First, personal attacks and the usage of second person language is ineffective at winning over voters. Second, I did vote Hillary despite my criticisms of her platform (and it didn’t have any impact in my deep red state-another reason why I’m frequently disappointed with Democrats who don’t run on election reform). That being said, I wholeheartedly reject that Hillary voters are somehow culpable for Hillary’s loss. I also reject that her voters are responsible for campaigning on her behalf or obligated to refrain from being critical of her policies. I would contend voters have an obligation to be critical of their candidate’s policies in order to yield the highest caliber platform. I would also contend that alleviating the ultimate responsibility from a candidate is morally problematic as it would essentially involve advocacy of candidates regardless of their own views or personal decisions.
I would note that the dismay/toxicity expressed in such responses only increases my sympathy for third party voters as it is made increasing clear that some Democrats have a reduced interest in addressing the concerns of Americans outside of their own party. Lastly, I agree with a former point made about inefficiencies with fact-based arguments and their tendency to cause individuals to see these presentations as attacks against themselves, but when compared to personal attacks — the consequences only grow more disasterous. I hope Democrats will be able to reform their messaging so as to win over more voters in the next election.