Still fighting for dear life to prove a point no one is arguing. No one here has an issue with a relatable candidate who can speak to the average voting populace.
The problem is a candidate has to do more than just pass that basic eye test. They need to at minimum have more than one or two core principles that align with Liberal ideology. What use is a candidate to the party who is anti-war and pro-labor but fiscally conservative on economics and entitlements? That candidate is guaranteed to cause chaos if the party doesn't have a strong majority. Manchin got away with this because he was the only D who could win that red WV seat. Planter might have a similar scenario in Maine but your Fettermans, Gabbards, and Sinemas could have been replaced by others.
You all are some of the same people who consistently called Crockett a terrible candidate and politician, yet she fit the very profile you're championing.
So I think it's safe to assume we all believe in some form or fashion that someone could pass the initial eye test but turn to not be an ideal choice.