Question about weak candidates.

[BainsBane]

31. So relative electoral success

has absolutely nothing to do with the strength of a candidate. What matters is that so-called progressives repeated GOP and Kremlin propaganda about the candidate designed to promote the electoral prospects of a pathological liar and con man. Voters have no responsibility to inform themselves on what is actually truthful. John Kerry was unjustly swiftboated, but Clinton herself is responsible for for everything said and done against her.

Given that Clinton was so hopelessly weak, it doesn't speak well of her primary opponent that he still lost by 3.8 million votes. If someone loses to such a hopelessly weak candidate, they must be even weaker.

I've read through the thread up until your comment, and I don't see anything that could be construed as an issue. What I see are excuses for why losing male candidates should not be considered weak, even when they didn't face the great obstacle of running following an 8 year Democratic President, but the one woman who sought the office was weak, despite earning 2.8 million more votes.

I would say one difference is that a certain faction of "progressives" didn't devote themselves to destroying the above candidates or celebrate when they lost the election. Democrats can hardly win elections when a segments of self-proclaimed progressives are invested in promoting GOP misinformation and some of them even work to put a fascist in the White House. But they can't be faulted for repeating GOP talking points. That's entirely the fault of the Democrat targeted by the GOP, White Supremacists, the Kremlin, and the FBI.