> Your comparison rests on the idea that politics is an elastic marketplace where people are not bringing in priors when deciding on who to vote for.

Not really.

> It completely ignores that at least part of that market is propagandized to the point where no matter how you sell you will not make the sale. Voters overwhelmingly support policies that Democrats support when polled.

If that's actually the case, it just means the Democrats need to work harder, for longer. But this "nothing we can do, country too propagandized, STAY THE COURSE, DON'T CHANGE," idea is just weird. It really sounds like excuses to avoid the psychological discomfort of being wrong or needing to make compromises with people you disagree with to win.

Also, polls are a data-point, but I'd never use them to jump to the conclusion they're an accurate representation of what people really want. For one, they're too easily to get wrong or even manipulate.

> I think your comparison is far too simplistic to be useful.

Sure, my poop-selling business example is pretty simplistic and exaggerated to make a point. But I think it's still useful in illustrating the foolishness and stupidity of blaming the people you need to reach.

> When the history of this time is written I believe it will be exceedingly obvious that the MAGA and the Republican Party were an incurable cancer and there was nothing that the Democratic Party could have done within the context of the existing political structure to stop it from spreading.

I am sure some history will be written that says that. It will be a lie, but of psychological comfort for some.

If there's any truth to "there was nothing that the Democratic Party could have done within the context of the existing political structure to stop it from spreading," it's about the internal dysfunctions of the Democratic party officials and partisans. This idea that "MAGA/Trump is so powerful, nothing could be done about it" is a stupid lie.

> They might have had one opportunity to avoid it by focusing more on supporting individuals and less on supporting financial institutions in 2008, but the political context of that time was entirely different. At some point it is worthless to blame one political party for another driving the country off a cliff.

I'm not blaming the Democrats for that. I'm blaming them for being incompetent (a state which continues). There's a big difference.

> Yes, they should have done things differently in hindsight, but there is little value in holding them accountable for information they did not have at the time.

What specific information did they not have at the time? Because I don't think the problem is a lack of information; it's their attitudes, priorities, and ultimately competence.