The Democratic party has a powerful weapon it doesn't use. To explain: in this country with a prevailing two-party system, each party actually or potentially consists of several sub-parties representing similar but somewhat divergent views. These sub-parties come together unofficially at election time as necessary to meet the challenge of the opposing major party. I, for example, favor the policies of the Green Party, but usually vote in the Democratic column. Bernie Sanders, identified as a Social Democrat, ran under the Democratic Party banner.
The Republican party is currently composed of managers and investors in conservative oligarchical business and financial entities, right-wing white supremicists, fundamentalist Christians, traditional and reactionary conservatives, mostly from "red" states, and perhaps others of an autocratic or religious bent.
The Democratic party potentially consists also of corporate and financial interests (perhaps more liberal), traditional democrats of the Jeffersonian persuasion, activist populist groups fighting for economic and social equality, the majority of the intelligentsia, and the majority of urban constituents suffering from poverty and discrimination of various sorts. By this description, it would appear that the Democratic base is much larger than the Republican.
So why doesn't the Democratic Party dominate in national elections? Aside from suspected foreign influence attributed to Mr. Russolini, we all know there are much larger dirty issues of Republican election manipulation by gerrymandering, voter disqualification, vote counting, skewed campaign financing, and so forth. These issues cannot be resolved without fundamental constitutional changes establishing uniform trustworthy election practices throughout the nation.
So what is the powerful weapon? If the leaders of the Democratic Party would acknowledge the great potential for a progressive movement represented by the common interests of its diversified base, it could act with the power of the incoming administration. It would tell the world now -- not just to its domestic base at election time -- what it would do to undo all the trauma and ill will caused by the Trump administration.
Specifically, it would commit to greatly intensify its contribution to fight global warming. It would renew its dedication and obligations to its European partners in the search for peace and stability in the world. It would rejoin efforts to create fair trade practices with foreign countries. It would rein in the outlandish forces of rampant corporate influence. To minimize poverty at home, it would impose transparency and regulation in all business transactions and alter tax policies to promote a fair distribution of wealth. It would facilitate a high standard of health and education for all. It would protect essential public services from economic fluctuations. It would adhere to noble principles of social justice. It would redirect foreign assistance from military expenditures to peaceful, constructive purposes. It would commit all of its candidates to this program on pain of not supporting them in coming elections, as the Republicans essentially do now. *
* Parts of this paragraph were included in an earlier article: Is Democracy Obsolete?