Okay, I see then. It's like/as I said about Biden: "He is definitely the right man for the country. Unfortunately, the country is China."
Just as a "thought experiment," imagine what it would have been for Kamala Harris to have been a very hard core lefty BUT, at the same time, be a born again Christian-not just for the campaign- but for her entire life and bringing it into the campaign. What would the consequences be? Well, the lefties would hate her and say "what's up with that girl? Y'all know that is not how the liberals roll. Let's just tone that Jesus stuff down a few notches, eh" And right/evangelicals would hate her or find it extremely inconvenient that the most religious president/candidate in history (that I can think of anyway) is actually incarnate in the form of lefty liberal democrat rather than a right wing republican. It would be a very inconvenient factor for both libs and convervatives. Such was the case with Carter. Occasionally, it would surface in a way that dems did not like, such as when Jimmy publicly said that he thought it was fair and reasonable for voters to take into account how faithful a man was to his wife when evaluating them as a presidential candidate. He was referring to Bill Clinton and his comment was not convenient for the dems. The lefties will rise to say "well, what about Trump then and that's fine. I am just stating what he said about Biubba.
Yeh, well, when viewed in toto, the economy sucked bigtime under Carter- with inflation being through the roof. Many of the jobs created under Carter were created through public funding to combat the high unemployment- which of course drove inflation through the roof even more. How do mortgage rates at 17% work for ya? This is one of the reasons why Carter was a one-term president and Reagan was a two term president. Those pesky little voters get to weigh in on how good things actually were in the first term.
Seriously, what is wrong with you? Jobs created "through public funding...drove inflation through the roof"? Meanwhile, Reagan the Incomparable raised the national debt to then unprecedented levels. How do you ignore one thing but not the other? And tax cuts that contributed to the unprecedented debt increase create more spending, don't they? Which in the normal course causes higher prices. Didn't Reagan cut taxes? The beauty part is that you think these initiatives result in immediate outcomes, rather than boring lags which fuck with your narrative. Please direct me to the title of your pop-up economics text.
The fact is, Jimmy Carter was a genuinely good person, and half of America can't appreciate that because they lack the capacity to value such inspiring goodness. This moral divide worsened during Reagan's era, where greed was rebranded as a virtue and goodness was dismissed as weakness to the point where some think it's cool to snark at the man.
Just sayin', when the statistical gymnastics are said and done, the voters get to weigh in. Thus they threw Jimmy out but gave Reagan a second term. Ideally, they would, I guess have studied your data instead. Reagan simply asked voters whether they were "better off now than they were four years ago" and before long Jimmy was gone. OOPS. You know, just like Justin Trudeau is going be gone very shortly. Maybe you could focus there a bit instead of being a genius about the United States every day.