I have never respected this circular logic. You could use this argument to make any position a "bad one" as long as biases, foolishness or gullibility on the part of the listener override any convincing points. At some point, it is possible for recipients of a message to be bad listeners, and for voters to be irresponsible in their naivety towards a candidate.

It's pretty clear to me though, that the scramble with her campaign was far less to do with pushing ahead the party's corporate interests, and more a mistake of realizing age and perceived senility were affecting their chances with Biden, and being too afraid for buildup time to get another primary. I have no idea what you're citing around corporate interests, I've already agreed that she wasn't pushing a strong message.

The other problem is how you phrase your last paragraph, because you're highlighting the specific problem you'd like fixed, when voters all across America all had different issues they wanted prioritized, and many opposed each other on. Palestine, trans rights, government waste, federal aid vs education vs full employment, etc etc. It isn't so easy to pick and push one message that will uniformly win you votes. It's also easy for people like me to come under the belief that people felt life under Biden was fine and that the country was steadily getting better, and that change from that path would've been bad. It is very easy for that to be more of a communication problem of a rushed campaign, rather than insisting corporate corruption. Again: Basic mistakes. Mistakes not nearly so bad as "I grab treasury dept and gut the government"