Since the election I've written comments the length of essays attempting to explain what you just put so succinctly. "She was a worse candidate because she lost the election to him, which is the one thing you need to do" 100% this.

For what it's worth, I do try to make the distinction between her and her campaign. She might have been the winning candidate had her campaign made different decisions, but at the end of the day, she's responsible for her campaign. They can't force her to say anything she doesn't want to.

I think there's a lot of people talking past each other because they don't agree on what the purpose of being a candidate is. We might think it's getting elected, others might think it's being the best representation of the party. Obviously, she wasn't option 1, but some people may think she was better because they are libs who agree with her ideologically and are somehow still under the delusion that Rs represent state rights, "godliness", and fiscal responsibility. They see Trump and think "how can people say he's a better representative of Rs than Kamala is of Ds" and the answer is that they have no idea what Rs want and are incapable of recognizing the broad spectrum of people that normally vote D. I hope people can rid themselves of that kind of thinking because it's obviously not serving them or the party. Either recognize that candidates need to be ELECTED to mean anything, or be prepared to be in this same position for the foreseeable future.

If I had a 95 meter head start on Usain bolt in the 100m, I could probably beat him. That doesn't make me a better runner.