Kamala Harris, target of maximizers

In the psychology field, there is a concept known as being a “satisficer” versus being a “maximizer”. According to The Balanced WorkLife Company, a satisfier (we’re going to use this spelling because it’s much more common) is someone whose:

satisfaction is judged by meeting the standards they have in place. To them time and energy is considered a waste if there is a reasonable option ready for the taking. Satisfi[]ers don’t necessarily have low standards; they can be super picky or want the top brand.

In contrast, according to the company:

Maximizers are satisfied by researching as many options as they can. They sacrifice time and effort into learning as much about the “offer” as possible. They consider all the variations, advantages, and weaknesses. When the decision is final, they then compare it to the choices those around them made. The question on the maximizer’s mind is “Is there something better out there?”

In simple terms, we like to think about satisfiers as choosing among the readily available options, and being happy with their best choice, even if they know it’s not perfect. Maximizers, on the other hand, are more like perfectionists, who obsess over every detail, and need everything to be just right. As one can imagine, such perfection is almost never achieved, and as a result, according to the book The Paradox of Choice, as cited by The Balanced WorkLife Company, “maximizers experience significantly less life satisfaction, happiness, optimism, and self-esteem.”

The way to hand Donald Trump a defeat

There are so many areas where Donald Trump and the Republicans are failing, breaking the law, possibly committing treason, or just plain crazy. These include, for example, kowtowing to Russia and ditching our friend Ukraine, voicing plans to take over Greenland for its minerals, pardoning the January 6 terrorists, trying to take over the independent U.S. Postal Service, and much more.

However, following some of these areas closely can require specialized knowledge of various fields, such as international relations or federal government operations. But there is one area of Trump failure that is so simple, anyone can understand it. Moreover, this one area affects all of us:

We could have had Kamala Harris as president

When a political party gets defeated in an election, losing not just the White House but Congress as well, it’s natural to do plenty of analyzing and soul-searching about what went wrong, and how to improve it for next time. Thus, in the wake of the Democratic Party’s losses in the 2024 elections (presidency, House and Senate), there have been plenty of articles, online postings and discussions about who or what should be blamed for the results, with options ranging from the “strong anti-incumbent wave” to President Joe Biden to “identity politics,” and much more. Chances are that most Democrats will never agree on one main reason why they lost the election. However, there is one step that all Democratic voters can take to increase the odds of winning the next election: