Might be because if one dares to point out any missteps, one is labeled a DINO or worse for daring to do so.
Consider also the possibility that some mistakes ought not be repeated. For example, next time maybe pick a candidate who has been known to win at least one or two primary states and give them a much longer runway to campaign.
Yeah, I'll do that when I'm in charge of selecting candidates.
The topic isn't "What did TragicMonkey do wrong" last I checked, but what the party as a whole did wrong.
Again, that's not true.
"A decent chunk"? Is that a metric? Has it ocurred to you that there are historically marigalized people in the middle class? And that those executive orders did nothing to take away from what the Biden admin did to help the middle class?
Who would the candidate have been if you were in charge of selecting them?
I don't know if it's true or not, but I'm fairly convinced that swing voters were not persuaded to reject that message. In part, this is because neither the Biden nor the Harris campaign addressed the problem that Dems are viewed as out-of-touch elites more concerned with identity politics than kitchen table issues.
Has it occurred to you that many of those in that overlap moved significantly to the right in this election?
Time and attention spent on identity issues did not get spent elsewhere, obviously.
I have no idea why you believe it has been shown to be a false impression, but there is no doubt in my mind that Democratic countermessaging was weak to nonexistent on this point of attack.
Of course it's not logical. But here we are.
She thought (probably accurately) that her only hope of getting the nomination in 2020 (the clip was from 2019) was to outflank Bernie on the left. She'd have a tough time doing that on economic issues and so decided to go for the social ones. I assume the plan was to pivot to the "former prosecutor" message once she had secured the nomination.
Time and attention spent on identity issues did not get spent elsewhere, obviously. I'm going to use the magic portal in my basement to access the alternate world where that didn't happen quite as much and see if I can pull their budget documents at both state and federal levels. This may take a while, and I'm not sure if I'll ever make it back to this particular Everett branch of reality.
Saying that an open primary process would have produced a more popular candidate is not the same as saying one knows whom it would have produced. Few professional prognosticators saw Obama coming in '07 or Clinton in '91, but they turned out to be some of the best communicators the Democratic Party has produced in living memory.
Okay, so you think that when Biden dropped out the Democrats should have held primaries? Would that even have been possible at that date? I don't think primaries can be called on demand by the parties, I think the states have rules about when they can happen, don't they?
Really the mistake was letting Biden run in the first place, everything after that was rearranging deck chairs but... They could have had an open
Okay, so turn the clock back further and say Biden decided not to run. Who should have been the Democrat's candidate, if not Harris? I can only think of three names and two of them are too old (which actually is a consideration for some people) and the third lacks sufficient experience. And all three have baggage that Harris didn't. (She has baggage too, of course, but hers wasn't as bulky as the three I'm thinking of.)
As noted D4M10n, who knows who it would have been. Obama, Clinton, and Carter were all dark horse candidates. Granted, little hindsight here but Harris biggest baggage was not being able to distance herself from Biden in a year when incumbents were mostly screwed.
Leaving us with "wrong candidate, but we have no way of knowing who the right candidate would have been". I doubt much can be done with that insight, if any Democratic Party leaders are reading this.
