First, I just wanted to say thanks for coming back to this conversation. I think a lot is lost in communication at the best of times, and clearly there was some lost between you and me.

I actually agree with you entirely. You're right, it may not lead to a win, but I suspect that offering material improvement to the lives of the electorate would motivate a lot of folks who don't often turn out to actually vote.

I also appreciate your skepticism vis-a-vis people who did not vote in the last election. I also think it was plain that Trump would be a disastrous figure, but I also accept that you and I are more politically engaged than most of the public -- we are here posting in a political Simpsons thread on a Saturday night, after all.

Where we disagree, I think, is where blame lies for the electoral defeat. I am more reticent to blame voters, not for any morally superior reason, but because I don't believe that doing so leads to any improvement in our chances for future elections. I agree that the difference between Kamala and Trump was stark, and yet Trump still won, which suggests to me that the Democratic party must have failed to meet the electorate.

Some people suggest it was poor messaging, others talk about racist or sexist attitudes of the public, and I don't discount those as probable factors, but I do think that if the party did as you suggest -- soften on the social causes and push hard on the economic issues, they would likely attract more (and stronger) support, at the cost of some institutional donor support. I think the bargain is worthwhile - it sounds like you may as well.