That question really sums up this interesting column by Thomas Edsall. His thesis is that Democrats are in real trouble because the only path out of the current quagmire the party is in would be to moderate. But that's not something the party's increasingly woke base will allow them to do. The whole essence of woke culture is to make every issue one of moral certitude where no political compromise can intrude. Simply put, they don't want to talk about it, they want you to comply or else.

He opens by noting some survey results that show voters believed Trump was closer to them politically than Harris.

Polling suggests that Trump is ideologically closer to the median voter than Kamala Harris. Third Way, a centrist Democratic think tank, conducted a post-election survey asking voters to place themselves, Harris and Trump on a scale ranging from zero (very liberal) to 10 (very conservative). The mean response was 2.45 for Harris, 7.78 for Trump and 5.63 for all voters.

He ties this to the apparent realignment of the parties, with Democrats becoming the party of white, college-educated people and Republicans becoming the party of blue collar workers. The Democrats appear to be rudderless but drifting further left even as there are clear signs a majority of Americans have had enough.

Controversies over pro-Palestinian demonstrations and expressions of antisemitism have forced the resignation of presidents of some of the nation’s most prestigious universities.

The two liberal cable networks, CNN and MSNBC, have experienced sharp post-election declines in viewership...

In city after city, voters have ousted liberal district attorneys — many with campaigns backed by George Soros.

The solution to this problem is to moderate enough to try to reclaim power. William Galston, a senior fellow at Brookings, told Edsall the party needs to stop being pushed into a corner by left-wing groups.

A political party, as Galston put it, echoing Justice Robert Jackson in 1949, “is not a suicide pact, and advocacy groups should stop pressuring elected officials to take positions that they cannot defend during elections.”

How does that translate in practical terms?

Galston emailed his suggestions. For one, “Democrats must agree on an approach to immigration that can command majority support, even if left-leaning immigration lawyers denounce it.”

That sounds sensible but will the woke base allow it? A political scientist at Duke tells Edsall they'll have to or the party will just keep losing.

The apostles of an ethics of pure conviction — the uncompromising pursuit of intolerant moral postulates, no matter what may be the sacrifices, trade-offs and prospects — will have to give way to an ethics of responsibility that weighs the opportunities to create political majorities, even if more far-reaching objectives of Democratic politics, as interpreted by this or that party wing, have to be put on the back burner, and probably permanently.

That's a clever way of saying the woke ideologues will have to shut up, possibly forever, if the party ever hopes to return to power. 

Does anyone think that's likely to happen? I don't. The woke are ideologues with a revolutionary mindset. They will not be silent and the will not stop trying to push their losing agenda on Democrats because, above all else, they are absolutely certain they are on the right side of history. The people who brought you defund the police have 10 more great ideas they want to try. 

There's no moderation coming from people who've made that kind of partisan hubris the centerpiece of their identities. It's almost enough to make me feel sorry for Democrats.