No, probably not. But at least then the adems would become the party of compromise. Right now both sides (oh no!) are dug into ideology because it fuels their base.
And what principal are you standing for? That it’s a waste of money?
Parties aren't supposed to compromise for compromise's sake. You do it when you can see the other party is acting in good faith and is proposing things that are vaguely reasonable.
The problem is that Trump and the Republicans routinely act in bad faith, and the wall is a completely, objectively unreasonable idea. Why would you give an inch to people who you know will take a mile, especially for an idea so crude and barbaric?
This reminds me of the insistence that the news should always represent "both sides" -- that is, the false notion that it's always just a matter of perspective and that both sides are making a reasonable case. Sorry, but while some things are relative, you have to accept that there are times when one side is clearly right and the other is clearly wrong.
And what are the Democrats standing for? Simply speaking, everything good in the world. The wall is inhumane, an attempt to physically close off a country that would hurt asylum seekers, tarnish the US' reputation and create serious ecological damage. It would be ineffective. It would be a waste of money. And given that Trump is likely to lose office in 2020, there's literally no point to funding the wall since all construction would halt the moment Trump is out of office.