It depends on the criticism, how it’s framed, how dominant it is in the discourse, and how democrats chose to respond. The economy is the biggest issue and it’s what dominated mainstream discourse. It’s a valid concern for the average voter because it’s tough out there. Of course “the economy” means different things to different people. For the rich, the stock market and GDP are among the things that matter. For the poor, cost of groceries and rent are among the things that matter. Democrats decided the best way to respond would be to point to the stock market and GDP.

Criticizing a policy of sending billions of dollars in weapons to a country committing genocide is always the correct thing to do. Let’s see how democrats responded: https://www.yahoo.com/news/bill-clinton-justifies-mass-killings-000813500.html

Oh right, sending bill clinton (not sure how he hasn’t been cancelled into oblivion yet, by the way) to defend this policy in the key state of Michigan where a large number of anti-genocide protesters are. Regardless of what you think of the policy, you’d have to admit it’s an incredibly stupid strategy to do this. Instead the democratic party would like us all to believe that it’s the voters who are to blame instead of democrats, who have/had the power to do things, not doing anything to get votes (i.e. the main job of a politician).

You’re free to bury your head in the sand and continue to mock stupid voters, but it’s never going to change things when the people with actual power do not want to change things.