The biggest reversal so far is on fracking.  Biden said unequivocally that he would ban it.  After losing ground in PA and MN, he now says he won't ban it.  

Biden was nebulous on defunding police.  He said he wouldn't defund, but he would "re-direct some police funding to other programs."  Then the riots became an issue for Dems and now he says he is going to increase funding to law enforcement.  

Biden is also now promising a middle class tax cut, which will necessarily impact spending on some of the progressive programs in his platform (although nobody actually believes there will be a Biden tax cut).

As to your second question, I didn't take it as snarky.  It was hilarious, but you raise a good point- Progressives have always dealt with this, so its fair to ask why this year is different.  And in some ways it isn't.  Progressives didn't come out in large numbers to support Clinton.  

However, I would argue they are more energized than ever as a result of the successes they've enjoyed during the last few years.  Young progressive candidates are beating entrenched establishment candidates in Dem primaries, their priorities are getting more attention in Congress, and their views are gaining more traction than ever among the public.  Because of that, a betrayal by the party would be all the more deflating to them.   

I also think you lean too hard into progressives as being the "important base" of the Democratic party.  Listen, in elections this tight they're all fought on the margins.  So, yes, "progressives" are important.  But they aren't the be all/end all to the party nor do I think them so dogmatic as to expect every wish to be granted otherwise they'll bail.  

Much more than 2016, I see Democrats realizing that a second Trump term is an existential threat to not only rule by one party, but the entire Democracy.  I have much more optimism than you do that our divisions will unite us rather than divide us. Personally?  I'd vote for a shoe, a literal, actual, worn-on-the-foot shoe than cast a vote for Trump. And I get that same feeling from the myriad of Democrats in our coalition.  

I'm nervous about 2020 in a way that I wasn't in 2016 and I honestly think that's a good thing.  Outline how you think we'll lose all you want, but I don't think you're really listening. 

Historically democracies that have more political parties with narrower coalitions and more narrowly focused platforms are inherently unstable.

I think progressives are the biggest existential threat; not because I disagree with them (which I do), but because I see them having the potential to shatter the Democratic party, which would either move us in the direction of one party rule for a long period of time, or destabilize our democracy by eroding the two party system.

I think Trump contributes to the problem by using caustic and divisive rhetoric, but I think biased media on both sides are exacerbating the problem more than Trump or Dem leaders.

And then there's us.  Almost everyone I know says they would like to see a return to civil discourse, but that desire is not reflected in most of our social media or in the way I often hear us speak to each other about politics.  

I'd love to spend more time talking about comics, but at any given time it seems like the topics for the last day only have one or two threads about comics.  After reading what people are posting about, comics just seam trivial, and I feel drained of my enthusiasm to discuss them- which is a bummer, because I have loved comics since I was 3 or 4 years old in the early 70s.  

That's The Washington Post on October 24, 2016.

From the article:

"The election is in 15 days. And the electoral map just keeps looking grimmer and grimmer for Donald Trump. We are making three changes to The Fix map this week, all favoring Hillary Clinton."

The Economist, same date:

"Polls from past presidential elections do not bode well for Mr. Trump"

CNN, July 2015:

Note the smug overall tone.

Denial and wishful thinking are powerful forces indeed, and by now folks should've smartened up on these kinds of "expert analyses".

But here we are now. Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it and all that.

The key is that people vote!   Do not assume anything.

And the other key is that all the votes get counted.  Which sadly is not a given.

Third World Banana Republicer's take here (we don't actually have bananas here but I'll take it anyway lol): the "blame" is not entirely in one party, not in the slightest. The US voters had elected Obama twice, the second one by a landslide. How did this catastrophe happen then, on the Democrats' watch? Same country, same voters.

I was in the US actually for a few weeks in 2016. The "vibe" I got was that Trump was going to win. Same vibe I'm getting now from afar. "Expert Analyses" and all. As I said numerous times in this thread, you need to have a candidate people are excited to vote for. Hillary wasn't it, and Biden even less so. 

Obama was. Personality, charisma and momentum go much further than progressive/conservative, "extreme progressive" (no such thing in the US), moderate, center, etc. 

People don't think like that, cable news does. 

Come on now.

Definite agree on that. But I'm not seeing a lot of action from the Democratic Party. And obviously, I really, really, hope I'm wrong in my pessimistic view.

If "scumbag tricks" being played were the standard for elections being "stolen" than every election in the history of the world has been stolen.

Marc