If you’re to the left of Harris, then you’re probably going to vote for her over Trump.

This conclusion rests on three assumptions: All left-leaning Americans are rational actors, their main or most important goal is keeping Trump out of office and they’re all invested in that goal enough to turn out no matter the Dem candidate. All these are false. American elections have for decades been a matter of how many Democrats go out to vote, which is a function of how inspiring the Dem candidate is. A good Dem candidate produces good turnout which wins Dems elections, while a bad Dem candidate (like Harris or Hillary) puts off Democrat voters, causing low turnout and a Republican victory. How bad the Republican candidate is, frankly, not as decisive as more politically invested Dems would like it to be without an electable Dem candidate. Ignoring these fundamental truths is what did Harris in.

PS: It’s not a matter of Harris being just too right wing. I mean that’s part of it, but American politics isn’t nearly as simple as rightwing = GOP vote, leftwing = Dem vote. Reality’s deviation from that hypersimplified idea is why things like inspiring candidates and smart campaigning matter.

Given that Democrats pulled less votes than 2020, it’s not the undecided between D&R that decided this election, it’s the ones undecided between D or not voting. As stupid of a choice that is, those are the ones that voted way less in this election, and those voters maybe would have voted more if the platform was more anti-elite. I don’t know how many swingers would pass to R with that move, though.

Really stupid to not vote in protest because D is not left enough since that mathematically is equivalent to voting the winner, in this case R. In any case, going more left might have helped more.