This thread isn't about whether she should or will win the election. It's about the decision to not have a Palestinian speaker at the DNC. It's about how that action might ultimately impact policy objectives.

A distaste for arithmetic is in fact why I chose to specialize in abstract algebra

Nothing in this thread is binary like that. We're talking about influencing policy, using the power you have, and predicting the result of any action. It's nuanced and uncertain and maddeningly hard to study. Hence all the discourse.

If you can, in the next 24 hours, find me a single individual who will affirm they went from undecided to voting Democratic in this election because of Bill Clinton's convention speech, I will donate $500 to the charity or not-transphobic Democratic candidate of your choice.

I think this overestimates the impact of a Clinton slot on elderly Dems*, and underestimates the impact of a slot going to a Palestinian speaker (in how many people care, how much they care, and in second order effects like headlines and narrative). * but NOT giving him a slot would be a big deal

That's kind of my point though: Clinton didn't give that up, Harris gained that by giving Clinton something. The same would, IMO, have been true of a Palestinian speaker suggested by Uncommitted

Among my hottest takes is my thinking that every time emergency services use a siren, it should result in a public database entry including which vehicle, a driver pseudonym, route where used, and some coding of why it was used.

Uncommitted doesn't contribute a specific thing, no. But that doesn't mean Harris gets nothing from it. What did Bill Clinton give the campaign in exchange for his speaking slot?

It's not a trade like that. Uncommitted's offer wasn't so Harris would get something from Uncommitted qua Uncommitted, it was a way Harris could have quelled a concern raised by its membership. The return is goodwill! Not guaranteed, not specific, just a way to try to get some folks on side.

If both parties went off the rails into paranoia, voters in both parties would call the other party a danger to society. But if one party went off the rails while the other remained within normal range, voters in both parties would still call the other party a danger to society.