In which ways (if any) has Democratic strategy changed to prevent a repeat of 2016?

More than that, I would think. There’s lots of Israel support. But don’t worry, @Banquet_Bear, I won’t blame you! :face_with_raised_eyebrow:

…if you want clarification about my thoughts on those particular threads, I’m happy to engage you there. But all I’ll say here is that you are very, very, very much wrong.

I’ll see you in the relevant thread.

…again: I’ll point to this.

FWIW I accept that statement. I will go further and say that it has always been the case, for many reasons. We heard that in the previous primary too. Those voters are often double haters and will, in their minds, in good conscience, not vote for the lesser of two evils. If Trump gets in and does worse on all issues they care deeply about because they didn’t vote for Biden then it is the fault of those who didn’t give them a choice they could choose.

Relevant to this thread I submit that there is nothing Biden could do that would change what whether or not they will vote or for whom. They will either vote Biden anyway because they see how much worse the causes they care about are served if Trump wins, or stay home, and likely did the same last election. Even though they are highly politically engaged. That die is cast.

Pretty sure you are in that unchangeable group. Biden fails you so completely that you want no culpability by having voted for him.

So be it.

Some of them are going to be motivated by the existential threat of Trump even though they dislike Biden and think he is also evil.

That latter group can have turnout enhanced by emphasizing the issues that are in common ground between them and Biden but not Trump. And there are many. The campaign should choose just one or two that are also shared by the broad center. And try to decrease focus on wedge items.

I think it’s wild that there’s so much pushback in this thread against the Democrats campaigning on anything beyond character. My recollection (to be fair, as a European and a teen at the time) is that the Bush-Gore election came down to character (the news I was reading at the time said that their platforms were very similar, except that Gore’s was more green), the whole “who would you have a beer with”, and the problematic AWOLing lackwit beat the fundamentally decent person with experience as VP of one of the more popular Democratic presidencies.

I don’t see much evidence that hammering on character is having enough positive effects in polls, voter engagement, or future turnout. Even though it’s deplorable, Trump and his invisible accordion are an attractive spectacle to many (idiots), but is it too wild to imagine that some Trump leaners lean Trump simply because he does espouse an (idiotic and evil) agenda? There are definite policies that can be articulated, even if not with a path to implementation; lock [everybody Trump doesn’t like] up! Build a wall and make Mexico pay for it! Get rid of [those people]! Drain the swamp! Or for the party as a whole - cut medicare, reduce the rights of women and minorities, tougher sentencing, implement a fascist judiciary. Is it inconceivable that some people currently intend to vote Trump simply because he does advocate an (awful) way forward to a perceived improved future, as the opposite end of a spectrum from people that intend to vote Biden simply because he’s of better character (which he absolutely is)?

I’m thinking along the lines of The Big Lebowski’s “say what you will about the tenets of National Socialism, dude, at least it’s an ethos”.

Imagine a hypothetical in which the Republicans continued to espouse and support the same awful views as now, but their candidate is the most charming mofo on the planet - Mr. Rogers crossed with Keanu Reeves - while the Democratic candidate is old, conservative, and just generally seen as a bit crap, even if unfairly. Would you advocate the same strategy of hammering on character? Now, what if that is how some people actually see the Biden v Trump race? (parallels with Carter v Reagan perhaps?)

From my perspective it feels more like a Democratic strategy of focusing exclusively on Biden’s good character is a distraction from not wanting to take a solid stance on any issue and trying to play both sides. Say, calling for a Gaza ceasefire but not taking any concrete steps to change the manner in which the US supports Israel, or “bringing back Roe v Wade” but not articulating any plan to get there through the executive. Or worse, not having any policy at all. That doesn’t necessarily mean I believe that Biden or his party are playing both sides, or have no policy, but from a marketing perspective, is it too much to ask for a few things to be hammered as positives aside from Biden’s character? It doesn’t even have to move from right-of-centre. For example, Biden has done a lot on student loan forgiveness - so just come out and say that while “nobody deserves a free ride, lenders don’t need to make exorbitant profits on someone’s desire for an education” and call for new legislation that limits the degree to which lenders would be able to front-load interest in student loan payments over the principal, so that nobody would be able to pay their student loan payments for years without reducing the amount they owe, with increased SEC scrutiny from today of any banks that don’t voluntarily take steps in that direction until such a law is passed. Or point out that Biden as Obama’s VP oversaw the biggest expansion of healthcare insurance coverage in our lifetimes and that he hopes Congress can reach agreement on even further expansions - so everyone go out and vote downticket as well! Or create/expand departments in Federal police agencies and the Bureau of Prisons that focus on social work in recognition that not every policing issue should be addressed in the first instance by armed police/guards rather than a social worker - addressing part of the wishlist of BLM et al without reducing police funding (or, indeed, actually increasing it instead) - as an example for non-Federal police forces to hopefully emulate in future.

Like DSeid said above:

It isn’t (shouldn’t be) radical to promote more than one thing. Like, “Biden has better character than Trump [a free but dull frozen yogurt is better than turbo-ass-cancer], and besides, he has the following [two things] he wants to focus on in his next term, so go and vote for Biden and your preferred congressional candidates!”

didn’t Manchin leave the Dems?

He became an independent, but nothing changed - still caucuses with the Dems and votes like he always did.

is that good or bad, considering some of the damage he did?

Good - judge confirmations. The #1 bureaucratic achievement of any administration these days and only possible with a Senate majority.