Not bad faith, I just want to make sure we're saying what we each think we're saying. Because I don't think you're quite responding to what I'm actually saying, at face value.

I'm not saying she ran a good enough campaign and everyone should have been enthusiastic about her. She absolutely made bad choices by letting the DNC machine make bad choices for her, and I absolutely recognize that those cost her votes and that. I'm not saying the primary process was totally the awesomerest best one we could have possibly hoped for, because it wasn't. But I think the media coverage of the 4% primary voter turnout for Uncommitted, which surely had an impact on Democratic donors putting pressure on Biden and the party to change course, just serves to validate my belief that if we actually all came out and voted, we'd have a more representative government. Enthusiasm for the Harris/Waltz ticket was sky-fucking high at first and then it was squandered with milquetoast status quo. No argument from me about that.

What I am saying, is that in isolation, come the general election in 2024, voting for Harris was the only action that would have prevented Trump from winning the 2024 general election. I feel like that's just incontrovertible math. If you're saying to me, in response, that looking solely at the singular event of the general election in 2024 (not the primary season, or anything that happened on the campaign trail, just the general election itself), that my vote for Harris in the 2024 election helped Trump win the 2024 election, then I think you need to show your math because it sounds truly insane.

But I don't think that's what you're saying. So I'd like a little more clarity on what you're saying rather than making assumptions and inferences.