I mean most of those would be pretty standard comments a reviewer would add, basically "citations needed", and for the vast majority of the ones I saw, there would be an easy citation to go grab. This looks more like a less than final version or like they didn't plan on even getting the final version completed. Like they saw this draft and said 'aight we've seen enough'.

It's also like.. not a good report so far. I read the stein section, which was fine as anecdote, but that same worked example happened in 50 other states. There is no reason to not to do a similar analysis across all states. It's not like they don't have the data.

That differential performance gap is the same basic approach I used back and showed here, in January of '24 which showed Biden was losing, and by May showed it as being a practical impossibility for them to win. It was not well received. Thinking back on it, I actually got banned from a few subs for posting the results of a basic and standard statistical analysis because it showed how bad Biden was losing. It was bad here in 23/24 for anyone who wasn't high on their own supply.

I'm gonna read for details on a bigger screen. The second half seems to be mostly about spending which, I don't think had a meaningful impact on the race. This was a very simple and very clear election that was blown first because (D)emocrats insisted on allowing Biden to run, and (d)emocrats insisted on defending this choice when it was clear as early as December of 23 that Biden couldn't win. It was Israel/Gaza and voters tried desperately to communicate that in the primaries, and the administration chose the path of having universities crack down on student protests.

The establishment disenfranchised the left volunteer base, and what the establishment failed to recognize, was that they don't actually win elections for themselves, the volunteer base does. Individuals who show up and do canvassing, work to convince others to vote for a candidate, they're always more engaged, further left than the average voter. They're your shock troops for any campaign, and without them, don't even bother, because you don't stand a chance.

The Democrats are on deaths door as a party. And their only path to survival is to become a truly leftwing, socialist party. Anything less than that the neolibs will have handed the rudder back to fascism for a third time. And the fascist won't be handing it back at that point.

It was such a softball report as well. Everything was presented in this very soft manner that barely even addressed the major issues with Harris campaign and instead spent the majority of the report just pointing out all the places other campaigns outperformed Harris. But apparently even that incredibly mild bit of criticism was too much for them.

I won't be able to read it until later - anything surprising in there?