online criticism by people who do not hold actual power in society tends to not affect existing power structures.
She adds that most prominent people who criticized public opinion as canceling still have highly profitable businesses and concludes by saying, "So even if you fear the monster under the bed, it will never do you harm. It can't, because it was never there in the first place. Repercussions rarely come for those in power. Why punch down, when you've already won?"[11]
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
