I’m not sure anyone is. Progressivism is basically a movement limited to college campuses and old hippies. As with libertarians, they don’t have any real power, except to the extent that they can win public opinion on certain issues and act as a faction within a major political party to get legislation passed on those issues. That, and unlike libertarians they are willing to put on a mask long enough to win office. I do think Barack Obama is a progressive at heart, but political reality prevented him from governing as one, although he did do some pretty left-wing executive actions, some of which didn’t survive court scrutiny.
Anyone who bought into Bernie’s platform would be classed as a progressive in contemporary American usage. So ~45% of the Democratic primary voters, or whatever the number was. If they were as rare as you say Hillary wouldn’t have tried to claim the title and the Democratic establishment wouldn’t be facing an insurrection.
American progressives are basically European demsocs, or welfare capitalists. Generally anti-war. Pro UHC. Pro-union. Pro-green energy. Suspicious of financial institutions and corporate power. Would describe a good number of the posters on this board, though the majority seem to be liberals.
The typology of campus progressives is interesting but less clear to me. I’ve seen some try to classify them as the authoritarian left (as opposed to the libertarian left), which seems to be popular since it’s a new tradition to crap on “SJWs” but I don’t know if that’s particularly accurate. They mostly seem to focus on social issues and identity politics: race, gender, and sexuality, especially trans. Often stereotyped as privileged white kids. Seemingly not interesting in most economic issues, aside from college debt. Socialists don’t seem to like them much, from what I’ve seen.
Blaming progressives for globalist open borders is odd, since both wings of the business party support it. It’s also libertarian dogma to have free movement of labor. Everyone wants that cheap labor and geezer support system.
This must be why liberals/left/progressives have never won an election, ever. There just aren’t enough of them.
On the plus side though, it’s good to know that ‘liberal bias’ can’t really ever have been a thing.
If I were your Poli Sci professor at university I would commend you for your courageous attempt to expose the white patriarchy holding down progress.
Unfortunately, I don’t live in Candyland but inhabit the real world. Your premise makes no sense, your argument incoherent, your time better spent elsewhere.
That’s actually a pretty small number and not everyone who voted for Sanders is a progressive. Some voters are character voters and Sanders was running against a rather mistrusted candidate.
But even if we assumed all Sanders voters were progressives it’s not very many people. The primary electorate is small and the most motivated voters turn out.
Nice work equivalencing egalitarianism with authoritarian regimes. That this is a sweeping, bogus comparison between entirely unlike things makes it a more impressive feat for the effort.
Stranger
Apparently “most” and “all” are hard to distinguish for some people. 
Although I don’t trust the OP’s assertions, really.
I think what happens with progressive movements is that as issues become resolved the platform grows smaller. A perosnality type will eventually emerge who just wants change for the sake of change or could possible be viewed as a shit stirrer. We still have some issues to address but it has gotten to the point where the progressives have become so anti to so many things that are considered radicaly prejuciced against mainstream whites in general. No different than any other kind of racial prejudice.