Can you elaborate on that a little? I frankly have no idea where that's going. Trump was indeed elected instead of Clinton. That's not because the people who nominated her were secretly actually progressive but accidentally voted for the wrong person.
if clinton was "historically appealing," she would have very handily beaten trump because there would have been a turnout commensurate with that support. but that isn't what happened, and it's an uphill battle to rationalize why people didn't vote for what they supposedly would vote for.
you're conflating what people say they support with what consultants say people will support. this played out once again last year. millions of people very clearly said their vote was dependent upon a pivot gaza. the consultants said it was not an issue and to ignore it. guess who was right.
I never made the claim that they were the same. Indeed, I agree with you that the split in sentiment over Palestine doomed Harris's campaign. Just don't go thinking that it would have gone better had she changed her perspective. A lot *more* than millions very clearly supported Israel at the time.
The fact is that Russia and Israel set up a no-win scenario for the Democratic party. The election was a trap, and we still haven't found a way out. There is zero reason to think the party is any more united today or will be in 3 more years.
And it's not because the party leadership is doing its best to keep progressives out (which they are) but rather because most of the voters are not progressive. Something like 30% of them are, and they feel such spite for liberals today that many will no longer compromise on certain issues.
Now, you can blame whomever you want -- the voters who won't compromise or the politicians who won't compromise (because they would be ostracized or killed) -- but they shall not band together. I don't see how they can ever win another presidential election.