I'm still fairly often surprised by the ignorance the liberal bourgeoisie. The Dem voter base began fracturing in the 1980s, with the Reagan Democrats and the start of the real class war. Then, Bill Clinton deeply split the party in the 1990s. That ideological split remains as deep as ever.
Remember Gore vs. Bush? The media people never did quite figure out what happened, and came up with a list of excuses for Gore's defeat -- everything from hanging chads to (black-only) voter suppression to a crisis of lazy people who just didn't feel like voting. Now think a minute: Clinton/Gore had targeted the poor (with some quite ugly results). In Gore vs. Bush, the poor -- and those who get why unrelieved poverty matters -- voted third party or withheld their votes, and the middle class picked Bush. Twice.
The Dem voting base has long consisted of the "masses" -- poor and middle class, workers and the jobless. The poor overwhelmingly voted for Obama on the chance that he could launch a legit discussion about our poverty crisis. He raised the issue a few times, liberals aren't interested, and Democrats in Congress only worsened conditions for many.
We rejected Clinton in 2008. Then, oblivious to broader political perspectives, liberals chose to begin selling the most anti-poor/pro-war Dem pol available, Hillary Clinton.
When the Party is split and the voting base remains at war with itself, how do you think this will all turn out?