I think it's fair to say that those "with power" are the ones that ought to be blamed, so I lay that on Harris and the DNC vs. the voters. I don't think anyone had illusions that Trump would be good for Gaza and the Palestinians, but neither party was willing to show a difference of opinion except to the speed of Gaza getting leveled.

I would also argue that Gaza was an important point, but not the whole point (or a symptom, not the cause). Democrats continue to think that if they just run the same playbook, clearly the "evil" of Donald Trump will speak for itself and they'll win. It clearly doesn't when he's not in power. The Democrats are spending this time hemming and hawing about bipartisanship. I couldn't find the article I saw recently on Hakeem Jeffries basically saying they have all three branches so we're going to find middle ground between us and them, but I think this from CNN is a great encapsulation. "Don't shut it down, we might get blamed. Don't make a big fuss over everything."

It's the toothlessness that gets to me. Why play nice with the Trump administration? Why not just go for the throat if the Democratic party believes that Trump is the existential threat to democracy they say? The Republicans sure love to whenever there's some opportunistic grift for them and maintain that the Democrats either haven't figured it out or are willingly choosing to ignore it. If there's a strategy to their approach, I cannot wrap my head around it.

So w/r/t the uncommitted movement (and others who looked at Harris v. Trump and just didn't bother turning out), I don't know how else you force the DNC to listen and doubly so if they choose not to collect the necessary data. You shouldn't back a candidate because the party says this is the person we're running or because the other candidate is so much worse. The candidate should listen to the voters and run a campaign that brings people in. If a key voting group isn't on board, it's on the candidate/party to figure out WHY and HOW to include them.