The Dems didn't even get that much, did they? They definitely didn't get enough of the independent vote. Every bit counts. The Dems didn't really break out of their core states in that last election. Those cores states are the most populous, but that didn't secure the Electoral College votes they needed. Your country could use some electoral reform, but you have to win elections with what you have to work with, and the Dems didn't: they lost badly on so many levels.
I'm Canadian. We had to put up with a Conservative majority (with a minority share of the popular vote) because the liberal vote was split between Liberals and the NDP. Earlier the Conservatives were splitting the vote on the right with Reform, so the Liberal/NDP vote splitting had much less effect. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. That's why I say 4 or 5 parties would be better.
Then you have to ask why that is, eh? Might be that a sizable amount of the electorate sees nothing in the election for them, eh? Might even be that they're right?
I'll be blunt: I saw your last election as a choice between slow poison and fast poison. It might even be that you were lucky that the fast poison was elected, because if you had gone for another round of neoliberalism, it's very possible you might have set the stage for someone much more effective than the Donald. If you organise and work at it, you should be able to purge this particular poison.
But that's thing: to achieve results that reverse the self-destructive trends your country is going through, you need to organise not just to push back against the various injustices that are accumulating like flies on shit, but to articulate a vision of what the country should be and how to achieve it. And given that so much of that injustice is systemic, and that the system is the way it is for economic reasons, you really cannot look at reforming the rest without seriously losing the neoliberalism.