"Elections, unfortunately, are not rational processes."

What percentage of Harris voters do you think understood her policy platform well vs voted for her because she wasn't Trump?

It's the same, but in reverse.

So yes, if you're undecided, you can try to understand the exact economic and geopolitical factors that have made the price of eggs go up or you can go with the guy who talks endlessly about how bad the economy is (a sentiment you agree with), who can point to a time when he was president when prices were actually lower, and whose opponent is the person currently in power while the price of eggs is too damn high.

Kamala needed to campaign super effectively on this issue, especially as she had the aforementioned headwinds to deal with as far as convincing Americans she was the best candidate. And she failed. Partly because she couldn't really criticise the Biden administration's handling of the economy, and partly because it doesn't seem that she had any good ideas on how to improve things.

And can I also just point out the obvious: people who are working hard, who are living in a first world country with one of the world's largest economies, don't want to be told they need to find ways to "stretch out" eggs or find egg substitutes! I mean, come on!

This is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. You can't utterly fail to engage with or understand voters' needs and then get mad at them when they don't vote for you. And while you certainly have a point about them not being educated enough on policy issues, complaining about that won't make them vote for you either.

A candidate's job is to convince the electorate that they understand their concerns and to communicate in a way that voters understand. It is wildly out of touch to blame voters when your preferred candidate fails to do that.