She did lose because she moved a little bit left and the voters did not show up.

We’re saying you don’t understand cause and effect.

You are saying A (moving left) caused B (losing).

If A didn’t happen, then B also would not have happened. Therefore, “if she had stayed to the right, she would have won.”

Edit: I think I figured out what I’ve got wrong. If I rephrase what you said, then it makes more sense:

“She did lose because the voters did not show up, even though she moved a little left.”

https://www.grammarly.com/blog/despite-in-spite-of/

I feel you are misinterpreting what I’m trying to say, this example would be more accurate:

“The far left wing wanted Hillary to move far left. But they protested anyway despite her moving a little bit left.”

I still think this has been a useful conversion, because it has helped me understand what you actually meant to say.

What I think you’re trying to say is that moving left failed to prevent voters from protesting, which I’m completely in agreement here.

If courting left wing voters fails to get them out to vote, then politicians are just going to pander to center/right voters.

Your phrasing was just really weird, because you keep arguing that moving left is what triggered the voters to protest, but they would have protested either way.

Are you saying that if Hillary had rejected the map room proposal, then left wing voters would have turned out to vote for her?

That’s ridiculous to think that moving further right would have got more left voters to turn out to vote.

Meaning the map room proposal had no effect on left wing voters, because it wasn’t enough. It did not cause them to protest.

No, they protested in spite of her trying to move left, not because she tried to move left.

Although I’ll admit it’s a distinction without a difference. Democrats are going to continue to refuse to move farther left if we don’t vote because we think they’re not left enough.

Okay, it sounds like you’re saying the same thing - that Hillary tried to convince left wing voters she is on their side, and they protested because it “wasn’t enough.” Your original statement made it sound like she lost because she tried to move slightly left.

But you did say she moved “too far” left - if it was her itsy bitsy move left that caused non-voter protests, that is literally by definition “too far.”

But you’re misidentifying the cause here, while somehow still ending up at the right conclusion.

She very well may have lost because of non-voter protestors, but it was because she wasn’t far enough left. And if Hillary had actually moved further left to win those protestors’ votes, she would have lost the center vote. And Biden may very well lose for the same reason, so the lesson should be if you don’t want Trump to win, then don’t protest vote simply because Biden isn’t far enough left.