I don't kid myself that any of those right wingers leaving trump's rallies early will vote democrat, but it's enough that they lack the enthusiasm to vote at all.
sometimes I think that a not insignificant number of right wingers don't even care if Trump is actually elected. in the upper echelons of his campaign, I imagine many of them are lifetime grifters who are looking for the maximum payoff, and then will simply move on to the next grift post Trump. and many of the base constantly live in a state of barely contained rage anyway over concepts they can't begin to articulate, and are only using Trump as a vessel for that rage. they'll go on raging no matter who, right or left, is in the White House.
I feel confident of a win, and always held to the belief that had we stayed with Biden, we still would have won, though the road would have been n=much more fraught.
1) This election was winnable for Harris. Not easily, but winnable.
2) Campaigns can influence voters.
3) If Trump wins legitimately, Harris' campaign was not flawless OR Trump's campaign, despite being much worse, was good enough to beat a flawless campaign, in which case maybe the election wasn't all that winnable.
1. Most elections are "winnable" when neither party dominates the local system, and there are exceptions there too.
2. Anything from an announcement by the FBI to a foreign government disinformation campaign to a rabid squirrel can influence voters. Campaigns are one more vector.
3. A "flawless" campaign is one that doesn't "make mistakes", not one guarenteed a win. One can make no mistakes and lose to a more popular oppenent, or win a popular vote and lose in an archaic scheme meant to mollify rural states
Number 3 more or less repeats my number 3, as near as I can tell. As for number 2, I don't think (and of course I could be wrong) that there have been so many other influences that even a flawless campaign wouldn't be good enough. If there have been, that puts us back to number 3 again.
I know nothing about campaign strategy, so I can't second-guess the Harris campaign's decisions. But if Trump wins legitimately, I don't see how anyone can claim the Harris campaign was flawless. And "no mistakes" doesn't mean the best campaign, either. You can go scorched earth, make plenty of mistakes, and still win. Just ask Trump. If he wins.
You are defining flawless as a winning campaign, I define it as one that makes no "mistakes" that cause lost votes, or at least damaging publicity.
If Trump wins "legitimately" he is the winner of the Elsctoral College vote with minimal shenannigans. I will bet Harris wins the popular vote,, meaningless as it is, and that fact is a long-term problem. As far as "mistakes", Trump is sui generis as an American politician, his mistakes bind him ever tighter to his voter base, and cost him almost nothing with less committed voters. No other politician can pull that off at a national level. I guess by your metric Harris's mistakes were being a woman of color if Trump wins. Sure, a legitimate critique. If Trump wins.
But if "flawless" means "one that makes no 'mistakes' that cause lost votes, or at least damaging publicity," then the most flawless campaign is the safest. And against Trump a safe campaign was never ever ever a good idea. You can be tactically flawless and strategically misguided.
Yes, a campaign that does nothing is a "flawless" campaign. There are external forces and events that can affect a campaign and generate "flaws". The idea that there is some basic strategy that can defeat Trump electorally is a comforting fantasy. He has a voter base that holds boat parades in his honor and gathers at his command to threaten politicians with death. Biden pulled it off, so its possible, and Harris has duplicated it as much as possible. If she loses, it will be because of who she is, not what her campaign did or didn't do.
I don't kid myself that any of those right wingers leaving trump's rallies early will vote democrat, but it's enough that they lack the enthusiasm to vote at all.
sometimes I think that a not insignificant number of right wingers don't even care if Trump is actually elected. in the upper echelons of his campaign, I imagine many of them are lifetime grifters who are looking for the maximum payoff, and then will simply move on to the next grift post Trump. and many of the base constantly live in a state of barely contained rage anyway over concepts they can't begin to articulate, and are only using Trump as a vessel for that rage. they'll go on raging no matter who, right or left, is in the White House.
I feel confident of a win, and always held to the belief that had we stayed with Biden, we still would have won, though the road would have been n=much more fraught.
Logic:
1) This election was winnable for Harris. Not easily, but winnable.
2) Campaigns can influence voters.
3) If Trump wins legitimately, Harris' campaign was not flawless OR Trump's campaign, despite being much worse, was good enough to beat a flawless campaign, in which case maybe the election wasn't all that winnable.
1. Most elections are "winnable" when neither party dominates the local system, and there are exceptions there too.
2. Anything from an announcement by the FBI to a foreign government disinformation campaign to a rabid squirrel can influence voters. Campaigns are one more vector.
3. A "flawless" campaign is one that doesn't "make mistakes", not one guarenteed a win. One can make no mistakes and lose to a more popular oppenent, or win a popular vote and lose in an archaic scheme meant to mollify rural states
Number 3 more or less repeats my number 3, as near as I can tell. As for number 2, I don't think (and of course I could be wrong) that there have been so many other influences that even a flawless campaign wouldn't be good enough. If there have been, that puts us back to number 3 again.
I know nothing about campaign strategy, so I can't second-guess the Harris campaign's decisions. But if Trump wins legitimately, I don't see how anyone can claim the Harris campaign was flawless. And "no mistakes" doesn't mean the best campaign, either. You can go scorched earth, make plenty of mistakes, and still win. Just ask Trump. If he wins.
You are defining flawless as a winning campaign, I define it as one that makes no "mistakes" that cause lost votes, or at least damaging publicity.
If Trump wins "legitimately" he is the winner of the Elsctoral College vote with minimal shenannigans. I will bet Harris wins the popular vote,, meaningless as it is, and that fact is a long-term problem. As far as "mistakes", Trump is sui generis as an American politician, his mistakes bind him ever tighter to his voter base, and cost him almost nothing with less committed voters. No other politician can pull that off at a national level. I guess by your metric Harris's mistakes were being a woman of color if Trump wins. Sure, a legitimate critique. If Trump wins.
But if "flawless" means "one that makes no 'mistakes' that cause lost votes, or at least damaging publicity," then the most flawless campaign is the safest. And against Trump a safe campaign was never ever ever a good idea. You can be tactically flawless and strategically misguided.
Yes, a campaign that does nothing is a "flawless" campaign. There are external forces and events that can affect a campaign and generate "flaws". The idea that there is some basic strategy that can defeat Trump electorally is a comforting fantasy. He has a voter base that holds boat parades in his honor and gathers at his command to threaten politicians with death. Biden pulled it off, so its possible, and Harris has duplicated it as much as possible. If she loses, it will be because of who she is, not what her campaign did or didn't do.