Yes, I can see your point. However, something needs to fill the airless hole that the dims have created for themselves.
I expect a lot of crying and hand-wringing, perhaps a "summit" of the dim leadership, if you can call it that, but the lefties are so entrenched, I can see no alternative for them except falling on their swords or redifining themselves. Personally, I do not believe that they have the stones or a clue, nor a leader personality that can show them the road into the light.
Being a history prof, let ask your indulgence:
The Dem Party was founded in the 1820s out of a sincere desire on the part of Martin Van Buren to keep the slave/anti-slave split from causing a Civil War. MVB figured if he could organize a party built on PATRONAGE/SPOILS, as opposed to ideology (i.e., how one thought about slavery) he could push the slavery issue on the back burner. Think of it: MVB believed that money could trump ideology, and that people would disregard their anti-slave views for political jobs. But even the Dems of the day who "believed" that still didn't act that way, and slavery steadily crept back into public debate until it shattered the party in 1850.
OK, back to modern times. Party strategists like Carville and others may "know" that they cannot be anti-war, big-government, pro-criminal, anti-property, but as Ann Richards once said of George H.W. Bush, "they jes' cain't hep it!" It's who they are, and no amount of political NECESSITY will change who they are. Clinton hid it for about two election cycles; Carter for one. But it won't work over the long haul. Indeed, one can explain that long tenure in the House by Dems almost solely on the grounds of their chameleon-esque talent for, on the LOCAL level, making themselves look like champions of local government and individuals, while voting 180 degrees opposite on the national level.