I would argue the electorate are not that aware of policies to make that a move.
And the Dems worked hard to co-opt any activist movement.
I think this is where we disagree in that I would argue that the electorate is aware broadly of social progress policies and rejects them in favor of lower taxes.
A larger and larger chunk of the Democratic electorate is the educated professional property owner class. They regularly vote and are progressive when that progressive belief doesn't cost anything to them to enact in their view. If we're sitting here ten days from now and Kamala got 290-310 EVs partially off the back of the professional educated women who are likely going to stick around and be Democratic voters going forward, those women want to keep their health care rights, but they don't necessarily want to build more housing that brings down the value of their property by increasing supply, etc.
Though it might be changing with younger generations who have more access to information and can see these wealthy countries in Europe and East Asia doing just fine trading higher taxes for more services and better quality of life, millennial homeowners are still as likely to be on Next Door complaining about the new apartment complex down the street and their too-high property taxes as the Gen-Xers and Boomers who came before them.
Basically, we're just going to disagree here that it's a case of being unaware vs. being aware, but invested in the trappings of upper-middle class mobility that most Americans are.
And I do think that centrist and center-right Dems worked hard to co-opt losing control of the party to progressives and leftists, but I also think that it says something that they've been able to succeed, but the GOP leadership couldn't run Trump out of the race and nominate Jeb Bush like they really wanted to. That indicates to me that there simply isn't enough of a consistently voting, consistently agitating progressive/leftist wing of the Democratic party to do this. I think that it's very telling that Hillary was able to hold off Bernie in the same election season that Trump destroyed Jeb! and everybody else over on the GOP side.
While fairish, Trump governed as a standard neo-liberal. I’m not sure he would do differently in a second term.
I think this is a fair read of Trump's governance in that term, but I don't think it holds that he would govern the same in a second term, unless you think he's just saying that he's going full jackboots in the streets, but really won't do it. I think he thinks that he has stacked the deck enough to do it if and when he wins and that his second term will look different from the first. Again, we disagree, and you know what? I don't even want to know if you are right about this or if I am. Let's hope we never have to return to this point.
I think the fact that Bernie Sanders even happened showed there is a desire for it. It shouldn’t have and there was no evidence of things moving there during the Bush and Obama years.
I would never argue that there isn't a wing of the Democratic party that has a desire for this, especially as we continue into the Information Age and more people see that "socialism" doesn't mean standing in bread lines for hours before going back to your unheated block apartment like Americans regularly thought in the Cold War days. I agree that there is a desire for these policies. Hell, I desire these policies.
I just don't think that there are enough of us regularly voting in this party to drag things to the left.