Those are all links to data, not 'statements.'

No wonder you're still confused if you didn't even bother reading them.

Tim Walz said in the VP debate that they need to Expand Israel's Borders, but you claim he was more popular than Kamala Harris and also that the Israel stance lost her the election.

You must be referring to the last link. Which, if you read, was about Walz' policies on increasing the minimum wage, taxing the wealthy, lowering cost of prescription drugs, and legalizing weed. Not remotely his stance on Israel, which when he toed that DNC line on the debate change, I'm sure significantly hit his popularity. That's about the pivoting point when popularity that initially surged for Harris/Walz waned as they made absolutely there 'nothing would fundamentally chance' compared to Biden.

Israel was a significant factor, perhaps see the 34 polls linked for details, instead of just the link text.

It is also nonsensical to believe Donald "Kill Their Families" Trump would help a single fucking Palestinian.

From a previous comment of mine:

So how was Trump able to come off as the 'dove' candidate? He did this same strategy of framing himself as a peaceful 'dove' in 2016 against Clinton. I put dove in quotes because anyone who pays attention to Trump's actual foreign policy knows that's not remotely true. High propensity voters aren't fooled by this but plenty of low propensity voters sure can be. Trump was only effective as framing himself as a Dove because of how terrible the Biden admins Foreign policy was for the last fifteen months. If Harris pivoted from Biden on Palestine, as the vast majority of all voters wanted and as required by domestic and international law, Trump wouldn't have been able to frame himself as a Dove. I'm fact, if Harris not only pivoted but harped on Trump's connection to Netanyahu, it would've been incredibly easy to frame Trump as a warmonger cozying up to genocidal fascists

You also talked about the popularity of literal DNC policy platform.

No, I pointed out what they need to be a popular platform.

This is a great example of how the DNC candidates themselves weren't the problem, rather how tens of millions of people can be easily deceived is the problem.

Again, this only makes sense if you repeatedly ignore the significant and overwhelming evidence that shows which of their policies (and lack there of) caused them to become unpopular, and which policies would make them popular

I'm done with this convo. All the answers to your questions are in those links, which anyone who took them seriously would know.

It was the Democrat's strategy that resulted in low voter turnout. The votes were up for grabs, they ran away from them.

It's not like the campaign was unaware of what messaging and policies were unpopular. They chose to ignore it. They chose to run to the right on policy and messaging.

If they gave a shit about being an opposition to fascism, about actually winning, they would have heeded all the warning signs and run a different campaign. Instead they prioritized the interest of their capital donors, and gave a fuck you to their constituents that they are supposed to represent.

Blaming voters instead of the party that lost the country is some self fulfilling fascism prophecy.

You can't expect people to vote for abhorrent policy, and blame them when they don't...

You just have to have good policy proposal, pretty simple