Maybe try running candidates that aren't highly unpopular? Or ones who don't call a significant percentage of the population "deplorables"? Or ones who don't refuse to state consistent policy objectives or provide coherent explanations for major swings in her stance on key political positions? Or...
Trump is a reaction to large portions of the population being actively screwed over by decades of neoliberal policy that the Democrats are still trying to ram down their throats, and "anything other than more of that" is what is winning in most swing states. It's unfortunate the the Republican party is incapable of running someone who isn't a infantile, thin-skinned, nasty blowhard to govern responsibly while in power, but here we are, and we'll unfortunately stay here until either the Republican party grows a spine, the Democratic party figures out how to not intentionally alienate a good portion of the voting population while also preventing their base from destroying the party from within, or the whole thing blows up.
I do find it amusing that people still say that women are "too emotional" to hold the job while Trump is throwing temper tantrums and making knee jerk proclamations almost daily on Truth Social.
Trump is a reaction to large portions of the population being actively screwed over by decades of neoliberal policy that the Democrats are still trying to ram down their throats, and "anything other than more of that" is what is winning in most swing states. It's unfortunate the the Republican party is incapable of running someone who isn't a infantile, thin-skinned, nasty blowhard to govern responsibly while in power, but here we are, and we'll unfortunately stay here until either the Republican party grows a spine, the Democratic party figures out how to not intentionally alienate a good portion of the voting population while also preventing their base from destroying the party from within, or the whole thing blows up.