The stories covered by Vaush in this clip are wild. 

Apparently Biden’s internal polling was showing a loss of 400 electoral votes when he was insisting he was the only who could beat Trump and decided to run again?

I get why the left has no interest in nuanced discussions since the dems got wiped out, however, only 175k votes were required to flip Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin to Harris’s favour (last I read).

If Biden did things differently it’s not hard to see how 175k votes could’ve gone differently the outcome was different. 

Assuming that story is accurate, why do people think that Dems would have done significantly better given a longer campaign? A shorter campaign helps maintain enthusiasm and allows the candidate to run a campaign focused on the general election instead of having to pivot after the primary. 

My take is that Dems were doomed from the start because of idiots not understanding the economy. 

Highly likely the story is accurate giving the source, the external polling numbers we had, and the fact that we were all aware of the highly unusual pressure he faced to step aside; other stories of similar importance were confirmed by Pelosi (Biden shutting any opportunity for an a primary process by endorsing Kamala).

Giving the number of votes that decided the swing states, it's not accurate to say the dems "were doomed". Doomed means no alternative reality would've changed the outcome, but the number of votes needed to change the outcome is actually small; stress testing the candidacy might have allowed someone else to run, what we know about Kamala's popularity in 2019 and her ability to energise voters is in line with the numbers we're seeing now.

It's not hard to see how another 2024 primary would've had given us similar warnings about who shouldn't and should run for president, and flipped the few votes that decided the swing states blue. 

First of all, Harris lost PA alone by 150k votes. 

As for hypotheticals, there isn't really any way to know how things would have been different if Biden initially chose not to rerun. My opinion though is that Harris ran a damn good campaign, benefitted from a lot of momentum and enthusiasm when Biden dropped out (which also kept Trump and his attacks off balance for a while), didn't have to go through a difficult primary and was able to run a campaign focused on the general election from the start. She also had ample funding a strong ground game. Given this, I don't see any other Democrat as having a lot of room for improvement, even if they got through the primary unscathed and ran a perfect campaign. 

IMO, saying that this election was close is cope. It was not close and imo it was not about the candidate or the campaign, it was about the party and the national environment. 

I'm sticking with my original opinion: Dems were doomed from the start. 

The marriage point may have been a little to harsh, but it makes the point, and you can't deny that Kamala sure didn't help his marriage. 

The original point was not that people can change. It was was that people are complex and are tough to understand deeply, and that others tend to misjudge, as well as others don't easily forgive or forget either in general, at times.

Just because Trump did or said some things, doesn't mean that's who he is, just like how Kamala isn't necessarily a home wrecker, or anti vaxer. She did end up getting the vax did she not? Is she not married and a step mother to a few children?

Even you took the Kamala point to heart like I'm convinced that she's a home wrecker, when the point is, that's not necessarily the case.

Does the left think blue and all shades of it are high quality colors, while red and all shades of it are low quality colors?

I was always under the impression that it didn't matter if steel was red or blue, but that Chinese vs American made is what measured its quality...

Why do so many words today no longer mean what they used to mean?

I remember a post during the 2020 election, that said if the independents and the center left want the Democrat party to legitimately come back closer to center, that instead of them sitting at home and allowing Trump to win by default like in 2016, that they were going to need to get up and vote for Trump, however difficult that may be for them to swallow. Not in perpetuity, but for long enough to force the Dems to pay attention and shift their course in a more reasonable direction.

The thought behind this was that as long as the Dems could say they had the popular vote, they and many of their voters, were going to be convinced that they could continue governing in the direction they had been, more and more left, and that they just had to campaign smarter and harder during the elections. This meant they were never going to learn the lesson they should've in 2016.

That post got swarmed and that member got told by many that they 'knew what they were up to' and that 'they, nor anyone else, was going to fall for it'. As per the 2020 results, apparently they, nor the independents or center left, 'fell for it', whatever diabolical plan it was behind, supposedly.

Well it actually finally happened, to a degree, the first step you could say, and now here we are. Are the left going to finally realize that member had a strong point, or are they going to keep their blindfolds on and deny what's staring them in the face? How many elections going forward is it going to take?

Here's a thought.....and let's see if you liberals and democrats can follow my logic....

1. An illegal immigrant crosses the border into the USA - without a passport and without a Social Security card, and thus they are initially unemployed.

2. After arriving here, that immigrant gets a job - So now, they are members of the working class.

3. Which means, they have to buy groceries and pay taxes!

4. Based on #3, can you really blame them for voting for the candidate that listens to their concerns more so than the other one?

5. Bernie is right, the dems have lost touch with the working class.

Nah.  Many (maybe even most) polls literally had Harris winning.  Not a single betting firms over the entire campaign ever gave Harris better odds than Trump.  I tracked a wide variety of firms, all (that i watched) never had Trump less than 55%.  

The polls were hot garbage.  Almost all polls had harris winning the popular vote....  

Polls had 7 states as toss-ups.  Meaning 3 to 4 should have flipped Harris.  Zero flipped.  

Iowa was suppse to be on the table, and Trump won by 10+ points.  New York and California were closer than Florida.  Granted Cali was still counting so potentially has changed.

Sorry there was little about polls that were accurate.  What makes it worse is they under polled Trump twice before, making this literally three times in a row.  I for one have zero trust in polls.  The data is out, clearly they have no idea what they are doing.   

As for odds changing, that typically occurs when one side places more bets than the other, it is a derisk calculation, not a prediction change.  

Betting firms were way more accurate than polls.  Just accept reality, my faith in betting firms was a good position.  Your mockery was a bad one.  It happens.  

Edit

I agree with Jon Stewart regarding polls.  To each their own, but it will be a long time before I give a **** what pollsters are claiming.