Ok, No, the Republicans certain take first blame for not standing up to Trump when he took over their party. They have been cowards. But because of that failure, it fell to the Democrats to do what it takes to stop him returning to the White House, and the election remains a dead heat, which it shouldn't be, and only they could have stopped that. I hope they don't fail, but it shouldn't even be close.

Indeed, there is a great irony in that I very frequently see Democrats write, "I just can't begin to comprehend why this race is so close." The reason the race is so close is because they don't understand that. They have failed to understand why half the country (by electoral votes which are all that counts) wants to vote for a man like Trump, and why a large portion of them (way more than enough) are not voting for Trump, but against the Democrats. That's something under the Democrats' control -- they have less control over the MAGAs who support Trump because they like him.

I say "way more than enough" because in a 50-50 race, they only have to win over a few percent of voters in a few swing states to make the race not close any more. Now, there are a lot of reasons that the US 2 party system is usually very close to 50-50. It's not a coincidence -- parties adapt to try to win 51% of the vote (and victory) but they resist adapting more than that, and they're in a fight with an opponent who is doing the same thing. The result is chaotic, with power flipping back and forth, each side often immediately trying to undo what their nemesis did when it was their turn. Most countries are not 2-party and have less of this chaotic flip, but they're not immune.

The difference this time is that Trump isn't just a typical opponent. He's the leader of a failed coup d'état, and a threat to the very democracy of the US, and beyond that, to the ascendancy of the west itself. To defeat him, the Democrats had to just find a way to represent 53% of the voters, not 50%. Then people would no longer be asking "why is this a tie?" and not understanding why.

As simple as that sounds, the Democrats could not do it. To do so requires sacrifices. Sacrifices for the good of the country at the expense of the party, its image of itself, and some of its members. They came close when Joe Biden stepped aside, but while this was a great personal sacrifice for Biden, it was for the party, not the country that this was done.

When I've pointed this need for sacrifice out, I get pushback. One valid point of rebuttal is that efforts to try to represent and recruit this bloc of voters will anger other elements of the party. Anger them so much that they will not vote for Harris. Indeed, in 2016, a disturbing number of Sanders' supporters, angry he was not the nominee, actually voted for Trump instead of Clinton! Talk about putting their ideology ahead of the country and even their own interests -- but it happened. Clinton's nomination itself was a product of the party machine and its will, combined with a desire to have a female president, something that it is long past time for. Yet the hubris of that desire resulted in the loss of body autonomy for tens of millions of women, with a pussy-grabber in the White House. There is some hindsight to this realization, as almost everybody underestimated Trump, but there's no hindsight needed today.

There is no margin to play with now. The Democrats continued the wrong path, clinging to their traditional methods and platform, hoping that people would just love it a little more. They followed a national nomination process when everybody knows only the votes in the swing states matter. They let California and NY/New England liberals define their platform and nominee, as they always have, because normally that's the democratic and traditional thing to do--if it's tolerable if you lose. Not if losing might mean losing your democracy. When it gets to that, you break the rules, and do what you need to win. Not lie, cheat and steal, but expand your tent, and represent more of the people.

It's not like representing more of the people is a bad thing, by the way. Harris and almost all other nominees declare they want to be President for all of America. They should mean it. A divorce is not possible. You can't be at war with half your country.

The pushback, however, is not just about how difficult it is to bring more voters into the tent without losing others. It's also the nastier kind, the kind that puts an individual's vision of the party ahead of country. Principles that are scaring voters away and over to Trump must be examined, and some of them sacrificed. But try to name one and the answer will be, "not that one." In reality though, in many cases it doesn't require sacrificing the principle, but just changing how it is talked about. One of the things that has turned voters away from the Democrats (and by default to Trump) is that the left has taken to telling people not just how they should act, but how they should speak, or think, The answer might come from just changing the messaging. It could come from toning down the hate speech -- yes, many Democrats truly hate Trump supporters and Republicans now, and make it very, very clear in their language and messages. That gets felt, and makes voters feel there is no way that a group that hates them can represent them. When Harris was on Fox News, they tried to trick her into saying that half of Americans are stupid, and she was too smart to fall for that, but many in her party are not that smart.

Democrats must understand that Trump's voters know who Trump is, and don't care about his character at all. The vast bulk of Democratic messaging has been (almost entirely valid) criticisms of what's wrong with Trump. But it's not working. They would rather have an insurrectionist than have the Democrats. Some of that is because they've been propagandized with falsehoods about the Democrats, but only some of it. They must learn how to not be what they fear. Not all of them, just a few percent. Just a few percent of those in the swing states--it's really not a lot.

Is this fair? Of course not. But it is an emergency. It calls for bold moves, not more of the same. Not just constant statements about how bad Trump is, and insisting his supporters must be inferior if they can't see it. Everything Democrats say must be judged on the standard of "Will this bring some people over." Yes, it's also effective if it will keep Trump supporters at home on election day, or prod a weak Democrat to come out and vote, but that is not enough to bet the country on.

There are many other potential moves the Democrats could make; it doesn't have to be those above. In fact, I would love it if more Democrats came up with proposals as to how they could change to make the difference. Ideally it would even be done scientifically. Study weak Trump supporters. Find out why they fear the Democrats. Pick the easiest thing that wins enough of them over. If it's not too late.