all these takes as if Harris lost on "the issues".

her takes on the issues poll much better than his takes, my dear popularists.

she lost because he was perceived by low information, go-with-your-gut, voters as someone willing to let it hang out while she was cautious, scripted, hiding something.

@interfluidity One such person, when interviewed, commented that #Harris had "no substance". That can't have meant he thought she had no substantive positions on the issues. It meant he saw her as simultaneously unexciting and untrustworthy.
@interfluidity And although that judgment — simultaneously unexciting and untrustworthy — certainly reflects the amoral depravity of those who prefer flamboyant criminals to policy wonks, it was not entirely, or even primarily, a reaction to #KamalaHarris personally. It was a reaction to a #DemocraticParty that has, in fact, been thoroughly untrustworthy at least since 1992, and has been exciting only when it needed to win an election (and not always even then). If solid, enthusiastic majority support for anything good is ever to be elicited from an electorate capable of putting #Trump in office, that "something good" will have to be both credible and RADICAL — radical enough to halt and even reverse the half-century diversion of wealth to billionaires. And I'm sick of hearing #BlueMAGA cultists respond to criticisms like this by pointing to the isolated scraps thrown to us — Obamacare for example, when what was needed was #MedicareForAll — while actively refusing to see the continuing downward drift of overall security and quality of life for the majority.