as much as we'd like to think that a policy platform is something that will excite voters, the individual candidate and their personal charisma are usually much more important.

Yes, sir. Case in point: They referred to a presidential candidate as a communist, a Muslim, and a Commie Muslim for nigh on a decade and to this day still haven't stopped playing the race card, and were it not for presidential term limits, Barack Hussein Obama could wipe the floor with every single one of them.

It's the rizz.

That would seriously be a ridiculous argument, would it not? You'd have a better argument that in a country well-known for gender bias and double standards, Trump has defeated the only two women ever nominated as presidential candidates by any major Party in the country's entire history. I'm not saying it's a good argument; I'm saying it's a better argument than either of them being the "most-electable candidate." Which progressive candidate would be daft enough to suggest that Harris was nominated in 2024 because she was the "most-electable candidate"?