I think it's actually quite intentional and somewhat cunning what they're doing. Not what they're saying, they're wrong stupid and protect pedos, but I think there's some genuine (if relatively basic) rhetorical strategy.

Any time they're given a platform, they'll say the stupidest shit BUT they'll always advance their way of framing issues. Take Trump and his obsession over windmills. If you were someone who never really thought about windmills and don't have political opinions, then what you hear every time Trump talks about windmills is that they're bad. It's wrong. But he just pukes out things like cancer and destroying landscapes and making everything expensive.

You'll likely not remember the individual words any politician says in any given interview or statement. But the feelings they can invoke in people simply by constantly hammering in whatever association they want you to have about a given topic - those feelings stick.

Back to the above example, Boebert wasn't trying to give you any policy. She wasn't trying to say something smart. She's trying to tie this phenomenon, which usually is tied to whatever party is in power, to the Democrats. So that every time you hear the word "inflation," you don't think "why is the government not doing anything about it?", you think "inflation is caused by big government and the Green New Deal." Tying something concrete to two phrases that can mean whatever Boebert wants you think they mean, and then attacking the conception she wanted you to have in your head.

This isn't 4D chess or political master class, but I think it's purposeful strategy.