re: What policies do you point to when arguing for or against Trump?

SURELY there's someone someone intelligent or cunning in the Dem contingent, that could put together a more coherent attack than their current one.

I mean, objectively speaking, their 2 main points contradict each other:
Trump killed the economy
Trump didn't do enough to stop Covid

Even the most casual observer saw that the economy was roaring along at a record clip. The only thing that stopped it, was the response to Covid.

If he had done MORE to stop it, the economy tanks worse. If he had done more to prop up the economy, we stay more open and the infection rate soars.
Those two are literally the same issue. Choose one or the other, you don't get both.

Do they really think the public (the overall public, not their rabid base) doesn't see that?

And another thing; arguing about "doing more, respecting science" etc... and then contradicting that? Trump has the pharma companies working on a vaccine at top priority. This is generally understood as the best "scientific means" to counter the virus. Kamala states, "if Trump says to take the vaccine, I won't".

So basically, if the President of the US puts out a public health message during a pandemic (which is doing something to help everyone), she will refuse, out of spite.

What happens when others follow her lead, and then become infected (with, potentially, deaths)? Does anyone point out that Grandma could have been vaccinated and avoided this, but refused because a candidate stated on national television that it was bad?

"Believe in Science" my arse. Science tells you that vaccines work, if done right. Science (and testing) determines if the vaccine is viable or not, and thus ready for public consumption. Not the President, not Congress, not the local dogcatcher.