There’s a lot to remark about here. First, I’d point to the writings of left-wing feminists like Roqayah Chamseddine or Amber A’Lee Frost, also drawing attention to their complaint that the ‘identitarians’ or ‘neo-liberals’ or ‘elites’ or ‘instutional democrats’ practice erasure of feminists, completely refusing to engage with any critics of Hillary that aren’t white guys. This is partly behind the complaint that Bernie Bros are fabricated; it’s not that assholes don’t exist, but that those complaining about it choose to focus entirely on the abuse by useful idiots than on real, substantive critiques.

Also, recently, Adolph Reed Jr. gave an interview to Doug Henwood, in which he addresses the intersection between ‘race politics’ and ‘class politics’. He phrased it much better than I can, of course, but his point, is largely that race (and identity) politics are class politics. That refusing to address class politics as the cause of injustice you’re serving neo-liberal interests, and maintaining the status quo. The concerns of the ‘managerial class’ and the poor aren’t the same, even if they share an identity (be it black, female etc.).

The reason I bring these things up is because for me, they highlight a problem with your premise. American ‘liberalism’ and the left are fundamentally incompatible. Given that, it’s not clear to me that keeping the Democratic party strong is in itself a worthwhile goal — not unless you believe, in Orwellian fashion, that the purpose of power is maintain power.

It’s also why I object somewhat to your characterization that

Clinton is running on a portfolio of issues built to consolidate support from multiple voting blocs

It’s fundamentally true, of course, but it fails to say that very few of these voting blocs are what anyone outside of the U.S. would call the ‘left’.