I mean, I don't think it was unreasonable to expect liberals to show up against someone who's sole policy proposals were mass deportations and political reprisals, and so I can understand the logic of focusing on the center (which in US politics means center-right).

But this being the democratic party, they also couldn't commit to an actual narrative to make that play. Rather than "look at their ties to Big Tech!" or even sticking with "look how weird these people are!" they had to go hat-in-hand and stake themselves to divisive (to say nothing of abhorrent) policies because that's the only connection they could try to make. I think we're seeing a major problem with the whole "big tent" concept.

This wasn't a free win, however. The reason Harris took over in the first place was because Biden's performance in the debate was poor enough that the Democrats thought there was no longer any chance with him, and this was already with lowering approval ratings. Had he stayed, I bet Trump's victory would have been even wider.

and of course, Twitter and Facebook style influence campaigns work just as well or even better elsewhere, in communities that haven’t hardened themselves against that type of bullshit

IDK, do you really think twitter still has that much cultural relevance? ugh

I'm sure it played a part, though.

Not enough for the presidential race, sadly; perhaps enough to scrape by with a few Senate victories.